1968-11-25

Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have the honour to lay before the house a report of the joint committee on the library of parliament concerning salary revisions of certain employees of the library of parliament.



FINANCE


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I want to give a brief report on the important meetings in Bonn last week of the ministers and central bank governors of the Group of Ten. The meetings were called to discuss the measures that could be taken to restore equilibrium in the international monetary system which had been disturbed by massive speculative capital movements involving some European currencies. The governor of the Bank of Canada and I participated in the discussions.
The authorities of the Federal Republic of Germany announced their decision to take parliamentary action immediately to alter their border tax adjustments in such a way as to reduce substantially the German trade surplus. They are also taking steps to inhibit the inflow of short term capital.
The French authorities have announced that they will take steps immediately to reduce their budgetary deficit, to restrict the use of credit, to slow down price and wage increases, and to impose foreign exchange controls. '
No change in the par values of the Deutschmark or the French franc is involved in any of these measures.
A new central bank credit facility for France was arranged in the amount of two billion U.S. dollars. The Bank of Canada's share of this facility is 100 million U.S. dollars. The new facility is in addition to France's substantial drawing facilities in the International Monetary Fund.
The authorities' of the countries concerned are determined to seek a better equilibrium in their international payments, to counter speculation, and to offset the effect on exchange reserves of destabilizing short term capital flows. The measures taken are an expression of this determination. The response of financial markets in Europe and North America today has been encouraging. Throughout the period of disturbance the Canadian dollar has remained strong.
Mr. Speaker, if the house will permit I will table the communique issued at the end of the meetings of the Group of Ten.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Roberl L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I think I ought to object very firmly to the unwillingness of the government, through the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), on Friday last to give the house the information on this subject for which I asked at that time, and the supplementary information requested by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman). There does not seem to me to be any excuse for the failure of the government to give the house the information at that time, because at the very time or just about the same time we were seeking this information the Minister of Finance indicated in Bonn that Canada would indeed be taking part in the credit arrangement granted to France and referred to by both the hon. member for Waterloo and myself. This does not involve the Minister of Finance-


Edgar John Benson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the meeting in Bonn did not conclude until about nine o'clock Canadian time.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is difficult for me to believe that the Minister of Finance had not consulted the government of Canada about commitments that would be appropriate on behalf of Canada at this time. I had also hoped to receive some information from the minister's statement. Without being offensive, let me say he has not told us anything we had not read in the press.
The impression one gets is that the decision of the government of France not to de-
November 25, 1968

International Monetary Crisis value the franc took everybody completely by surprise. The minister has not indicated whether this is so, but this is the impression we have gained from the news media, and it has not been corrected by the minister. In addition, this decision has placed a severe strain upon some other international currencies, notably the pound sterling; and the minister has not made any comment in this regard nor about the measures the British government has had to support within the last few days, constituting another series of tough measures.
Frankly, I must say it does not seem to me the minister has given us any information or any reassurance in respect of the existing situation, and in view of experience during the past year I am sure we all agree that if these difficulties spread they could spread to us as well. After all, this is the third monetary crisis this year. As recently as October 7 the Minister of Finance returned from a series of international finance meetings in South America, rather blandly I thought- satisfied and optimistic about arrangements that had been made to "enhance", as he put it, "the stability of sterling and of the international monetary situation".
At that time I could not share the minister's satisfaction, and I was disappointed that more progress had not been made in the area of strengthening international currency arrangements. I said then that the proper time had arrived for more permanent arrangements to be made, and that progress had been slow. What seemed to be appropriate a month ago has become a matter of extreme urgency today. I suggest to the Minister of Finance in Canada that he ought to take the lead in pressing with utmost vigour the necessity for a new international currencies arrangement.
I believe the minister is living in a paradise of some sort if he thinks the measures taken to get us out of recent crises can be regarded as satisfactory over the long term without more permanent arrangements, or if he thinks for a moment that the dollar, and therefore the Canadian economy, can escape the possible ramifications of this crisis.
Let me repeat the need for immediate further action for more permanent arrangements, recognizing the instability of the present situation and the efforts to, in fact, stabilize the international monetary situation.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister would be the first to agree that his report told us nothing we have


not already read in the newspapers, and that the hope expressed in the report is entirely ill-founded; that the situation has not improved, that the crisis has not ended and that the foundation has been laid for further crises, particularly in respect of the British pound and probably the French franc and the German mark.
As the Leader of the Opposition has said, we have experienced three serious international monetary crises in the last year in respect of the British pound, the United States dollar and the French franc. None of the steps taken or being taken have solved or gone any distance toward solving this international problem.
I want us to note that the results of these discussions have been not only austerity measures in France but serious austerity measures in Britain. I do not say that the Canadian government is responsible or that the Minister of Finance alone could do anything to solve this problem, but as one citizen of the world I am fed up to the teeth by the fact that the entire world can be set on its ear partly by the unscrupulous gambling of speculators and partly because of other reasons which I realize are there.
It is time the international community took steps to stop this speculation on the international monetary markets even if it should mean closing the various markets on which currencies can be bought and sold, except for the legitimate purposes of trading and tourist travelling. I suggest it is time that a country like Canada took that kind of initiative at the International Monetary Fund, at the World Bank and at all these international meetings of ministers of finance. It is just shameful that this dark and dusty corner of international monetary gambling should be able to trap the world and its policies.
Second, I suggest it is time we in this country in particular took the initiative and started discussions to end the pegged rates of the various currencies. The other day when the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) asked the Prime Minister whether the government would not consider a floating exchange rate, the Prime Minister's irritating way of answering it, as with some other questions, was simply "Heavens, no." That may be a nice undergraduate answer, but it certainly does not deal with a very serious problem.
The fact is that this pegging of the various currency rates across the world is the equivalent of the gold standard in principle. We
November 25. 1968

have been in exactly the same position in the last ten years as we were years ago in the days of the gold standard, when every currency was pegged to gold and then pegged to each other by gold. Now every currency is pegged to the U.S. dollar and pegged to each other by the U.S. dollar. Precisely the same stagnation, the same strait-jacket has been created in the international monetary system by this arrangement as was the case when we had the gold standard across the world. It is time the Prime Minister, instead of saying "Heavens, no", said "Heavens, yes; I am going to start thinking about this problem." It is time this government took the initiative in international monetary arrangements of one sort or another to open up the thinking of the bankers and some of the businessmen toward considering a floating exchange rate system rather than a pegged one.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to comment briefly on the statement of the hon. Minister of Finance and say at the start that I cannot understand why it is that when there are such monetary crises just about everywhere in the world-we have seen many of them in the last few months and even in the last few years-the Canadian government, in co-operation with the other governments, does not appoint a royal commission of inquiry to look into the situation and report after a few months or even a few years to solve the problems which are submitted to it. That is what happens when there are internal problems, but when human beings are to be safeguarded, a situation improved, a commission of inquiry is appointed which reports after a few years, when it is realized that it is too late.
The Canadian government has just put at the disposal of the German mark and the French franc an amount of $100 million in order to save the currency that is in danger.
I feel the same steps should be taken to remedy the situation in Canada for, with regard to our internal affairs and the human being in Canada, especially in the field of unemployment, families, citizens, serious danger exists although there does not seem to be any corncern about what goes on here. I feel the same speed should be applied to solving our own problems and taking better care of human beings, instead of money and the monetary system.
Questions



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Mr. J. B. Morison (Halton-Wentworth) moved: that the first report of the standing committee on regional development presented to the house on Thursday, November 21, 1968, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. Valade: 1.	Has the Prime Minister or any other member oi the government requested the Canadian RadioTelevision Commission to investigate and report on whether the improper and injurious statements made by Pat Burns on radio station C.K.G.M. oi Montreal over the last several years with regard to French Canadians and the public in general are contrary to Sections 2b and 2g (iv) of Part I of the "Broadcasting Act of Canada" or any other Section of the Law passed by Parliament on March 7, 1968 and, if not, is it the intention to request such an investigation?
2.	Does the government intend to exercise its authority under Section 22 (1), a (iii), to cancel operating licence of radio station C.K.G.M., if, after investigation and report by the Canadian Radio-Television Commission or public hearing under Section 19(2) (c) of the Broadcasting Act, it is established that this radio station and its commentator have acted contrary to the intent and purposes of the Canadian Broadcasting Act?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have given me the following answers: 1. No, and it is not proposed to ask for such an inquiry.
2.	Section 22(l)(a)(iii) of the Broadcasting Act does not authorize the government to cancel broadcasting licences. If the government receives a report from the C.R.T.C. showing an infringement of the law, the government will assume its responsibilities.


LOW INTEREST LOANS TO MUNICIPALITIES
Mr. Rose: Has the government given any consideration to making low interest loans available to municipalities in co-operation with the provinces to assist municipalities in their intermediate term capital expenditure programs?

November 25, 1968
Questions


Edgar John Benson: The government of Canada is constantly considering the growing requirements for social and development capital at all levels in the Canadian economy. Municipal needs are balanced against those of the private sector and other governments and agencies, by a competitive capital market. At present the federal government is making every effort consistent with its responsibilities to limit its own demands on the market and thus to assist in improving the access of other public and private borrowers.


BULK CARRIER TERMINAL DEVELOPMENT, DIGBY, N.S.
Mr. Comeau: 1.	Has the government recognized the potential of the Port of Digby for development as a bulk carrier terminal, and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so, what action is the government initiating for the development of such a project?
2 Is it the intention of the government to incorporate this development with the proposed harbour improvements as concerns the Digby-Samt John Ferry?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: 1 and 2. Continuing review of requirements for port development in all Canadian harbours is a responsibility of the various agencies under the Minister of Transport, including evaluation of requirements and appropriate locations for bulk carrier terminals, and including also evaluation of specific requests which may be received from shipping or harbour interests in this connection. There is, however, no current special study underway with regard to the port of Digby, apart from the general consideration of possible bulk carrier terminal requirements in the Atlantic provinces.


POST OFFICE FACILITIES, TORONTO
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many post office buildings are there in Metropolitan Toronto?
2.	How many sub-post offices are there in Metropolitan Toronto?
3.	How many outlets are there in Metropolitan Toronto for the (a) sale of stamps (b) sale of postal money-orders (c) postal banking?
4.	How many post offices and sub-post offices and outlets for post office purposes are there in the constituency of Lakeshore and where are they located?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General):: 1. 44.
2.	334.

3.	(a) Outlets for sale of stamps, 1500; (b) Money orders, 369; (c) Banking, 50.
4.	There are two postal stations: Station
"N" at 2930 Lakeshore Blvd. W.; Station "U" at 935 The Queensway. Sixteen sub post offices located as follows: Long Branch, 3432 Lakeshore Blvd. W.; Mimico, 58A Mimico Ave.; Mimico Beach, 2422 Lakeshore Blvd. W.; Sub 44, 264 Browns Line; Sub 161, 3146 Lakeshore Blvd. W.; Sub 170, 3801 Lakeshore Blvd. W.; Sub 171, 851 Browns Line; Sub 190, 512 Evans Ave.; Sub 197, 94 Royal York Rd.; Sub 201, 418 Horner Ave.; Hollywood, 1170 The Queensway; North Mimico, 378 Royal York Rd.; Queensway, 751 The Queensway; Sub 189, 3379 Bloor St. W.; Sub 196, 662 The Queensway; Sub 204, 136 Islington Ave. S. Two government owned stamp vending machines located at: Station "N", 2930 Lake-shore Blvd. W.; Station "U", 935 The Queensway. Twelve privately owned stamp vending machines located at: Beach Motel, 2183 Lake-shore Blvd. W.; B. & J. Variety, 2045 Lake-shore Blvd. W.; Chanceller Motel, 2125 Lake-shore Blvd. W.; Hillcrest Motel, 2143 Lakeshore Blvd. W.; Hubbell's Variety, 3541 Lakeshore Blvd. W.; Michael's Variety, 3216 Lakeshore Blvd. W.; Shore Breeze Motel, 2175 Lakeshore Blvd. W.; Silvermoon Motel, 2157 Lakeshore Blvd. W.; Sunnyside Motel, 2002 Lakeshore Blvd. W.; Taylor's Smoke Shop, 2350 Lakeshore Blvd. W.; Don Russell Drugs, 827 Lakeshore Road W.; Mac's Milk, 2316 Lakeshore Blvd. W. Thirty two permits to sell postage stamps as follows: Aid vino, F., 372 Royal York Rd.; Donsley, G., 2310 Lakeshore Blvd. W.; Franchetto, P.,	1138
Lakeshore Rd. W.; Ironside, I., 826 Lakeshore Rd. W.; Knaggs, R. W., 1357 Lakeshore Road W.; Moore, E., 1141 Lakeshore Road W.; Moore, M. (Mrs.), 1413 Lakeshore Rd. W.; McLennan, I. N., 3832A Bloor St. W.; Neal, Geo., 953 Lakeshore Rd.; Podolak, K., 860 Browns Line; Tamblyn Drug Store, 851 Lake-shore Rd.; Wand, M., 1277 Lakeshore Rd.; Warren, Mrs., 624 The Queensway; White, T., 178 Browns Line; Darby, H. M., 237 Parklawn Rd.; Ferenc, S., 16 Royal York Rd.; Main-prize, R. A., 2946 Bloor St. W.; Reiken, R., 3358 Dundas St. W.; Seal, R. A., 844 The Queensway; Smith, S. E., 816 The Queensway; Tamblyn Drug Store, 798 Lakeshore Rd.; United Cigar Store, 3018 Bloor St. W.; Vogelman, E., 863 Lakeshore Rd.; Wallace, J. R., 1217 Lakeshore Rd.; Wall's Variety, 653 Royal York Rd.; Vernon Drugs, 3081 Bloor St. V/.; Town Variety, 2427 Lakeshore Blvd. W.; Rakowsky, S., 250 Browns Line;
November 25, 1968

Szafranski, J., 79-40th St.; Alamonte Hotel, 1072 Lakeshore Blvd. W.; Chomik, M., 857 Lakeshore Blvd. W.; Johnnies Confectionery, 1358 Lakeshore Blvd. W.


NEW HANGAR SPACE, HALIFAX AIRPORT
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Is it the intention of Air Canada to build new hangar space at the Halifax International Airport?
2.	If so (a) when, and at what estimated cost, and (b) for what purpose?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. No.
2.	Not applicable.


MIGRATION TO AND FROM ATLANTIC PROVINCES
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many people from (a) Prince Edward Island (b) Nova Scotia (c) New Brunswick (d) Newfoundland, have emigrated to other parts of Canada in the years 1960-63 respectively?
2.	How many people from the rest of Canada have immigrated to (a) Prince Edward Island (b) Nova Scotia (c) New Brunswick (d) Newfoundland, in each of the years 1960-68 respectively?
3.	How many immigrants have settled in (a) Prince Edward Island (b) Nova Scotia (c) New Brunswick (d) Newfoundland, in each of the years 1960-68 respectively?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports that: There are no actual counts of people moving from one province to another within a given year. However, estimates have been prepared based on the movements of families in receipt of family allowance payments, i.e., families having at least one child under 16 years of age. The duration of the move is unknown so that the same persons may be included in both the "to" and "from" estimates, possibly more than once.
It should be noted, also, that the movers "to" a given Atlantic province include movers from the remaining Atlantic provinces as well as from the rest of Canada. Likewise, the movement "from" an Atlantic province includes those moving to the other Atlantic provinces as well as to the rest of Canada.
1.	Estimated interprovincial migrants from (a) Prince Edward Island (b) Nova Scotia (c) 29180-1971
Questions
New Brunswick and (d) Newfoundland, for the years 1960 to 1968:
(a)	(b)	(c)	(d)From Prince	From	Prom	FromEdward	Nova	New Newfound-	Year	Island	Scotia	Brunswick	land1960	3,600	25,000	19,300	6,7001961	3,200	25,100	19,100	5,8001962	4,700	28,800	16,400	7,6001963	4,400	29,900	24,700	9,5001964	4,600	29,700	23,300	11,2001965	5,300	34,700	25,700	12,7001966	5,000	33,900	27,500	13,3001967	4,100	30,300	22,900	12,000
*
* Not yet available.
2.	Estimated interprovincial migrants to (a) Prince Edward Island (b) Nova Scotia (c) New Brunswick and (d) Newfoundland, for the years 1960 to 1968:
Year	(a) To Prince Edward Island
1960	3,600
1961	3,500
1962	4,200
1963	4,100
1964	3,500
1965	3,900
1966	4,100
1967	4,100
1968	*
(b)	(c)	(d)To	To	ToNova	New Newfound-	Scotia Brunswick	land22,100	19,300	6,10025,200	19,200	6,00022,600	13,800	6,50022,700	18,600	7,40022,100	19,500	7,10023,400	22,300	8,30025,600	22,000	9,10027,000	22,700	10,000
* Not yet available.
3.	Immigrants who were destined to (a) Prince Edward Island (b) Nova Scotia (c) New Brunswick and (d) Newfoundland, for the years 1960 to 1968:
(a) Prince	(b)	(c)	(d)Edward	Nova	New Newfound-	Year	Island	Scotia Brunswick	land1960	83	1,210	634	3061961	69	901	770	3651962	77	989	944	3781963	78	1,198	769	3491964	79	1,189	696	4451965	137	1,612	1,074	6041966	141	2,084	1,283	8051967	147	2,406	1,322	9841968*	72	721	338	400
* January to June in 1968.

November 25, 1968
Questions


DISPOSAL TIME FOR SHACK TENTS, NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	what period of time was made available to (a) the Riding Mountain National Park (b) the Prince Albert National Park within which to dispose of shack tents?
2.	If different periods were provided for, what was the reason for the differentiation in terms?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. (a)
There are no shack tents in Riding Mountain national park. The portable cabin owners have, to date, not received any official notification that they will be required to vacate the land presently occupied by their summer cabins, because the Wasagaming townsite development plan has not as yet been finalized and approved, (b) In Prince Albert national park, the shack tent owners were told in August, 1967, that shack tents would eventually be phased out as part of the overall development plan for the park. Present permit holders or their spouses will still be allowed to renew their permits every year. However, as of the 1968 season, no new permits have been issued to those who did not
hold a valid permit for the 1967 camping season. Portable cabin owners in Prince Albert national park have been given until 1970 before the same policy will go into effect for portable cabins.
2. No differentiation in terms or time periods for the phasing out of portable cabins has been made between the two parks.
It is expected that the development plan for Riding Mountain national park will be completed by 1970 at which time the same policy with respect to portable cabins will be applied at both parks.


NATIONAL PARKS EXPENDITURES
Mr. Fortin: 1.	By province, what amount of money has been spent each year on federal parks?
2.	At what stage are the discussions with Quebec authorities concerning the establishment of federal parks in Quebec?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. The
amount of money spent each year on national parks from April 1, 1960 to March 31, 1965 is as follows:
Newfoundland
Nova Scotia
New Brunswick
Prince Edward Island
Ontario
Manitoba
Saskatchewan
Alberta
British Columbia
($000's)	($000's)
1959-60	1960-61
727.2	600.0
1,946.6	1,921.0
620.6	605.2
1,002.3	1,432.8
344.6	359.4
854.2	1,037.4
961.3	978.4
11,000.6	9,747.1
5,067.3	3,596.8
($000's)	($000's)
1961-62	1962-63
995.5	599.4
1,574.0	929.2
629.2	834.9
843.9	525.2
395.7	428.1
1,662.5	1,179.6
1,164.8	1,220.8
11,036.7	10,365.5
5,002.9	3,597.7
($000's)	($000's)
1963-64	1964-65
834.2	1,041.8
730.3	836.7
595.2	672.5
544.8	752.7
416.2	386.1
1,308.1	967.5
1,206.2	927.2
8,161.9	8,887.9
3,279.3	3,637.0
2. Discussions with Quebec authorities concerning the establishment of federal parks in Quebec are continuing between officials of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and officials of the Quebec ministry of tourism, fish and game. These discussions concern the outline of what would be an agreement between the two governments for the establishment of national parks in the province.


QUEBEC FISH EXPORTS
Mr. Matte: What amount of fish products from Quebec is exported (a) to other provinces of Canada (b) to other countries? fMr. Pepin.]


Jean-Luc Pepin: (a) The Dominion
Bureau of Statistics does not compile statistics on products exported from one province to other provinces of Canada.
(b) The amount of fish products exported from Quebec to other countries was: 501,156 cwt. for the year 1967; 317,415 cwt. for the period January to September, 1968, (latest statistics available), f English]


ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL
Mr. Matte: 1. What is the total number of military personnel in the three branches of the Armed Forces and, of
November 25, 1968

these, how many have declared themselves to be French-Canadians?
2.	How many service men are stationed in Quebec?
3.	How many service men were stationed in Quebec in 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966 and 1967?


Mr. David Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1. As of
September 30, 1968: Sea, 17,560; Land, 38,699; Air, 43,073. On enrolment a recruit is not required to declare his racial origin other than by stating where his father was born. Although there are no readily available records maintained on the subject of languages, on enrolment the following stated French was their principal language: Sea, 1,558; Land, 7,000; Air, 7,164.
2.	As of September 30, 1968, 9,036.
3.	As of September 30, 1960, 13,641; 1961, 13,897; 1962, 14,161; 1963, 12,915; 1964, 11,326; 1965, 10,593; 1966, 10,148; 1967, 10,796.


DEFENCE RESEARCH BOARD ACTIVITIES
Mr. MacLean: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to close some of the eight research stations of the Defence Research Board?
2.	Does government policy require changes in the direction of the activities of the Defence Research Board and, if so, what changes are contemplated?


David Walter Groos: 1. No.
2. Changes in the direction of the activities of the Defence Research Board, in common with all other public services, are planned and made from time to time to meet changing situations and requirements. Such changes are usually conditioned by security considerations which affect defence planning.


POST OFFICE CHANGES
Mr. McCutcheon: 1.	Under the new reorganization of postal services, how many small post offices will be closed in each province?
2.	At what locations?
3.	How many rural routes will be affected?
4.	How many post office enlargements are visualized?
5.	How many new post office buildings are planned and at what locations?


Eric William Kierans: 1. Approximately 3,500 post offices meet the basic criteria for closing under the newly established policy. Each of these offices will
Questions
have to be examined individually and the decision with respect to closing will be based on this individual survey. It is not possible at this time to state how many closings will actually take place.
2.	See answer to question 1.
3.	The rural routes to be affected will, of course, be dependent not only on the number of offices closed but on the particular office closed. Consequently, no indication can be given at this time as to how many rural routes will be affected.
4.	Assuming that the enlargement of the post office is the result of the program for the closing of other small post offices, it cannot be stated at this time how many such enlargements will be necessary as such would depend on the number and location of the post offices which are actually closed.
5.	See answer to question 4.


MAINTENANCE OF V.I.P. HOUSE, OTTAWA
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 706
Mr. McIntosh:: 1.	What was the total cost in each of the years 1967 and 1968 to date for the operation and maintenance of the V.I.P. house on Sussex Street?
2.	What salary and allowances have been paid to Mrs. Blair in each of the said years?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. Fiscal year 1967/68, $18,580; April 1 to October 31/68, $6,541.
2. Fiscal year 1967/68, $8,083; April 1 to October 31/68, $5,251.


CENTENNIAL MEDALS TO MEMBERS OF MILITIA
Mr. Robinson: 1.	What were the terms of reference in awarding Centennial Medals to members of the Militia?
2.	Who made the recommendation and/or decision as to who would receive Centennial Medals in the Militia in each military district and/or region?
3.	How many Centennial Medals were awarded to members of the Militia (a) Officers (b) nonCommanding Officers (c) men?
4.	What was the allotment of medals to each Militia Unit to (a) Officers (b) non-commanding Officers (c) men?
5.	Were any Centennial Medals awarded to Militia men as follows (a) Honourary Colonels of Units and, if so, how many and to whom (b) Honourary Lieutenant Colonels of Units and, if so, how many and to whom (c) Militia Advisors and, if so, how many and to whom (d) Commanding Officers of Units and, if so, how many and to whom (e) Officers Commanding Units, Sub-Units, Pools and, if so, how many and to whom (f) Militia Personnel Officers and, if so, how many and to whom (g) Militia Information Officers and if so, how many

November 25, 1968
Questions
and to whom (h) retired (i) Officers (ii) nonCommanding Officers (iii) men and, if so, how many and to whom?
6,	What is the rank, name and address of each of the recipients of Centennial Medals in the Militia?


David Walter Groos: 1. Devotion to duty, an exemplary conduct record, and at least six years' service. Less preference was given to those already in possession of the Queen Elizabeth II Coronation Medal.
2.	An allocation of Centennial Medals was made to each major command and to Canadian forces headquarters in the case of other units. Based on unit allocations, units recommended officers and men to receive the medal, and all recommendations were subject to the concurrence of the officer commanding the command. If the commander considered that the unit commander should be included in the list, he had the prerogative of doing so. There was no automatic award of the medal to any group within the Canadian forces irrespective of rank or appointment.
3.	(a) 195; (b) and (c) 1,302.
4.	5 and 6. The information requested is not readily available. However, files are being searched, lists are being compiled and the information requested will be tabled when complete.


SALARY INCREASES, CAMP VALCARTIER PERSONNEL
Mr. Godin: When can the civilian employees working for the Department of National Defence at Camp Valcartier expect to receive the salary increase granted them in 1966?


David Walter Groos: The only civilian employees working for the Department of National Defence at Camp Valcartier who have not received a salary increase since 1966 are those members of bargaining units for which agreements have not yet, or have just recently been negotiated. The majority of these employees are in the General Labour and Trades or the General Services Occupational Groups. The General Labour and Trades agreement was signed on 27 September and conversion action is underway. The General Services Occupational agreement is still under negotiation. Usually salary increases are paid within ninety days of the signing of an agreement.


THETFORD MINES ARMOURY
Mr. Dumont: 1.	What was the purchase price of the armoury at Thetford Mines?
2.	When will repair and restoration operations be carried out at the armoury at Thetford Mines?
3.	How many soldiers are attached to this armoury?


David Walter Groos: 1. The
building was purchased by the Department of Public Works in 1903 for $7,530.00. It was used as a Post Office until 1950, when it was loaned to the Department of National Defence for use as an armoury. In 1958 responsibility for operation and maintenance of the building was transferred to the Department of National Defence.
2.	Not at this time.
3.	Four officers and 50 men.


CANADA SAFETY COUNCIL
Mr. Matte: 1.	Under what department is the Canada Safety Council?
2.	Does the Canada Safety Council work with the department of transportation and communication of Quebec and, if so, in what way?


Hon. John Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. The Canada Safety Council is a non-governmental organization which officially came into being on September 16, 1968, and as such is not responsible to any department of government. It was formed through the amalgamation of the Canadian Highway Safety Council, the National Safety League of Canada and the Canadian Industrial Safety Association.
To fulfill its role in safety, the Canada Safety Council will be dealing with the Federal Government Departments of National Health and Welfare, Labour, Transport, Justice, Industry, Consumer and Corporate Affairs, National Defence, Agriculture and also the National Film Board, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, National Research Council and the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. The Department of National Health and Welfare provided a grant of $45,000 to the Canadian Highway Safety Council in each of the fiscal years 1967-68 and 1968-69.
2. Yes, the Canada Safety Council works with the Department of Transport and Communications in Quebec as it does with sim-
November 25, 1968	COMMONS DEBATES
ilar departments in all provinces. This work involves promotion and co-ordination of safety programs, making recommendations for safety legislation, and maintaining touch with safety research conducted by the provincial departments.


MOUNTED POLICE AT CANADIAN AIRPORTS
Mr. Muir (Cape Breion-: The Sydneys):
How many members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are stationed at each airport in Canada and what is the rank of each?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Solicitor General):: Ottawa airport: 6, 1 sergeant, 5 constables; Montreal airport: 21, 1 staff sergeant, 2 sergeants, 3 corporals, 15 constables; Winnipeg airport: 1, 1 sergeant; Vancouver airport: 14, 1 sergeant, 2 corporals, 11 constables; Halifax airport: 1, 1 corporal; Edmonton airport: 1, 1 corporal; Calgary airport: 1, 1 constable; Toronto airport: 26, 1 sergeant, 5 corporals, 20 constables.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Coates: 1.	In what year was a superannuation plan introduced for employees of the Government of Canada, excluding RCMP and military and before being transferred to consolidated revenue how was this plan administered by the federal government and in what year was the pension fund transferred to consolidated revenue?
2.	What have been the graduated rates of interest paid the fund by the federal government and what is the present rate of interest paid the fund by the government?
3.	What were employee contributions to the pension fund for each year since the plan's introduction and what is the total amount of all employee payroll deductions for pension purposes since the plan's introduction?
4.	Has the federal government at any time contributed to the fund as is the case in private industry?
5.	What were pension payments from the fund for each of the years since the plan's introduction?
6.	Has the federal government at any time invested any or all of the monies resting in the Civil Servant's pension fund?
7.	How much money would the pension fund have earned if, from its inception, all contributions had been invested in Canada Savings Bonds?
8.	How many Public Servants are now in receipt of pensions from the fund and what is the amount of the average pension?
9.	Have any of the public service alliances or the government made studies contrasting the federal plan with similar plans in private industry
Inquiries of the Ministry and, if so, is there any disparity between the government sponsored plan and private industrial plans?
Return tabled.


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question for some clarification. Am I correct in believing, in view of the statement tabled by the Minister of Finance in the house today, that the government of Canada and members of the Group of Ten did not receive any specific assurances from the government of France as to what action that government would take with a view to meeting its currency and exchange problem?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, many matters were discussed at the meeting. I do not feel free to indicate what matters were discussed. I think my hon. friend should know, from looking at the communique I passed to him, that no mention of specific action by the French government is made in that communique. While I am on my feet I should like to correct an impression left by the hon. member that I was in Brazil. I have never been in South America in my life. He mentioned something in his statement about my coming back from Brazil.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I was so glad to see the
minister back; I am sorry if I was a bit confused. I should like to ask the Minister of Finance through you, sir, what steps Canada is taking to urge a meeting at the earliest possible date of the countries concerned to make more satisfactory arrangements for the strengthening of international currencies and any possible readjustments which may be necessary. Does the government of Canada propose to take any initiatives, or is the government satisfied to let things go on as they are for the time being?


Edgar John Benson: Canada, as my hon. friend knows, is a member of the Group of Ten. The Group of Ten meets from time to time, and I am sure as the situation develops we will take our full part in any discussions which the group may deem necessary under the circumstances.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: I should like to direct a supplementary question to the
November 25, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of Finance, and ask him whether during the discussions of the Ten the question of a Bretton type meeting was discussed, with a view to calling the Ten together to put some order into the chaos that exists in financial markets.


Edgar John Benson: As I indicated in my statement earlier reports from the financial markets in Europe, which have now been closed for the day, and from those in Canada and the United States have been very encouraging. With regard to discussions which took place within the Group of Ten when we met together, I feel I am not at liberty to make any more disclosures than were made in the communique. These meetings are confidential, and a communique is issued which is agreed upon by everyone there.


Max Saltsman: I am wondering whether the Minister of Finance has seen a report that the president-elect of the United States has been advised to seek a meeting along the lines of the Bretton Woods meeting. I should like to ask the minister whether he will support this position in view of the urgent situation facing the world's currencies.


Edgar John Benson: Without agreeing that urgency still exists with regard to the world's currencies, I may say that I have not seen the report referred to by the hon. member. I am sure as soon as we have seen it the government will give it due consideration, as well as any requests that may come from the United States in this regard.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister seek an early meeting with the United States to see whether the ceiling imposed on Canada's holdings of United States currency and investments can be increased in order to increase Canada's options, either independently or in co-ordination with its fiscal allies during this financial crisis?


Edgar John Benson: As I mentioned previously in the house, this matter is under discussion between officials of the government of Canada and of the United States treasury at the present time.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister whether he gave any assurance that a further contribution by Canada would be available if required in order to meet the present monetary crisis.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the meetings were held during a monetary crisis in which the exchange markets were closed. They have now been reopened, as my hon. friend knows, and I have reported on the activity therein. I may say the government of Canada has made no additional commitments within the group beyond its normal commitments to the International Monetary Fund and so on.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: 1 should like to ask the minister whether in view of Canada's position, being more or less dissociated from the other nine, consideration has been given to extending an invitation to a monetary conference which would consider the revision of GATT, inasmuch as its present provisions prevent the imposition of import and export controls by the member countries. Does the minister not think Canada is in a position to extend an invitation of this kind, which would be widely welcomed?


Edgar John Benson: First I should like to indicate that Canada is not dissociated from the other nine. We feel we are an active part of the Group of Ten, and we shall continue to play our full part within this group. With regard to the second question raised by the right hon. gentleman, the matter of the revision of GATT, meetings go on continuously at the official level concerning this organization. If undue barriers are being placed against the goods from any country, that country can of course make representations to GATT and subsequently, as the right hon. gentleman knows, there has to be a hearing in this regard.


John George Diefenbaker: The word "dissociated" was not perhaps the best word to have used, but it was the one which was used in the press in connection with Canada's position; Canada's contribution of $100 million in a $2 billion arrangement was almost one of dissociation. My question was, will any invitation be extended by Canada in connection with the convening of a monetary conference so that a repetition of the series of difficulties which have arisen over the past year may be obviated if not entirely avoided?


Edgar John Benson: I am very surprised to hear the right hon. gentleman say "What is $100 million?"


John George Diefenbaker: I did not say that. That is the way in which the hon. gentleman has misinterpreted me.
November 25, 1968


Edgar John Benson: After all, the central bankers in the Group of Ten decided at their meeting that this would be an appropriate commitment for Canada to make within the over-all guarantee. As to the second question, as the right hon. gentleman knows Herr Schiller of West Germany is chairman of the Group of Ten which will meet from time to time, and I am sure if there is a serious change in events or if it is deemed necessary to call another meeting in the near future because of future developments, Canada will play its full part as it has always done.


John George Diefenbaker: That is just repetition.


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. Minister of Finance.
In view of the current difficult situation with regard to the franc, the pound sterling, and the dollar, does the government intend to pass legislation which would lead eventually to control the prices and salaries?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Lewis: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister; I asked one on a similar subject in another field the other day. Does the statement made or reported to have been made by the Postmaster General with regard to NATO and the possible desirability of Canada withdrawing from that organization in order to make available a peace keeping force in Viet Nam, and so on, represent government policy?
Right Hon, P.-E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):
I only saw the newspaper report of this, but it is my impression that the Postmaster General was taking into account, as all ministers do, that this whole policy is under review, and he found it useful to offer suggestions for thinking to the Canadian people.


An hon. Member:: Flying kites.


David Lewis: If it is necessary to offer suggestions for the thinking of the Canadian people, would the Prime Minister consider that ministers, particularly he and the Secretary
Inquiries of the Ministry of State for External Affairs, might give this parliament some of their ideas during the course of this review so that members of this house could offer some ideas to assist the government in its appraisal of policy?


Mr. Trudeau:: Members of this house would be very welcome to do this when the estimates of the minister are up for debate.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: I have a question for the Minister of National Defence, but I should like to take this opportunity to welcome him back to the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Angus MacLean: With regard to commitments made to our NATO allies, for example, that there would be no reduction in the strength of our air division, would the minister say for what period these commitments will be firm?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: These commitments will have to be confirmed at the January meeting. The meeting which took place last week was an anticipatory meeting expressing the reaction of members to the Czechoslovak crisis. The undertakings which were given then by member states of the alliance will have to be confirmed at the next meeting of ministers.


John Angus MacLean: Can the minister make any statement now as to the length of time during which they will be firm?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: They will be firm for a period of one year, which is the customary period.


John Angus MacLean: I would ask the minister whether at the Brussels meeting he agreed that the four destroyer escorts now under construction would be committed by Canada to NATO, and whether there was any further suggestion that they should be committed to service in the Mediterranean rather than for service with SACLANT as is usual.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: These four destroyers were earmarked for NATO two years ago under what is called the defence plan. As they become available they would be assigned, and this calls for a decision which will have to be taken at the time. There was never any suggestion from me or, I am sure, from the Secretary of State for External Affairs that these ships would be involved in any operation in the Mediterranean.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the minister
3130	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry of defence whether the current review of defence policy is leading to a new white paper on defence which the minister will be presenting to the house before any actual revision of defence policy is made by the government.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: That will have to be a collective decision of cabinet.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Did the Postmaster General consult with the minister before enunciating his own defence policy for Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This matter was raised a moment ago.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence. When he was abroad at the recent NATO meeting did he advance the idea or concept that some of the ministers of the Canadian government had in mind, that our NATO forces should be withdrawn and used as peace keeping forces in such places as Viet Nam? Did he advance such a proposition?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: No, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact I have been led to believe that what we are doing in Europe could also be called peace keeping.


John George Diefenbaker: That is the answer to the Postmaster General.


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence concerning a larger role for NATO. Did the ministerial meeting held recently in Brussels discuss ways by which an east-west detente might be encouraged or facilitated?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Of course it did, Mr. Speaker.
[Later:}


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence on his return from Europe whether he found any indication of a move by the Soviet union toward Yugoslavia or Roumania.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt that this is a question which should be asked at this time.

DEBATES	November 25, 1968


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the Minister of National Defence for the brevity of his answer to my question about NATO. Is the minister now in a position to be more specific about the methods by which this detente may be affected, and would he consider making a statement to the house outlining the ways in which the various NATO allies think this might be made effective by the NATO alliance?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question is of such a wide scope that it should only be asked in the form of a suggestion that the minister might make a statement on motions.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Defence whether he will make a statement on motions soon about the topic I have just raised?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I am authorized to make a statement in the name of NATO. What we have seen in the last couple of years was an effort by NATO to encourage the United States delegation to start conversations with their counterparts in the Soviet union. This has the blessing of the alliance and I understand some preliminary discussions have taken place. I suppose this would eventually lead the alliance to further discussions with the Warsaw pact countries, but certainly a Canadian minister cannot be expected to make a statement on a subject like that in the name of NATO.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would remind hon. members that we should not have a debate on external affairs at this time. I understand there will be an opportunity for this within the next few days.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, in my supplementary question I intended to make a suggestion relating to the suggestion Your Honour has made. I should like to ask the Prime Minister, since the Minister of National Defence and the Secretary of State for External Affairs are to appear before the joint committee, whether he would arrange for the presence there of the Postmaster General so that all shades of the problem could be represented.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I agree, Mr. Speaker, that this type of question does not lead us anywhere.
November 25, 19S8	COMMONS


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gérard Laprise: I should like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Could he tells us whether he has informed the Niger government of Canada's intention, if such an intention exists, to participate in the next conference of the Ministers of Education of French-speaking countries, which is to take place in Niger soon?
Right Kon. P.-E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, no such intention has yet been indicated, but I think an answer will be sent this week.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: I should like to direct this question to the Prime Minister. Is it the policy of the government to have the task force on housing and urban development take time off from receiving briefs to appear as the featured attraction at Liberal party constituency meetings as happened last week in Edmonton?
On a question of privilege, I attended this meeting which was due to begin at ten o'clock in the morning.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Steve Eugene Paproski: It was a very good meeting, yes. But the task force did not show up at ten o'clock in the morning; they postponed the meeting until two o'clock in the afternoon. Further to that, an advertisement appeared in the paper sponsored by the Edmonton-Strath-cona Liberal Association-


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Although the hon. member may not have a question of privilege he has a grievance, and it has been properly aired.


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Will he advise the house of the necessity for the extraordinary accommodation
29180-198J
DEBATES	3131
Inquiries of the Ministry that has been booked for the Commonwealth prime ministers conference in London, particularly in view of the government's alleged cut-backs in spending?


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Solicitor General. Is he aware of the fact that we on this side of the house are very glad to see him back in his place?


Mr. Barney Danson (York North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the terms of reference relating to the research funds being made available to the members of the opposition would preclude the hiring of a special assistant for the right hon. member for Prince Albert, now that Mr. Camp is available?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I don't belong to that camp.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: In
the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources may I direct my question to the acting minister. Is it the intention of the government to meet with the provinces to discuss legislation covering the destructive effect of strip mining?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, if I may I will take notice of this suggestion of the hon. member and draw it to the minister's attention.


Randolph Harding: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the department point out to the provinces the urgent need for appropriate legislation to protect our resources from unregulated strip mining practices?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has made a suggestion.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of last night's news of the avalanche of waste from that strip mining operation which has affected the trans-Canada
3132	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry highway, will the minister see that action is taken to protect the interests of the travelling public in that area?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, all these representations will be brought to the minister's attention.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. Can he report to the house at this time on the meetings being held between himself or the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and the representatives of the United Auto Workers regarding the lay-offs at Windsor?


Hon. Bryce S. Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, there will be the utmost degree of co-operation with representatives of the union from Windsor who will be here this afternoon to meet the various ministers concerning the changes in Windsor. We shall do our best to reduce the degree of disruption in Windsor, as well as to increase the efficiency of retraining programs in that area.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Will the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration or the appropriate minister indicate whether the government intends to change the regulations relating to transitional assistance benefits, and thereby enable affected employees to be eligible for government assistance under this plan?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, this has
already been done. If a worker's claim is filed before the end of the year he will be eligible for transitional benefits if he has met the other conditions.


Howard Russell MacEwan: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister of Manpower and Immigration say whether, after what he said in the house last week, he will suggest to his colleagues in cabinet that legislation be brought down to provide that longer notice be required in situations similar to the one presently existing in Windsor?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the idea is receiving consideration.

DEBATES	November 25, 1968


Max Saltsman: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the Minister of Labour is discussing this matter with his colleagues will he also discuss the serious problem that will be created by moving tool and die facilities out of Canada, thus creating serious unemployment among our tool and die workers?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, one of the results of the proposed changes in the Windsor plant may make it unnecessary to move tool and die facilities out of Windsor. The changes should have the opposite effect on the workers.


Mr. J. Edward Broadbeni (Oshawa-Whiiby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. In view of the recent benevolent action of the Ford Motor Company in laying off employees in Windsor, and forthcoming lay-offs in other parts of Canada, as well as the minister's recent statement to the effect that he would urge his cabinet colleagues to implement sections of the Freedman report, would he indicate to the house when he thinks he will be in a position to report back with regard to his colleagues' feelings on this matter?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, in the same speech I also pointed out my responsibility to take into consideration before making any report the Woods task force report, which should be tabled some time in December.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Roy-al: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Will he tell the house if Right Hon. Lester Pearson is one of those helping the government with its review of foreign affairs and defence policy?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Not on a formal basis, Mr. Speaker.



EXTERNAL AID


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: May I
direct a question to the Prime Minister. In light of the communication from Mr. Justice
November 25, 1968

Onyiuke, head of the Biafran delegation in the United States, saying that his government would agree to the daylight flights into Bi-afra, has the government made plans to restart the Hercules air flights? Has it considered adding to the number of aircraft available for that purpose?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that there is at least some indication by some authorities of the rebel held area that they are willing to consider this. But I will draw to the attention of the house that the most essential part of the suggestion was left out of the statement. The sole condition on which General Gowon insisted when saying he would authorize daylight flights was that there be an assurance from the Biafran authorities that they would not use daylight hours for arms shipments, because he did not want to confuse relief and arms flights. I see that is the precise part which has been omitted from the statement to which the hon. member refers. As long as there is no guarantee of that kind, then of course the essential part of the bargain is missing. I would add that we have been asking the International Red Cross for further news on this, and their latest report is that the Biafran authorities are still refusing to meet this one essential condition.


Francis Andrew Brewin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I direct the Prime Minister's attention to the eastern part of Nigeria that is occupied by federal forces. In light of the statement by the Canadian commander of our Hercules aircraft in Lagos that the Hercules was not too large to land at Enugu, Calabar, Port Harcourt and so on, and since that was the pretext for preventing the use of Hercules aircraft, will the government again discuss the matter of Hercules flights into that area with the Nigerian government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Apparently there is some misunderstanding on that point. I believe the hon. member is referring to the impression of an interview in which one of our pilots said it would have been possible to land. Our information is that of course one or two landings might have been possible, but by inquiring from the Nigerian authorities we learned that the airstrips at Enugu, Calabar, Port Harcourt and so on could not take repeated landings by aircraft the size of the Hercules, and that the size and weight of the Hercules would destroy the airstrips. After all, it is the Nigerian people and their government who would be interested in having these aircraft
Inquiries of the Ministry land if they could land. Therefore we must take their advice and the advice of our own aircraft authorities on this matter.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorklon-Melville):: further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Prime Minister inform the house whether the Canadian Caribou aircraft we were supposed to send to Nigeria for relief work have yet arrived at Lagos?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to seek information on whether these Caribou have left yet.
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darimoulh-Halifax
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the one directed a few minutes ago to the Prime Minister. I direct my question to the Minister of National Defence.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member must ask a new question. He may not ask a supplementary question to one that has not been accepted by the Chair.


Mr. Forrestall:: I am sorry but with respect, sir, it was a question you did allow and that the Prime Minister was not able to answer. I would simply redirect it to the Minister of National Defence. Could he tell us where the Caribou are, what stage they have reached in their progress toward Nigeria?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I have to confess, Mr. Speaker, that this is an embarrassing question.


J. Michael Forrestall: I am sorry; I thought you would know.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: No, no. As the hon. member knows, I was away for a week and I thought the request for these Caribou had been cancelled.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think I will be able to shed a little light on this question. I have a note here that it is the Nigerian Red Cross who had said they could not make use of the Caribou. Apparently there was subsequent information from the Nigerian authorities themselves that they would like to have the Caribou aircraft, but we indicated that our offer was through the Canadian Red Cross to the Nigerian Red Cross and not to the government of Nigeria itself. This is consistent with our position of not taking sides. We want the Red Cross to be the ones to decide whether they can or cannot use the aircraft, and we are still waiting for a reply on that.
3134	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry HOUSING



LAC-LA-BICHE, ALBERTA-REQUEST FOR VISIT BY TASK FORCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Aihabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Will he arrange for the task force on housing to visit the town of Lac-la-Biche and see at first hand the deplorable conditions of Metis Indian housing there. I shall be happy to arrange a meeting of the Progressive Conservative association, if that is a prerequisite for a visit by the task force to a rural riding.



STEPS TO PRESERVE EXPORT MARKET IN UK.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Rod Thomson (Baltleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the serious financial problem in Great Britain and the potential loss of half our exports to that market due to that country's recently imposed restrictions on imports, can the minister say what action is being taken by the Canadian government to preserve our export markets?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, we are looking very carefully at the action taken by the British government. I have not complete information at the present time, but I understand that only about 20 per cent of our exports to Britain would be affected. However, this would not mean that they would be cut off. As I understand it they would have to be paid for in cash.


Max Saltsman: As a supplementary question, in view of statements that are appearing in the press indicating that half our exports to Great Britain will be affected by the British austerity measures, will the Minister of Finance seek an immediate opportunity to make a statement to allay these fears?


Edgar John Benson: As I said, Mr. Speaker, my information is that only about 20 per cent of our exports would be affected. This would not mean an end to such exports. It would simply mean, as I understand the situation, that they must be paid for in cash when they arrive in Britain. As I indicated before, I am having the matter investigated further, and I will be pleased to pass on any further information.

DEBATES	November 25, 1968



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Len Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I have been receiving inquiries from students in various parts of the country about employment for next summer. Could he advise the house whether his department or the government is taking any particular action to look after the employment needs of students next summer?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am wondering whether this is not the type of information which the minister might consider giving at the time of motions.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could get an answer to the question I directed to the Secretary of State last Thursday with respect to a statement made by a member of the Public Service Commission.


Mr. Robert Sianbury (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I have been given the following information by the Public Service Commission.
There has been no change in policy with regard to the administration of language proficiency requirements in staffing the public service. The policy which continues to be followed by the Public Service Commission is that outlined in Prime Minister Pearson's statement of April 6, 1966.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: As a supplementary question, does this mean that the statement attributed in the press to a member of the Public Service Commission is erroneous?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as asked is not in order. The hon. gentleman knows he cannot ask if a statement in the press is correct or incorrect.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put the question in such a manner that it is in order, because I think it is an important matter of public interest.
November 25, 1968	COMMONS


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps we might allow the parliamentary secretary to reply to the question.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have not compared these two statements, but it is apparent that the policy is as conveyed to the house through the Secretary of State today.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State. Would the parliamentary secretary be able to obtain a transcript or the text of the remarks made by a member of the Public Service Commission and table it in this house so that a comparison can be made?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: As a further supplementary question, in order to eliminate all possible confusion on this subject I wonder if the parliamentary secretary would consider making a statement as to what is the policy in this regard.


Edgar John Benson: He just did.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to read to the house the statement that was made by the right hon. prime minister of the day, to which the Public Service Commission has referred. I think, however, perhaps the Leader of the Opposition could find that for himself. I also suggest that the person who made the remarks to which reference was made would be glad to provide the house leader of the opposition with a copy of those remarks.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver Easi):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a most urgent question to the Minister of National Defence. I do so at the request of many members of the armed forces. In view of the announced increase in wages to the members of the armed forces, retroactive to October 1, can the minister inform the house whether the retroactive increase will be paid by December 30 of this year, in order that they may avoid having to pay the 2 per cent surcharge next year on money earned and authorized this year?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to reassure the hon. member and to tell him that
DEBATES	3135
Inquiries of the Ministry this morning I insisted with the deputy minister that this be done.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question, and I welcome this forthright minister back to the house. Can he give the same assurance about civilians working for his department, who in many respects are faced with a much more severe situation?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Actually, Mr. Speaker, most of the civilian employees of the Department of National Defence have enjoyed an increase. Some of them have not yet, and this is because their collective bargaining units with the government have not concluded negotiations. I believe there are only a few areas in which this applies.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. Will the minister be introducing legislation during this session of parliament or taking any other action to bring the pensions of servicemen who have retired over the last few years more in line with present pay scales?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, this is being studied now. I do not know whether the study will be conducted in time for us to present it, but I really expect this could be done in the spring. Therefore we would meet the hon. member's request.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I take it that inasmuch as this study is going on with regard to retired members of the armed forces, the same study is going on with respect to retired civil servants? This question is addressed to the Minister of Finance.
Hen. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):
Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend knows we are continually studying the question in respect of retired civil servants.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How long does "continually" last?



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of
November 25, 1968
3136	COMMONS
Supply-National Capital Commission Manpower and Immigration. Has the government reached a definite decision in respect of the requests for financial assistance with regard to special English training for immigrant children? If so, what is the decision?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The decision was to confirm the previous decision taken by my predecessor.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Solicitor General. In view of the fact that the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Finance have indicated that a review of pensions of the retired persons coming under their supervision is now under way, is the same thing being done with regard to retired members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to take the question as notice in order to give a fully accurate reply.

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



NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
20. Operation and maintenance, general administration and interest charges on outstanding loans that were made for the purpose of acquiring property in the national capital region, $9,500,000.
The Deputy Chairman:: Revised estimates of the National Capital Commission for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1969, vote 20. This will be found at page 425 of the blue book. The details are listed at page 436.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: Mr. Chairman,
before the house deals with the estimates of the National Capital Commission for 1968-69, I would like to say a few words about the work of the commission for which I have been responsible since July 12, 1968.
Over the years, the house has been kept informed about the work of the commission through its annual reports and its capital investment programs tabled in the house. The work of the commission is based for the most part on the main recommendations of the


Greber report and is concerned with implementing the principles outlined to the house on June 28, 1948 when the National Capital Fund was set up. That fund was meant to supply the amounts needed to pay the cost of the undertakings approved by the governor in council to improve and develop the national capital. This is what the Prime Minister said at that time:
It also, and even more, seeks to anticipate the needs of Canada's capital in the future as we believe that future will shape our country. We desire, above all else, a capital worthy of the high place that Canada holds in the world today and of the Canada that is yet to be.
The national capital program designed by Mr. Jacques Greber, was tabled in the house in 1951. For the past 17 years, the government and the commission have amended and improved this plan. It was revised by a joint parliamentary committee which, in turn, recommended some changes. The committee report was tabled in the house on August 1, 1956. These changes, as well as the 12 years of experience in the meantime, have clearly demonstrated that the plan of a capital, like that of any other large city, has to be the continuing subject of criticism, studies and improvements.
In the meantime, the commission, by spending a great deal of time and money, had to acquire a large number of properties in order to implement the important recommendations of the plan. The period of time devoted to the acquisition of properties according to the recommendations of the plan is nearly over and the construction period is well under way. A new long term plan is being prepared in order to further improve and develop the national capital area. These new proposals will be introduced to the house in due time.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)

The commission's annual report for 1967-68, which has been tabled in the house, gives information of the commission's activities and expenditures for that year.
The estimates of the commission for 1968-69 amount to $24,500,000 for ordinary operations, interest on loans, improvements, and development within the national capital region, and $4,900,000 for loans to acquire property. These compare with $23,100,000 and $6,850,000 respectively in 1967-68. The actual expenditures for 1967-68 amounted to $21,600,000 gross. I have a detailed indication of the estimates,
November 25, 1968	COMMONS
and I hope this will be tabled so that hon. members will have it.

Serious consideration is now being given to the renovation of the centretown of Ottawa. Most parcels of land in the central area of the city, some belonging to the federal government, are ready to be re-developed. The commission had studies prepared on the economic prospects of the capital, with a view to establishing re-development plans to meet the needs and the prestige of the national capital.
That is one of the complex problems which holds the attention of the National Capital Commission, whose objectives are "to prepare plans for and assist in the development, conservation and improvement of the national capital region in order that the nature and character of the seat of the government of Canada may be in accordance with its national significance," Canada is a young country which, in all probability, will have a dynamic growth in the coming years. Ottawa, capital of Canada, is called to a brilliant future. Within the framework of its constitutional powers and thanks to its long experience in the field of town-planning, the commission plays a key role in the capital. Through its co-operation with the municipalities of the area, ensuring the wise use of federal properties and developing its own lands, the commission can make a valuable contribution to the expansion of the national capital. It will proceed with its town-planning work using tested techniques, allowing timely grants, encouraging general planning and the development of the lands and properties of the government, according to a long-term and flexible program.
Last year, in a speech which I delivered to the Chamber of Commerce in Hull, I noted the appreciable disproportion between the expenses made to improve the national capital-Ottawa-and those made for the improvement of the city of Hull. I wish to repeat today that the development plans of the national capital area should take into account not only the necessity of improving Hull-which is part of Ottawa on the economic as well as the social levels-but also the concern of the government to the effect that planning for the capital area in Quebec, especially in Hull, provides a just proportion of the over-all improvement proposed for the region. This planning must provide for the integration of the whole national capital area. It would be foolish to expect this undertaking to succeed while ignoring a vitally important
DEBATES	3137
Supply-National Capital Commission part of the area such as the city of Hull and the rest of the area which is located in Quebec.

My hon. friends will no doubt be conscious of the need to plan for a fair share of the development proposed for the national capital region to be made in Hull, Quebec, which for economic and social purposes is a part of the capital. It is my understanding that plans and proposals are being proposed to that end. The Promenade des Voyageurs, a parkway proposed for the Quebec side of the Ottawa river, from Hull to Deschenes, Quebec, a distance of approximately 5 miles, is an example of the improvements proposed for Hull. I cannot speak for my colleague, the Minister of Public Works, but I know that careful consideration is being given to the probable construction soon of federal government buildings in Hull. Also new bridges linking Hull closer to Ottawa are now being considered. All these proposals will contribute largely to the betterment of economic conditions in Hull and encourage the development of Hull, not as a poor suburb of Ottawa but on a comparable and competitive basis with Ottawa.
The commission, having put under way or completed the larger part of the recommendations contained in the Greber report, has reached an important crossroad in its planning for the region as a whole. Further, the creation of a new regional municipal authority in Ontario to absorb many of the responsibilities formerly borne by the city of Ottawa and other Ontario municipalities ought to pave the way for a much closer planning liaison between the regional council and the National Capital Commission. No doubt similar steps, if taken in the province of Quebec, would make the planning easier for that area of the national capital region. The government is deeply conscious of the need to promote to a greater extent the bilingual and bicultural aspect of the national capital region, so that it will be more truly representative of the founding peoples of this great country and, at the same time, be a living symbol of the unity and understanding which has prevailed since confederation.
I trust that these proposals will commend themselves to this committee.


Mr. Gundlock:: Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the house, particularly members of this party, welcome this opportunity to discuss the estimates of the National Capital Commission. We need not remind ourselves of the
3138	COMMONS
Supply-National Capital Commission beautiful geography which this involves. Surely there is no better place in Canada than right here on parliament hill to begin this development.
I was particularly interested in the minister's suggestion that we will have a further opportunity to consider this measure. The geographical area involved takes in parts of two great provinces or the two founding nations, so to speak, which have been put together to some extent in relation to these estimates. We must remember, in being slightly critical, that it has been five years since we have had the opportunity to discuss the estimates we are considering this afternoon. We must therefore take advantage of the opportunity to put forth sincerely constructive criticism in a manner which, if not in detail, will bring to the minister's attention the situation which exists.
If I may digress for a moment, we find that with greater regularity ministers are announcing government proposals outside this house, and I refer particularly to the minister's statements in respect of the proposed developments for Hull. Certainly we are in favour of these developments. The national capital area involves two cities, a number of municipalities and two provinces. In this regard we must consider this whole situation as one involving a language of its own. It seems to me it has become increasingly the policy of the government, in particular of certain ministers, to make statements outside the house.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Because a committee has not been set up for five years, we shall ask for and in fact insist upon such a committee being set up to study these problems. It should be a broad committee. I hope these remarks will be taken by the minister as constructive criticism. A committee of the house should be immediately set up to consider these estimates in great detail. It should consist of people interested in the development of our capital city. The provinces of Ontario and Quebec and the municipalities of Ottawa and Hull are not the only ones concerned with this question. People from all walks of life and all parts of this country are deeply concerned in the matter. This is why I suggest we should make sure that the committee is a very broad one.
As I have already pointed out, for five years nothing has been done in this respect, with the very laudable exception of the national gallery. I suppose here there have

DEBATES	November 25, 1968
been two mistakes. First, this is all that has been done in this long period of time and, second, there was the gross mistake of underestimating the cost of the national gallery. But I suppose things will work out in the end and I am not too critical of that mistake. During centennial year there were numerous functions on the lawns of parliament hill in our capital city. Here again I point out critically that in the last five years many things could have been done to culminate in centennial year. At least a committee could have been set up consisting of all the parties involved. One small matter that might have been considered by the committee is high-rise apartment buildings in Ottawa. This question has not even been properly considered. Why cannot these things be done? Why cannot this committee be set up where everybody concerned could put forward their points of view and we could listen and decide?
We read about these things in the newspapers but in the house have heard nothing about them. I suggest this is the place where these questions should be considered because we represent the whole of the country. In spite of the fact that some ministers and in fact the government itself would sometimes have us believe otherwise, this house is still the place where the people of Canada can speak.
The minister mentioned several things that have been done. I was glad to hear what he said about bridges. I was glad to hear the suggestion that a committee might study these matters. I cannot express my view too strongly that this whole question should be considered by a committee of the house. I do not refer to the one-man commission of Dr. Rowatt, I think it is, set up by the Ontario government. The federal government took part in it and took credit for it. However, I do not complain too much about that; it is probably a natural thing to do. The doctor has not yet reported, but the minister goes over to Hull and makes statements on these matters before the commission has reported. He also makes statements in the house before any committee has reported.
I suggest to you with all deference, Mr. Chairman, that statements of this kind should not be made before the commission and the committees report, because there are differences among the municipalities and, if I have to say it in so many words, there is a little distrust among them. Several prospective buildings in Hull have been mentioned. People in Eastview, Ottawa and the outlying municipalities have this distrust simply
November 25, 1968	COMMONS
because of a lack of knowledge and understanding of the matter. This emphasizes the fact that a committee should be set up to study these problems. Let everybody concerned have an understanding of what is involved.
The National Capital Commission and our capital city should really speak a language of their own in this country. We have the same problems. We have talked so much about them in this house in recent years, particularly last fall. These problems also concern other parts of the world. Neighbours living in the same community mistrust one another simply because of lack of understanding. If we understand one another, particularly our aims and views, I think there will no longer be any animosity. We find we have a common goal, we trust one another, and we reach that goal.
I thank the minister for his statement. I hope he will seriously consider the points that we in this party and all parties in the house have in mind. We are simply asking, and if we could we would demand it, that a broad committee be set up to undertake a detailed examination of these estimates. The minister must be aware that the commission has had a detailed report ready for two years, I understand, but no one has been able to listen to it. I think this is appalling. I refer to the commission whose estimates we are examining. The minister has said they are doing the planning; yet he goes to Hull and makes announcements there, as he does in this house, without reference to that report.
I ask that this committee be set up so we may have its ideas and recommendations. I believe this is only fair. I have tried to be sensible. I have been a little critical in order to bring forward these points. I hope the minister responsible for these matters will remember some of the points that have been raised and will take action to solve the problems that exist. I do not want to digress, Mr. Chairman, but we all have visitors from our constituencies from time to time. Constituents come here and say: Isn't the government in action wonderful? I sometimes wonder whether they are talking about one word or two words. It is time there was real action in this area on the part of the government.


Mr. Mather:: Mr. Chairman, in rising to say a few words on the subject before us I am sure I feel very much like many other members of parliament in that we think of ourselves, at least in a way, as trustees of the public's money in our functions here regarding the
DEBATES	3139
Supply-National Capital Commission financing of projects and works in connection with the business of the National Capital Commission. I think the business of the National Capital Commission is very much to that point. Here we are in the national capital of Canada surrounded by buildings, projects, landscaping and monuments to make it an even better capital for our country. Whether the Canadians who paid for it live in the eastern Arctic, in Frobisher Bay, away in the northeast or in my own southwestern area of Canada, in Surrey and White Rock city, they are all contributing, either in a small or in a major way, toward paying for what is being done here and for what is being planned for the national capital. I am sure we are all in favour of making it the best possible centre of its kind that we can.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I think a good deal might be said today about the outline the minister sketched for us with regard to improving the centre of the national capital and expanding the expenditure of public funds on the development of Hull as part of the national capital area. I am in favour of both these plans. My only regret is that these projects were not implemented 10 or 15 years ago when they might have been done a great deal more economically and we might have been benefiting from them during all these years.
Aside from these points I shall confine myself today to making a few criticisms regarding the situation in this area as I see it and our lack of perspective, planning and action. I should also like to reiterate the point which the previous speaker has made so well and which I and other members of our party have urged over the years. I refer to the wisdom of establishing a parliamentary committee on the national capital so that the members of this house will have a continuing and better understanding as well as an informed basis for their comments regarding what is being done with Canadian money in developing the national capital. This would enable hon. members to consult from time to time with the members of the National Capital Commission, the city of Ottawa authorities and any others who may have ideas on the improvement of Canada's national capital.
I am not quite sure whether the project I shall mention next comes under the jurisdiction of this minister but I do know that the construction of the National Centre for the Performing Arts will, according to the last figure I saw, cost between 300 and 400 per
November 25, 1968
3140	COMMONS
Supply-National Capital Commission cent above the original estimates. This is really part of our concern as parliamentarians dealing with the improvement of our national capital. The last figure I saw relating to the cost of the theatre centre was over $40 million. This means it will cost every Canadian between $2 and $3 or about $10 for every Canadian family in the country. This will be the contribution of Canadians toward the construction of a national theatre in the capital.
In Vancouver, for example, which is my general home base, we built a theatre about ten years ago for $3 million. It is a very fine theatre called the Queen Elizabeth. Frankly the reason it was called that and not the Pauline Johnson theatre was that it was felt that the name of Queen Elizabeth would attract more attention across Canada and from our friends to the south, the Americans, who may be rather intrigued by such a title for the theatre. The point I want to make is that such a theatre was built by the Vancouver people for the low cost I mentioned and it performs the same function as will the national theatre in Ottawa.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, if I may be allowed to make a helpful comment at this point may I say that this is not the responsibility of the commission or of my department. This was done under the Minister of Public Works.


Barry Mather: I am sure that is the case, but if I can say another sentence or two on this general subject I will be able to relate it to the responsibility of parliamentarians in supervising the spending of money on the development of our national capital. May I say that we have some better looking penitentiaries in British Columbia than the national capital theatre.
The reason I speak on this subject now is that we think a part of the increased cost of this building, which will be borne by the taxpayers, came about as a result of the lack of understanding and co-ordination between the federal government and the city of Ottawa. The federal government in making its decision regarding the construction of this expensive theatre decided to take advantage of the offer of land made by the city of Ottawa. It has been admitted on all sides that this has greatly added to the cost now being borne by the taxpayers. I strongly urge that the parliament of Canada, which is the trustee of the money that will be expended for the expansion of the Quebec side of the national capital area and for any major


developments in the centre core of the capital, be consulted and that we set up a committee representing every party in the house so we will have, as the previous speaker said, a number of better informed parliamentarians who will be dealing with the estimates and reports such as the one we have before us today.
I should like to say in conclusion-and this may not be specifically to the point-that when we are dealing with the national capital we are in a sense dealing with our national culture. I think that perhaps too high a priority has been given to the performing arts such as ballet. Let us seriously consider the fact that in Canada we have very little that relates us east to west; our thinking is apt to be directed toward the south. I find that in our culture, whether it is expressed in terms of the national capital or in terms of art or athletics, one part of our country, the mari-times, is entirely cut off from one of the greatest common denominators in our Canadian relationship, athletics. I am referring to the forthcoming national spectacle, the Grey cup game. If the parliament of Canada had had any say in regard to the spending of tax money to develop the national capital I wonder whether it might not have thought it better, instead of spending so many millions of dollars on building a structure here in Ottawa for the performing arts, perhaps to subsidize the city of Halifax so as to enable it to be represented in our national sports events. Perhaps this would be in the interest of the whole nation because I consider athletics to be a cultural activity, just as is opera or ballet, and one calculated to improve our national relationships. I think the house would have done something good for Canada if it had been able to give favourable consideration to such a suggestion.
Before sitting down I should like to reiterate the hope of the members of our party that, as the minister has said, he will set up a parliamentary committee which will concern itself with the better handling of public money and the improvement of Canada's national capital. The predecessor minister in the public works portfolio, who in the last parliament was in charge of national capital concerns, also made this promise.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Mr. Richard:: Mr. Chairman, at the outset I should like to congratulate the minister who has shown already a great interest in the regional development of Ottawa and Hull. I hope he will maintain that spirit and that he
November 25, 1968

will consult with those who are interested in the different sections of the national capital they represent. For many years our voice has not been heard, but we could have made a contribution to the improvement of relationships between this government and the municipal authorities. I do not want to make lengthy remarks today because I am still hoping that as soon as possible after the new year a committee will be established to study closely all aspects of the national capital. There is a great deal to be done. I hope the minister will begin early in January to convene this committee and give it the opportunity of studying all aspects of the life of the national capital.
I cannot help but think back to the time of confederation. I have read some of the original confederation debates, and it is too bad the suggestion of one of the speakers at that time could not have been adopted. He wanted to set aside the land which is now the core of the national capital as federal land. If this had been done, many of the problems we have today would not be with us.
During the 23 years I have been here I have said time and time again that one of the difficulties connected with improving this capital has been the lack of a close relationship between the provincial and federal governments. They were all always at loggerheads. In fact, they were not even at loggerheads because most of the time they did not even meet. Furthermore, there has always been a lack of liaison between the Department of Public Works and the city of Ottawa or the Prime Minister when he was in charge of the federal commission. We have had this trouble with zoning. There has never been a proper zoning plan of the city. There was little use in the National Capital Commission making plans when they were always running up against zoning which did not suit their plans. Even the departments within the government do not agree with each other. We have had clashes between the minister representing the National Capital Commission, the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of National Defence. At the moment there is a battle over zoning in the centre part of Ottawa. One builder desires to put up a very high building but the National Capital Commission opposes it. But, who will be the first tenant of that building if it is erected. The Department of Public Works. As long as there is no proper liaison between the province and the federal government or between the various departments of the government, plans cannot be made which will be useful.
DEBATES	3141
Supply-National Capital Commission
There is a great deal of work to be done in this city. No one can deny that. However, it cannot be done if the same procedure is followed as has been followed in the past. I have heard the minister say that Hull cannot be treated as a suburb. It may be easy to do what the minister suggests, and I hope it is. However, these suggestions will not solve the problem of the core of my city. I happen to be the representative for Ottawa East which includes the area east of the Canal, Eastview and Overbrook. To my knowledge, no building has been erected in this part of Ottawa and Eastview for 35 years. If we did not have the Chateau Laurier in Ottawa East we would not have anything. In all of the region between here and the residences of the Governor General and the Prime Minister there is not a single new government building. We have been told for years that a building for external affairs might be constructed. 1 suppose that will happen some day but that is not sufficient to improve the whole area between here and Rockcliffe or between here and the Montreal Road.
Perhaps members do not realize that Ottawa East includes Eastview and Overbrook and that in this area the people are bilingual. This is a truly bilingual section of the country, with its own university and newspaper. Why search all over the place to improve bilingual and bicultural relations when we have this area right in the centre of the city? This area is in Ontario, and French speaking and English speaking people are trying to live together in unity and I feel they should be encouraged. They have not received any encouragement so far. I felt it was time to make this statement because apparently the quieter you are the more people seem to think that things are going along well.
The eastern part of the city from the Chateau along the river to Rockcliffe and down the Rideau river to Hog's Back is probably the most beautiful part of the city. If there is a more scenic area and a better population in any other part of the country, I should like to know where it is. I urge the minister, when he is thinking of developing the bicultural aspect of this region, to think of the eastern part of this city. I am sure he will have to give that part of the city his support, as will the members of this house when they know what needs to be done.
I would not want to close my remarks without saying something about the National Capital Commission. They deserve congratulations for the wonderful work they have
Supply-National Capital Commission done on our parkways and the improvements along the Ottawa river. Those of us who knew these areas in the past realize the wonderful work that has been done by the engineers and planners of the National Capital Commission. On behalf of the people of Ottawa, I want to say thank you. However, the commission can only do what its powers will permit it to do. Any misgivings there may be about the development of the national capital can be attributed to the fact that the powers of the National Capital Commission are limited and sometimes their budget is not sufficient.


Mr. Dinsdale:: I am inspired, Mr. Chairman, by the words of the hon. member for Ottawa East to make a brief contribution to this discussion. This afternoon we have heard from a member from the far western part of Canada and from a member who represents a constituency within this national capital. I think it is high time we heard from someone who comes from the heart of the nation, the province of Manitoba. I speak this afternoon as one who represents a constituency that is not only close to the centre of Canada but is close to the geographic centre of the North American continent. If logic were to control where capital cities are located, our capital, of course, would have been located right in the heart of my constituency.
The hon. member for Ottawa East has indicated, with the wisdom of hindsight, that certain suggestions were made in the early days for Canada's capital and if that advice had been followed we would not be in difficulty with respect to co-ordination and we would not have made some of the mistakes that have obviously been made over the years in the development of Canada's capital as one of the loveliest, if not the best, of the major capital cities of the world. In addition to the impassioned remarks of the hon. member for Ottawa East, I rise to my feet because of a phrase that was used by the minister in his introductory remarks. He told us that from time to time the plans are "modified and revised". That was the phrase he used. This immediately raises the question just how fluid is the plan for Canada's national capital and just how far can long term planning be modified or distorted. During centennial year a model of the future development of our Canadian capital city was displayed on the mall. It seems to me that during the relatively short time I have been in this house the Greber plan has been modified in such a way as not to enhance the beauty of the capital as

November 25, 19G8
originally conceived by Mr. Jacques Greber. I refer particularly to the development in the centre of the city. People who come from western Canada, where they are used to wide open spaces, are shocked to see the congestion in the heart of the nation's capital, which is described as confederation square and is popularly known as confusion square.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Not any more.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Over the years, that is so. I hear the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State saying "not any more". That is one man's opinion. Obviously he has not travelled west to appreciate the magnificent spaciousness of that region of Canada.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I have.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Otherwise he would not suggest that the designation "confusion square" does not apply.


Mr. Peters:: The real confusion square is in Toronto.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: That is possibly one explanation for the hon. gentleman's viewpoint. When certain demolition work took place in the vicinity of the square in recent years we hoped it might be in preparation for the provision of a suitable open space and park area to give an impression of the spaciousness which is typical of Canada. We have all been to Washington. I think one of the most impressive aspects of the centre of Washington as a capital city is the open space which exists in such abundance around the capitol building. Here in Canada we have much more geography available with our relatively small population; yet we persist in concentrating everything in what would seem to be the smallest area possible.


Mr. Francis:: Would the hon. member permit a question? Is he aware that the city of Ottawa has a larger percentage of land devoted to public purposes than any other North American city? I am thinking of the experimental farm, of major park areas such as Vincent Massey Park, and so on, all entirely within the city boundaries.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am aware of that. I also think that the green belt plan has much to commend it.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I was talking about space within the city.

November 25, 1968	COMMONS


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes, but I was referring to the centre of the city which, after all, is the focus. It is within the shadow of the parliament buildings and receives the greatest attention from all visiting Canadians. This is why I raised the question I did, and I trust the minister can explain the situation a little more clearly.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Does the hon. member think we should not do business?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am interested in knowing how far it is possible to modify and refine the original plan as laid down by Jacques Greber. My hon. friend from Surrey introduced the subject of the centre for the performing arts.
I shall not discuss the merits of that institution this afternoon; we have been doing that in the committee on broadcasting and the arts. But I think this point is relevant to the subject matter now under discussion. It seems to me that a further fundamental mistake was made by adding to the congestion and confusion in the centre of our nation's capital when it was decided to create this massive complex of buildings in a most strategic location. I shall not use the strong words used by the hon. member for Surrey, who said it was less attractive than many penal institutions, but I will go this far: in terms of beautifying a strategic part of Ottawa, or the capital district, it does not make any substantial contribution. Once the centre is opened and in full operation with its underground parking provided at a cost of $7 million I shall be most interested to see just how the reputation of confusion square will be altered by this development.
I raise this point because obviously there have been modifications in the plan. This was not the location originally designed for the arts centre, and the soaring cost of construction was, as we discovered in our committee studies, largely the result of the decision to build on this particular site, a decision to relocate which was obviously taken hastily and without careful planning in terms of the long term effect on traffic patterns, the preservation of open spaces and similar considerations.
The construction of this complex of buildings in the area known as confusion square, which we had hoped would become Confederation Square, in fact was made possible by virtue of the phrase which the minister used when he talked about the possibility of modification and refinement. I agree that there has been modification but I am not sure
DEBATES	3143
Supply-National Capital Commission there was refinement in this particular instance. I suppose things like this happen because, as the hon. member for Ottawa East indicated, the N.C.C. lacks sufficient authority to overrule the various conflicting interests which zero in when the use of these strategic locations is under consideration. I am sure the N.C.C. was overruled in this instance because the development is by no means in the grand style originally conceived by the architect, Mr. Greber.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I hope the minister will comment on these remarks and indicate just how far modification or violation is possible in the planning of our capital city. Even though we use the postal address "Ottawa, Ontario", or "Hull, Quebec" this city does not belong to Ontario or Quebec in the way that other provincial capitals or cities belong to their provinces. Ottawa is the focal point of all the people of Canada, and all people in Canada make substantial contributions to its development.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The hon. member must not forget that the municipality makes contributions.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A moment ago my hon. friend from Ottawa West said that many parks in our capital city proper are paid for by the good citizens of this country from British Columbia to Newfoundland. A substantial part of the upkeep of course is paid by the citizens of this country.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I do not suggest that all these parks are provided at public expense by the federal government. Quite a number of them are provided by the municipalities. I call the hon. member's attention to our very large proportion of park service areas which, to the best of my recollection, is not exceeded by any other city on the North American continent. No other North American city as far as I know devotes such a proportion of its area to canals, parks and public services of this nature.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: We are splitting hairs on this matter, Mr. Chairman. I think the hon. member will agree that the national capital parkways, the experimental farm and many of other specialized and beautiful park areas are supported by the people of Canada through public funds expended by the National Capital Commission whose estimates we are now discussing.
November 25, 1968

Supply-National Capital Commission


Cyril Lloyd Francis: One must also consider city property.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I have been looking through the commission's report and I am amazed at the substantial sum of money spent. I see that the graph of expenditures goes onward and upward to a cumulative total of $206.3 million. That money comes from the taxpayers of every part of Canada.
That is why I feel there ought to be greater co-ordination. A jurisdictional dispute is going on involving city versus city, municipality versus municipality and province versus province. In this process of modification and refinement I suppose the noisy wheel gets the grease in the long run. I sympathize with the hon. member for Ottawa East when he complains that there is a lopsided development. It appears that one municipality is not as influential as another in resolving these jurisdictional disputes. I presume that the city of Ottawa will have a strong voice in these deliberations. I do not think that is the way it should be. There ought to be co-ordination which takes into consideration not the parochial needs of one municipality, council or what have you but the fact that we are developing here our nation's capital which we hope will be one of the finest of all the world's capitals.
We have made an error in pre-empting a stragetic location for the National Centre for the Performing Arts. I had visualized a beautiful, expansive view from parliament hill. But now we see a pile of stone that is supposed to typify or symbolize, as we were told in the committee, the great Canadian pre-Cambrian shield, as if that is the only thing representative of Canada. In this project there was a lack of imagination, a lack of vision. Even though a few maple trees are to be planted around the enormous pile of rock, along with some Dutch elms which I suppose will die of Dutch elm disease, the problem will not be resolved.
When we discussed this matter in committee it was said, "You cannot tear the building down." Certainly you cannot tear it down. You cannot unscramble an omelet. I speak of this matter now in the hope that we do not continue making mistakes on this grandiose scale in our planning.
Perhaps I might refer to the Beachburg line which has also been discussed by many in recent years. I notice that in the estimates an expenditure of $39.3 million is listed for relocation of railway lines, construction of overpasses and bridges and so on. Yet here in

the nation's capital we have a railway line going through one of the most exclusive residential areas. In the original proposal put forward in the capital plan of the N.C.C., the station was to have been located on Walkley Road to avoid what has become a sore spot in the heart of our national capital. These mistakes must be avoided because they are obviously costly and spoil the beauty of the city to an enormous extent.
We were told in committee that relocation caused the cost of the centre for the performing arts to soar from an estimate of $18 million to a final figure of approximately $46 million. Yet there was an interdepartmental committee working on this matter. Although we had experts and consultants costing us hundreds of thousands of dollars for their advice, the costs of the centre continued to go up and up and up, completely out of control. I suppose similar remarks would be true with respect to bridges, overpasses and things of that sort in any consideration of the Beachburg line. We must have necessary changes, of course, with respect to the Beachburg line but we ought to see that there is co-ordination in planning and that the N.C.C. is not interfered with in its over-all responsibility in these matters in the future.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I am not surprised, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member who has just sat down has been chewing again at his favourite bone, the National Arts Centre. It must not be thought that his low opinion of the architecture is shared by all.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am concerned about the site.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: The hon. member talks of the site but he was quite insulting about the aesthetic aspect of the building. I will not discuss the site with him since I expect the minister may want to do that. I merely point out that a similar Philistine attitude toward modern architecture was displayed by some of the less farsighted citizens of Toronto. I suggest that the national arts centre will be to Ottawa what the fine, new city hall is to Toronto.
May I refer the hon. member to a commentary which appeared in the Montreal Star of November 23. It was written by Eric McLean and reads as follows:
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I have seen most of the new theatre, concert-hall, and opera buildings on this continent, the ones at Los Angeles and Indianapolis being the
November 25, 1968	COMMONS
most important exceptions, and I have no hesitation in saying that the Ottawa project will outshine them all.
Farther on he describes the National Arts Centre as:
-a real work of art:	an enduring piece of
architecture that will go a long way towards making the heart of Ottawa a showplace.
I do not say whether the opinion of Eric McLean, which is shared by others, is correct, or whether the artistic judgment of the hon. member who has just taken his seat is correct, but I do point out that there are different points of view on this matter. Personally I think that the National Arts Centre will be a structure of which the citizens of Ottawa as well as the people of Canada generally will be justly proud.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I was interested in the remarks made this afternoon by the hon. member for Ottawa East because of his particular knowledge of this subject and his particular interest in it over a long period of time. I share his regret that the minister really did not say anything about what he hoped the National Capital Commission would do with regard to the many problems it has, except that we need to equalize the bilingual and bicultural balance by having more buildings erected in the province of Quebec. But this is only a small part of the commission's problems, unless the commission chooses to build another edifice like the one erected recently in confusion square.
Our national capital should be developed in a way acceptable to Canadians who visit it from all parts of Canada. I agree that Ottawa and its surrounding area are in a most beautiful location. I will not disagree with the hon. member for Ottawa West who has said that there are probably more green areas in Ottawa than anywhere else, but I point out that Ottawa has the worst transportation system of any place of comparable size. What does the minister suggest that we do to cope with the transportation problem? I am sure he will tell us that he is going to put up bilingual signs. Such a suggestion burns me up. The province of Quebec has already passed that stage. It has erected international signs that anybody can understand.
People come from all parts of Canada to do business with the various branches of government located in Ottawa. But once they reach here they encounter the transportation problem. The other night was a good example when people found themselves seven hours
DEBATES	3145
Supply-National Capital Commission away from the airport. I would like to discuss the reason for this.
The National Capital Commission started out with a very good plan, the Greber plan, which has already been mentioned in this debate. It was a long-range, 50-year plan which could be extended indefinitely to take care of future expansion. But changes have been made.
If we decided tomorrow to build a road from downtown Ottawa to the airport we would probably have to start construction from the airport end. We already own most of the land as far as Bronson Avenue, but when we reached that point we would probably find that the city fathers could screw up our plan because there would be no outlet for the road to the downtown area. We have done our share in buying up land for the National Capital Commission. We are probably the biggest owners of real estate in the city, although possibly Campeau may be bigger. However, we rent, buy and expropriate property to help develop a national capital plan. But what happens? Every time some joker gets an idea that he wants to build a high-rise building in Ottawa, the city of Ottawa changes its zoning plans.
In effect the city seems subject to the plans of two or three entrepreneurs. In effect there is no plan so far as the city itself is concerned. As I say, we own a lot of land from the airport to Bronson Avenue. It is a combination of abandoned railway line and of land that we bought running along a ravine. But we have never sat down with the National Capital Commission and told the commission what its role should be in negotiating with the municipalities of the area.
I do not know what the relationship is with Hull. I do know we had an unfortunate experience in Hull with respect to the printing bureau. That was not a municipal problem, but there is a building problem in that area. However, I am sure that if we sat down with representatives from Hull we would welcome their participation in the erection of a number of buildings in their area, if that is the over-all plan for the national capital area. On the other hand, I do not think we should build a couple of buildings in Hull if that is not part of the plan, and I do not think we should continue to erect buildings all across the Ottawa scene if this is not in accordance with the Greber plan.
I did not agree, and neither did the late Alexis Caron, with the irresponsible manner in which the abandonment of railway lines
3146	COMMONS
Supply-National Capital Commission was handled in the national capital area. The hon. member for Brandon-Souris has mentioned the Beachburg line. There is not an honest member of this house from the city area who, in considering the abandonment of railway lines and the deals made in that regard, has not had serious doubts as to the shortsightedness of the program. This is a plan which has been changed about a dozen times. I see the hon. member for Ottawa West shakes his head. He has a certain propensity for the city of Ottawa, but some of the city's efforts have had calamitous results.
As an example I mention the building of half a million dollars worth of overpasses for the Beachburg line. I believe the city got two of them constructed. Then it went to the Ontario Municipal Board and found it could not pay for them. Who will pick up the tab for those overpasses? I am sure the minister can tell me. I am sure the National Capital Commission will have to pick it up.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: It is in the estimates.


William Arnold Peters: Those overpasses should never have been built. The N.C.C. will agree they should never have been built.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Where are they?


William Arnold Peters: They are at the end of the station, crossing off Industrial Road and Smythe Road.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: They do not exist. You would have to look hard to find them.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I would like the minister to explain why they do not exist, and what was this exercise in going before the Ontario Municipal Board. An amount of $1 million for two overpasses or two under passes is not a small consideration. It is an example of the inability of the N.C.C. to lay down guide lines for the whole national capital region.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member made a statement-and I believe he was referring to myself-that the overpasses which were built did not need to be built. He said that the Ontario Municipal Board did not give the authority. The facts are that the overpasses were absolutely essential, are being used, and the decision by the Ontario Municipal Board-


Albert Béchard: Order. There is no question of privilege in the remarks of the

DEBATES	November 25, 1968
hon. member. I will ask the hon. member for Timiskaming to continue.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to become involved in an argument on this subject, but I suggest there is considerable controversy in respect of this matter. I should like to refer to the argument used by my colleague and several other members to the effect that a committee should be set up to study this matter. It is my understanding the hon. member is probably right in saying that these overpasses are being used, but it was not necessary that they be built. The railway should not have gone there. It should have been removed. More consideration should have been given to the moving of the passenger service from downtown. This matter will have to be reconsidered in another ten years if one wants to get to the city of Montreal on a rapid ground transportation system. This was one of the mistakes that were made.
I might also point out that I believe the hon. member was a member of the city council at the time the plan originally called for the station to be located a considerable distance from where it is now. At that time, because of pressure put on council by the real estate people of Ottawa who control the board of control, the station was moved a number of blocks farther in. No explanation was ever given concerning why this took place.
My complaint is against the government because of its failure to establish enough control through the National Capital Commission over these things in the interest of over-all planning. I do not blame the people of Ottawa or the city of Ottawa for wishing to build the tallest high-rise buildings that can be built. The cost of $1 per foot for high-rise apartment or office buildings is obviously related to real estate values and because of this I do not blame anybody for wanting to erect high-rise buildings. What I do wonder about, however, is whether we should allow them to do this if it is not in our interests or in the interests of the National Capital Commission on the basis of orderly development. If somebody wants to erect an office building in downtown Ottawa and exceed the height limit, perhaps the peace tower should be raised another 100 or 200 feet at their expense. In this way possibly we could keep ahead of them. Maybe we should raise the peace tower until it becomes another Eiffel tower. As someone just pointed out, perhaps it would help some of my colleagues attain
November 25, 1968

their final resting place with a higher authority.
Personally I have no use for the city of Ottawa or its administration. I have never seen a city so badly administered. The contribution the federal government must give through the National Capital Commission is much greater then the contribution we would normally give to any other city. First of all, I believe it is necessary that the city not be industrialized but rather be oriented toward government offices, civil servants, and this type of thing. I do not believe we should attempt to mix industrial development and capital development in the same city on any basis. I am not opposed to the government helping to fix some of the streets. Anybody who drives on some of the streets must wonder whether money can improve their condition. They would probably think that what is needed is brains. In the ten years I have been driving down Kent street it has always seemed that the street was being torn up.
I might give an example. At one time I lived in the east end of the city of Ottawa. A colleague and I shared a house there. There was a gravel road on the street. There was no water. The house in which we lived had a pump in the basement as well as a septic tank in the backyard. One morning when we came down to get our car we noticed that the street had been dug up to put in water pipes. It was filled in and then a couple of days later we drove over a new gravel road which was being ripped up again to put in sewers. They did the same thing three or four times. Finally the road was paved. One day I saw a man there with a little electric device. He was looking at everybody's lawn. I said to him, "Now, what?" He said, "I am looking for the telephone line." So they dug it up again. This is the way everything is done in this town. It would appear that money is no object. But I do not think we should be providing it.
The National Capital Commission has accomplished very good things. I believe that anyone who comes to Ottawa from another part of Canada must gain a very good impression of the type of country in which we live when they drive along the parkways we have developed through the Gatineau hills. Facilities have been provided there for tourists. I am sure everyone feels at home in that area. Every year the Rotary Club has what is called an adventure in citizenship for bright young people from across this country. Frankly, I might say that this is the only way members of parliament have an opportunity
DEBATES	3147
Supply-National Capital Commission to see the National Capital Commission. They are hosts to us, with our own money. At such times we have an opportunity to visit some of these parks and parkways with these young people. I am very pleased that these young people have an opportunity to see what has been done in this regard by the National Capital Commission.
Nothing is said, however, about the cesspools in Ottawa. We really have two. We have a large one and a smaller one. The whole Rideau river is a cesspool. There are weeds right down to the bottom; it stinks. Property along this river should be very valuable, but with the present situation the farther one gets away from the river the more valuable property should be. There seems to be an inability to do anything about this situation. It is not really the responsibility of the National Capital Commission, but I believe it is something about which we should be concerned. I believe also that some money should be spent on the canal. In my opinion it is the canal around which the beauty of the city should be built.
Then there is the new arts centre. I am not an architect and therefore I do not know whether it is good or bad. But what about the driveway? How does one get on and off it? Because of the location of the arts centre the end of the driveway just filters into a maze of city streets. There really is no federal driveway there. You have to be an expert to get on it at all and almost have to be an expert in order to get off. It is necessary to go through back alleys.
I believe there are many things we should be thinking about. I feel that the minister is very much of a provincialist. If he were not he would be doing something about a problem which is unique not only in respect of Ottawa and Hull but in respect of the other areas involved. I refer to the difficulty in fitting the regional government plan into the national capital plan. If we want this, then I believe the federal government will have to put up the money. In fairness to the city of Ottawa I would agree that the overpasses were their interpretation of what they would finally be able to get away with in terms of the Beachburg line and connecting roadways in that area. It should never have been left in doubt as to what they would be able to get away with, particularly when the federal government picks up much of the tab regional development. The federal government will have to make an offer to the 50 or 60 municipalities concerned in this area in return for control.
November 25, 1968
3148	COMMONS
Supply-National Capital Commission [DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
At some time in the future we will have to make some provision to institute an electoral procedure in respect of these necessary changes. I am not in favour of doing what has been done in Washington and taking away voting rights. On the other hand, I do not think we should provide large sums of money and allow these authorities to take control over a great number of things including the problem of pollution in the Ottawa and Rideau rivers and the Rideau canal. These authorities should not have control over roads in this area. If the federal government is going to put up the money, as it should, it must retain some control on a basis which will allow the people of Ottawa a vote or a say of some sort.
As an example let me refer to what happened on the street where I live. The people found that the hydro authority had torn down the street lights and replaced them with new ones located up in the branches of trees. The people filed a petition and as a result of representations the new lights were taken down and replaced by a system similar to the original one. They now are faced with an additional tax of $70 per year to cover the cost of tearing down the new street lighting system which replaced the original system. Of course, this is progress. If this is progress, surely we are not interested in having the National Capital Commission assist.
If Kent street is going to be paved and the federal government intends to participate, we had better find out what is being done and has been done under the ground before we make an agreement. This is the type of control which should be exercised by the National Capital Commission. The people of Ottawa are getting tired of this sort of thing.
This whole thing does not involve a part time ministry because this is not a part time job. The job of the National Capital Commission requires a great deal of attention. During the 11 years I have been here the federal government has not exercised sufficient control in this direction. The hon. member for Brandon-Souris has referred to corporate planning. I am not sure that this is a good idea. Certainly the government has not looked into it sufficiently. No minister in power since I have been here has had time to look into this situation. Neither has any committee of this house had the opportunity to consider what is being done. Surely at some point of time this should be done. I hope the minister will consider sending this subject matter to a


committee which will have the opportunity of looking at the problem.
Let me conclude by suggesting that the problems involved are not few. Ottawa city council as well as Eastview and the city of Hull will fight for their rights. A great many things are involved. A number of the authorities have mixed feelings about regional development which was brought about in this area by the provincial government not long ago. I personally do not feel that regional development should have been allowed to proceed as far as it has without the involvement of the federal government. This government has made tremendous contributions to this area and will undoubtedly contribute a great deal more. If this is not done there will be no acceptance of this area as the national capital. The national capital should and must satisfy the needs of the people in all parts of Canada. Development must be considered from a cost point of view and must involve the co-operation of every district in this area.
Let me leave with the minister the hope that he will accept his responsibility and that in respect of necessary changes he will consider the full scope of the operation. It might well be that the minister might consider the appointment of a minister without portfolio under the jurisdiction of his department to take this responsibility. It seems to me that we are moving in all directions. It may well be that we feel the National Arts Centre is an advantage. I am sure it was given careful consideration. It may well be that the person we hired may have increased the cost by 100 per cent as a result of suggestions made to people who were not aware of the situation. Perhaps they accepted his suggestions, whether good or bad, because he was the expert and they were not.
This may well be true of the National Capital Commission in recent years. Perhaps we have not given enough direction for them to exercise authority. We should seek a somewhat stronger method of providing for those changes which should be made and a stronger National Capital Commission authority. Obviously its authority is not sufficient at this time to solve regional development problems as they occur in respect of individual streets, the green belt, parks and other areas which make up this city. This authority should take into consideration many other problems which concern extending the area. We may want to extend the national capital region in other directons, for example, to include Eastview which has never been considered to any extent in the development of this capital area.
November 25, 1968

[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Mr. Isabelle:: Mr. Chairman, I would like first of all to say how much interest I take in the National Capital Commission and today I would like to make my humble contribution to the study of the estimates of that commission which was created many years ago and which, although it might make mistakes, has certainly brought some benefits to the region of Hull and vicinity which I represent.
However, since all things must pass, I would say that the National Capital Commission is now facing a problem which may extend a little beyond the scope of its terms of reference.
I think that problem is urgent, since it was mentioned by members of all parties in the house. To give only a few dates when the National Capital Commission was mentioned, I would refer first to Hansard for September 19, 20, 23 and 25, October 2, 16, 17, 21, 23 and 31, and November 5 and 6 of this year. There is certainly a problem, and something must be done in that direction.
Looking at geography, one notices that the area of Hull-which I am happy to represent-is truly part of the region of the national capital, and it has been for a long time.
The object of the National Capital Commission has mainly been re-development as far as parks and planning are concerned, with a view to beautifying the national capital, Ottawa. For that, some kind of monster government was created, the administration of which proved very difficult due to manifold jurisdictions on both sides. The National Capital Commission is like a mushroon which grew and to which we did not pay much attention. Today, it has become an organization which has to be rejuvenated and whose jurisdiction must be amended.
Mr. Chairman, I now wish to deal with a problem about which the National Capital Commission should do more, even though it may not be concerned directly. I am thinking of transportation which I will discuss in a few moments.
I feel that, today, the N.C.C. should be replaced-and not because it did not play a great or useful role-by a type of tripartite commission grouping representatives of the Ontario, Quebec and federal governments within which the N.C.C. could become a division of the Department of Public Works. In that way, the N.C.C. would not run into problems of jurisdiction, at times with Quebec, at
Supply-National Capital Commission others with Ontario, as well as-it must be recognized-with Ottawa, especially where modes of transportation between provinces are concerned.
Mr. Chairman, I decided to participate in the debate because when I spoke of geography a while ago, I also wished to point out the fact that 38.5 per cent of the people living in Hull and vicinity, that "task force" as it is called, work in federal buildings in Ottawa. Another fairly substantial percentage of the population works in Ottawa, so that approximately 50 per cent of the labour force in Hull works in Ottawa. It is therefore obvious that the federal government is responsible for seeing that these people can get to work rapidly and efficiently, and also that transportation be facilitated for those who must use the bridges and who lose an hour or two every day during rush hours.
Another sector of the field of transportation which should fall within federal jurisdiction is that of the joint jurisdiction involved in crossing a river to go from one province to another. The Hull region is part of the national capital area. For this reason, I say that the federal government shares an important responsibility in the transportation field.
Transportation problems do not affect our region only, according to an article I read in a communique released by the Department of Transport, on November 6, 1968. I quote:
Canada cannot maintain a healthy economy if overcrowded roads and inefficient public transportation hinder productivity of the cities. Due to the fact that urban transportation constitutes about one fifth of the total cost of the urban economic activity, measures intended to improve the efficiency of urban transportation may be profitable to the national economy as well as to the improvement of the standard of living of most Canadians.
Mr. Chairman, this brings me to the subject I had in mind, namely the ever present traffic problem between our two cities.
There is no point in my referring to previous years to remind you that transportation in Ottawa is creating problems beyond the imagination of its civic leaders. I do not have to picture for you the extent to which the city of Hull is getting bogged down in its city transportation.
The whole problem is due to the fact that, two or three times a day during peak hours, there are huge traffic bottlenecks on the bridges which result in bringing traffic to a crawl as thousands of persons are waiting in inadequate automobiles which pollute the air and paralyse traffic.
November 25, 1968

Supply-National Capital Commission
This traffic problem is not unique. But why should we attempt to develop our industrial, touristic and commercial activities if, because of the increased density of traffic, they bring about bottlenecks, confusion and a deplorable delays.
Mr. Chairman, it is a well known fact, although it is hard to explain, that in an intelligently organized society such as ours, we always think of transportation and communication problems too late, when they reach a dangerous and even catastrophic stage.
To give an example of what I mean, just consider that, in a country such as ours, buzzing with activity, dynamic and open to every technical progress, means of transportation in the capital area are as obsolete, old fashioned, inadequate and deplorable as in the days of the horse and buggy. As I said, the national capital problem, with regard to traffic and transportation between both provinces, is not of course peculiar to our country.
Every large city in the world is faced with this kind of traffic thrombosis. The problem is considered so serious by our American neighbours that the government places it immediately after the Viet Nam conflict as a matter of public concern. Specialized services spend millions of dollars in an attempt to find new solutions.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
In fact, the main problem in the national capital area is the automobile which the majority of people use as a means of transportation in the cities. Most of the time, it is used strictly for personal prestige.
At the present time, there are in the United States 90 million passenger cars, and this figure increases by 5 per cent every year. At the same time, there is a spectacular decrease in travel by railways. From 790 million in 1964, the number of passengers decreased to 299 million in 1965, while the number of users of city transportation decreased by 45 per cent.
Furthermore, the automobile is responsible in the country for about 50,000 accidental deaths a year, for pollution of the air, and for noise in the city, to say nothing of the inconvenience it creates for pedestrians as well as parking problems in certain cities such as New York, Montreal, Paris, Tokyo and so on.
The time has come for us to consider in a realistic and intelligent way the problem of traffic congestion in the national capital area. Studies have also been made in our region. In

fact, there has been a master plan since 1964, and various reports have been prepared on ways to improve our transportation system. However, a report is just another document if it is not followed by concrete measures. The best study, if it remains on file for years, is as useless as if it did not exist.
In the national capital area, we are facing the urgent need to set up immediately an adequate transportation system to facilitate the human and commercial traffic between the Ottawa and Hull areas; there are about 175,000 inhabitants in the latter. As I said earlier, 50 per cent of those people work in Ottawa and their only means of transport are slow and clumsy busses which, during rush hours, pollute the air and slow down traffic. The result is hours of waiting, delays, annoyance and added fatigue for the public, not to speak of a waste, that is hard to assess but very real. I would not be surprized if there were soon to be more psychiatrists in the area on account of the psychological troubles which may be caused by this waste of the talents of most of the Public Service employees who go home by bus in the evening.
In wintertime, the situation is worse and even more complicated. It becomes a real hardship for the workers and with the continual development of industrial and commercial activity in the area, with the great urban and social projects we are planning, the transportation problem will soon become unbearable.
In fact, those who are in charge of the National Capital Commission today, of whom the hon. Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Marchand) is one, hope that we will see in the Hull area one day developments as spectacular as those now taking place in Ottawa. In view of the good intentions of the minister, I am confident that the Hull area will at last be given the attention it deserves, since it is an integral part of the national capital.
Naturally, this situation does not enhance our prestige. If the national capital area itself does not have an adequate transportation system, what suggestions will be made for the other cities in the country? I think action should be taken. It is high time we did something, since we have the perfect opportunity of linking the centre of Hull and the centre of Ottawa by a system which I should like to outline, and which could be used as a pilot project for rapid transportation to different points within certain Canadian cities.
November 25. 1968	COMMONS
First of all, we would have to build a line about a mile long which would cost several million dollars. The other day I read in the newspaper that a line about 1 mile long for example, would immediately eliminate daily traffic congestion between Ottawa and Hull.
In this field, Mr. Chairman, we would find the opportunity to make innovations and to equip our capital with the most flexible, economic, efficient, as well as the most modern means of transportation, the monorail transportation which is not affected by crowds or whether conditions. It uses free space allowing all sorts of future developments and technical daring. Besides

this is an important feature for those who have at heart the comfort of our citizens-aerial transportation by monorail or hanging containers constitutes the most pleasant system for the user.
It was said recently that this might cost more than $2 million per mile. I checked those figures and I must say that, in France- where it has become the fashion to build some almost every year-they add to this rapid mode of transport and it costs from $600,000 to $800,000 per mile. The railway costs from $2.5 to 3 million per mile while the highway costs from $1 to $1.5 million per mile. So, this is more economical.
I should also say that this means of transportation is not hypothetical, and I am not suggesting it as an experiment. After extensive studies, some foreign cities, several years ago, decided on elevated transportation systems, of which there are several types. These are Pittsburgh, Diablo in California, Tokyo, Chateauneuf, Grenoble and Chamonix, where the economic and human advantages of this transportation system have been confirmed. I hope I will be able to submit in the near future a detailed report on the subject by consulting engineers. Unfortunately, during my trip to Europe, I did not have time to visit the system being built in Lyons. I hope to do so before long.
This would be an ideal way of communication for those two parts of population having to cross the river two or three times a day to reach their working place in Ottawa. I understand that it is a somewhat challenging project and that many people may say I am perhaps dreaming in colour. Some may also say that, according to experts, the monorail is an unpractical mode of transport.
I know that in Tokyo, for instance, the monorail that was built in 1964 proved uneconomic, for the simple reason that an error was made in its design. The monorail is
DEBATES	3151
Supply-National Capital Commission designed to transport a large number of people from one point to another, and not to stop at several stations. Neither is it used-at least in 1964, in Tokyo-to connect the capital to the airport. As a matter of fact, when it was built, this transportation system was still too new to derive full benefit from its use.
At all events, at the rate things are going, it is being experimented in France where it has been found the fastest means of transportation to carry people from one point to another.
I would favour the idea of a monorail linking Ottawa and Hull and going back and forth between the old Union station and the old streetcar terminal in Hull. This would call for the construction of a line about three quarters of a mile long, which would allow the transportation of thousands of commuters every fifteen minutes. In addition to unburdening urban transportation systems on both sides of the river, it would reduce their load by about 75 per cent and increase their efficiency by about 50 per cent. I am making this suggestion because I think it might be profitable. However, I think the federal government should pour in some of its own money to help launch this pilot-project which, in addition to being a tourist attraction, would allow thousands of people in Hull and Ottawa to commute more easily across the river to get to work and back.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
If I made that proposal it is because I have been considering the problem of public transportation for a long time. If we follow the principle that automobiles must be withdrawn from traffic, in order to increase the available space for tourists and those who have some shopping to do, I think that this would be great savings for workers who have to come to work in Ottawa as well as for those who are working in Hull.
Mr. Chairman, if I said at the beginning of my remarks that I thought it advisable to substitute to the National Capital Commission a tripartite commission, it is because I believe that the National Capital Commission at the present time is outmoded. Consequently, instead of trying to amend the legislation, this commission should be established and then the National Capital Commission would become what it has always been basically, a branch of the Department of Public Works. This new commission would have jurisdiction, after consultations with the Quebec and Ontario governments and the federal government.
November 25, 1968
3152	COMMONS
Supply-National Capital Commission
This is the humble contribution which I wanted to make, Mr. Chairman. I would like to see that implemented one day or another- before my death-since I know that I will live a long time and that it often takes some time before projects are carried out for the Hull area. Moreover, I know that thanks to our dynamic minister, to people like his friend on the right, the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) to the intelligence of the mayors of Ottawa and Hull, one day we will all be in a position to meet-for the welfare of the people whom we represent-so that the capital of Ottawa-Hull may become a cristallization of all that has been advocated on bilingualism for the last 50 years. It will be for all Canadians who will come to Ottawa the crystallization of that idea of bilingualism and two cultures existing side by side and separated by an obstacle, a purely imaginary border line.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: I hope also that the time will be past when the people of Hull crossing over to Ottawa were punished because they came to work in Ottawa. Having to work in Ottawa-when one travels from north to south one pays double fare whereas when one travels from east to west, on the south shore of the river, one pays single fare only. Since the majority of the people in Hull work in Ottawa, I think that is a grave injustice that should be rectified.
I am grateful to the National Capital Commission for everything it has done. In my opinion, no other body, if it were created today, could do as much, but I think that the usefulness of the National Capital Commission is over. Other means must be used in the administration and that is what I am hoping for with all my heart.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to go back over every problem put before the committee this afternoon. Let me merely point out that the powers of the National Capital Commission are extremely restricted, that is the only true powers it has are powers of expropriation. Besides those, the actual powers still belong to municipalities and the provincial government. So when the commission is blamed for not being perspicacious or for not doing certain things, in most cases, that is wrong, because the actual powers-even those of planning and development-belong to municipalities and to provinces, and not to the National Capital Commission.


In December 1967, the federal government, in co-operation with the Ontario and Quebec governments, established a special committee to study the problem of the national capital area. This committee has just reported to the Prime Minister of Canada and, through him, to the Ontario and Quebec premiers. This report has not yet been considered but it has been presented and we do hope that, in a short time-that is, within a few months-the government will have been able not only to formulate its own policy with regard to the National Capital area but, at the same time, to convince the provinces and the municipalities as to the best way to proceed in order to reach the objectives set forward in the legislation on the National Capital Commission.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I think that the most legitimate request formulated this afternoon was to the effect that a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons, or a committee of the house only, be appointed to study more closely the estimates of the National Capital Commission and all its projects as well as, let us say, its procedure with regard to its objectives as set forth in the legislation.
I intend to set up that committee as soon as the government is ready to present an overall plan, on new structures or new objectives, which should be proposed to the National Capital Commission.
However, that may take months, Mr. Chairman, and I feel that the wisest thing to do would be for the committee to approve, this afternoon, the estimates as they stand and then wait until that committee is created. Personally, I feel it should be a joint committee of the House of Commons and Senate, so that the members who are interested can discuss at length, without any rush, the problem of the national capital which, as has already been mentioned, is not merely the problem of the people of Ottawa, or the people of Hull, but the problem of the whole Canadian people.
And so, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that this procedure should be followed. I suggest to those who have specific and well-founded problems, in most cases, that they wait, for I am convinced that they are not satisfied with the representations they made and that they intend to pursue the matter further. That opportunity will be given to them when a joint committee is set up which will have all the time required to look into the matter and report to the house.
November 25, 1958


Mr. Clermont:: Mr. Chairman, under vote No. 20, I read:
Planning and Design, $1,175,000.
Is there a portion of this amount for planning and design earmarked for western Quebec or the city of Hull?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, this money is earmarked for the two provinces, for the two cities of Ottawa and Hull.


Gaston Clermont: Again under vote No. 20, We can read:
Grants in lieu of Taxes-
No doubt, Mr. Chairman, the minister is aware that, from time to time, we read in newspapers criticisms with regard to the National Capital Commission's property in western Quebec, and particularly in the city ^I Hull, because these properties are not subject to taxation. Will this sum of $475,000, for 1968-69 remedy the situation?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, this money is intended for all the municipalities of the national capital region.
As everyone knows, all the sums must be approved by the Treasury Board before they are paid to the municipalities.
I cannot say what was done about each recommendation of the commission, but regarding those amounts, I know that some recommendations concerned not only the city of Ottawa, but other municipalities as well.


Gaston Clermont: Mr. Chairman, this is the purpose of my question: once in a while, I read in the newspapers that some representatives of the city of Hull complain about the fact that the National Capital Commission does not pay the full amount of property taxes that it should and that the city loses an annual revenue of many thousands of dollars. Will the $475,000 help correct this deficiency, if any?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I know that the request mentioned by the hon. member (Mr. Clermont) came to my office. It was referred to Treasury Board with the recommendation of the commission. We are waiting for the decision of Treasury Board.


The Chairman:: Shall vote No. 20 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
3153
Supply-National Capital Commission
25. Payment to the National Capital Fund, $15,000,000.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman I should like to find a vote referred to by another member, the one covering the cost to the National Capital Commission of the over-passes on the Beachburg line. Would it be possible to draw that to my attention?


Jean Marchand: That is not in there; it has been paid for previously.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Perhaps I could be helpful in this respect. Is it covered in the $39 million that is mentioned in the annual report with regard to railway relocation and construction?
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


William Arnold Peters: I mention this because I discussed the matter with officials of the commission at the time. They said they would not be paying this amount and had no authority to do so. But I told them: You can cover it up much better than the city of Ottawa can. And now we will have to pay for it. The hon. member for Brandon-Souris said the report indicated that payment had been made, obviously by the commission. But this was not an agreement reached with anyone; it was not part of the deal when the line was abandoned. It was a tab that somebody had to pick up because the arrangement had been proceeded with. Even the minister must agree that this is a sloppy way of doing business. Our partners in an agreement cannot do something because the law does not allow it so we have to do it on their behalf. The sum at issue here amounts to about $1,500,000. It is all out in the open because the Ontario Municipal Board held a hearing in connection with it. Residents in the Beachburg line area made very good representations.
If we pass this estimate, what we are really saying is that we do not care whether matters are arranged in this way or whether it is a good way or not. In my opinion this is a poor deal, and the Canadian public will once again have to pick up the bill for Ottawa's mistakes without the house being asked to give formal approval to the expenditure. If the minister says it has already been paid, very well. But I think the country will be awfully surprised if this committee agrees to making good a mistake of this kind in Ottawa's favour without getting anything in return.
The minister is familiar with the process of negotiation. Usually one is prepared to make a concession if something else is given by the other side. We do not seem to be negotiating
November 25, 1968

Supply-National Capital Commission in this way with Ottawa. At least five more overpasses are involved, besides the removal of the Beachburg line itself. There should be a clear understanding that the federal government, through the commission, will not bear the cost of the other four or five overpasses and one underpass, and that we intend to demand the removal of the line itself. The underpass at Smythe Road may not be a total loss because the commission might be able to use that area for its buildings and enterprises. But the others could well be a total loss.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, as regards the request made by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), we do not have the details. We shall obtain them and we shall then be in a position to distribute the costs between the National Capital Commission and the city of Ottawa. This will be done and the hon. member will get the information.


William Arnold Peters: I am sure that if hon. members had read the Ottawa papers they would not agree that this item could be allowed to pass unchallenged. In my opinion the National Capital Commission had no legal authority whatsoever to hand over this money. It had less legal authority than the city of Ottawa did, and the city had absolutely none. Somebody had to pay for this so we paid for it. I do not know whether hon. members think this is a good way of doing business. As far as I am concerned the argument this afternoon is all about the authority of the commission in relation to agreements of this kind. We make agreements and then the city does not live up to them and we get stuck with the consequences. If members agree to this item they have either changed their minds on the question of its legality or else they do not know that they are paying it, which is worse.


Jean Marchand: There is no provision in the estimates for an overpass this year. The hon. member is talking about money that is already spent. All those expenditures have been approved by the Treasury Board and by the Minister of Finance. We do not propose in these estimates any amount concerning overpasses in Ottawa.


William Arnold Peters: I think you do.


Mr. Bell:: As one who resides in Ottawa in the Beachburg line area I wish to support the hon. member for Timiskaming and the hon.

member for Brandon-Souris in asking whether the amounts which were paid out from the federal treasury in connection with the Beachburg line subdivision, Smythe Road, the Hurdman area and so on are included in this item of $39 million which is shown as cumulative assets in schedule A. If they are I think at some stage, not necessarily immediately, we are entitled to information as to our contribution to this whole Beachburg line fiasco, if I may use that word.


William Arnold Peters: It has been paid for, it is being paid for, and it is being paid for by the treasury. Therefore some provision must be in this estimate. I do not see any details at all, just a general figure. Payment was not authorized under the original agreement and it was not authorized in the course of the deal which was made between the railways, the city of Ottawa and the National Capital Commission. This arrangement was made by the city of Ottawa itself. I am sure the National Capital Commission is picking up this tab. It is the only body that can do so. The law does not allow the city of Ottawa to pick it up, and I do not believe the aldermen and council of that day paid it out of their own pockets. I assume we paid it. If the minister says we did not, I should be interested to hear him.


Jean Marchand: I can tell the
hon. member that all the money which was spent was approved by the Treasury Board, by the Minister of Finance and by the minister responsible for the National Capital Commission. If members want a breakdown of the $39 million we are ready to provide it so that the committee may know exactly how the money was spent.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am sure the minister has the report of the National Capital Commission before him-the 1967-68 report, Part II. I have been trying to discover for myself just what is involved in this cumulative total presented on page 14 under the heading "railway lines and structures". In 1967 the total was $35,634,719, and in 1968 it was $39,307,116. I presume that the Beachburg line expenditure would be included in that total. I have searched through this report and there is no breakdown anywhere. We are told that the acquisition of property, for example, in connection with the green belt, cost almost $37 million, which is a substantial amount, but there is no similar breakdown as far as I can see in connection with the subject we are now discussing. I presume this omission arises from the fact that the whole Beachburg
November 25, 1968

proposition was an afterthought, not included in the original planning. There still seems to be confusion in this regard.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Is it not possible to indicate to the satisfaction of the committee whether the additional expenditures for the Beachburg plan, as contrasted with the Walkley Road plan, are represented in this substantial figure of $39 million? I made the point in my initial statement that it is these sudden changes, on the basis of modification and refinement, that seem to get us into trouble with these huge expenditures. The committee ought to know the basis of these estimates.


Jean Marchand: We might break the estimates down, Mr. Chairman. When the hon. member complains that the expenditures on the green belt have been $36 million I point out that that amount is not for last year. That has been spent since 1947. The same is true for the $39 million spent on railways. That $39 million has been spent since the inception of the commission, or in the period from April 1, 1947, to March 31, 1968. Of course, we can break down the amounts that have been spent but all these amounts of money have been approved regularly. If the hon. member wishes for more details we can try to produce them.


William Arnold Peters: The minister seems unable to say how these expenditures have been covered, if one may put it that way. Obviously the National Capital Commission has had authority for that expenditure. It has been approved by the minister and by Treasury Board. Yet it seems to me that the matter of the Beachburg line contravenes certain agreements which have been made, and I am wondering how that has come about. Why are these matters not set out more clearly in the commission's estimates so that we can find out exactly what has happened? One may argue that expenditures which have been made were foolish. Nevertheless, when a contractor has done a job he is entitled to be paid. I think there ought to be greater detail in these estimates. Certainly I do not think we ought to go back 30 years to find out what happened. The Beachburg matter is a special expenditure and ought to appear as such.
Clearly the municipality and the federal government do not always see eye to eye. If the government says it will build a road from the airport to Heron Road, the municipality may say: In that case we shall build a road
3155
Supply-National Capital Commission somewhere else. That kind of thing does go on.


An hon. Member:: We have had sloppy
bookkeeping.


William Arnold Peters: I wonder why a better job was not done with regard to these estimates. Certainly this expenditure is not normal. I do not see why it does not appear in a different form.


Thomas Miller Bell: Although I am not too knowledgeable about the Beachburg line matter I do say that under our parliamentary system members must exercise their responsibilities. I realize that the minister was not involved in the original decisions on this matter. All the same, under our parliamentary system we must approve in a general way lavish expenditures such as those that have obviously been made on the Beachburg line.
I do not know whether those expenditures were justified. From what I have heard generally and in the streets of Ottawa, the Beachburg line appears to be a fiasco. Perhaps the entire matter ought to be investigated by a committee. Obviously it is too late to stop the entire business but we must exercise our responsibilities under the parliamentary system and go into the matter to determine in dollars and cents how much has been spent and how much ought to be spent on the Beachburg line project.
The form of the estimates is to be changed and there is no sense in holding up these estimates. I think, however, that it might be a good idea to bring this entire matter before the public accounts committee. I say that as one who has always had doubts about this matter. As members of parliament we all have a responsibility to look into the matter. I am not suggesting that there has been anything dishonest here.


An hon. Member:: It was sloppy.


Thomas Miller Bell: There has been no corruption. It is just a matter of sloppy bookkeeping and we ought to look into the entire business, no matter if we are from Ottawa or from other parts of Canada.


Jean Marchand: I think the hon. member is quite right. We do not want to hide anything and I hope we shall have an opportunity to look into this in depth. I hope to bring this opportunity about in future.
The overpasses are part of an agreement. The N.C.C. paid its share and the city of Ottawa paid its share, and there is nothing
3156	COMMONS
Supply-National Capital Commission wrong with that arrangement. As the hon. member knows, parliament votes certain funds to the commission and before expenditures are made they are once again approved by the Treasury Board, the Minister of Finance and the minister in charge of the project. This has been the general procedure that has been followed. Of course, if the house wishes any information it is entitled to have it. That is why I want to break down some of these items and at the next opportunity or occasion we will supply the details to the house.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: When the minister says "the next occasion", what occasion does he have in mind? It is important for us to know how soon this information will be available and in what form it will be given to us. Will the minister present it to a committee of the house?


Jean Marchand: Of course, there will be the estimates for 1969-70. Those are far away, I know. But if we constitute this committee we speak of I hope to have all the information ready to supply to its members. In that way they will know exactly what is going on in the commission.


William Arnold Peters: Could the minister ask the National Capital Commission to give interested members of parliament a report on all the stages the commission went through in arriving at its decision to act on the Beachburg line matter? I am not asking for original agreements or anything like that. At one stage there seems to have been a breakdown in discussions. We want to know what took place after that.
An agreement was entered into and then some things were done that were contrary to that agreement. It is true that the National Capital Commission acted reluctantly. We want a breakdown of what happened. On the understanding we are to have that breakdown we are prepared to pass these estimates. This is a matter of public accounting.


Jean Marchand: We will try to supply the information the hon. member seeks as soon as possible. Perhaps it will be within the next few days.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
(The following items were agreed to:) National Capital Commission-
L90. Loans to the National Capital Commission in accordance with section 16 of the National

DEBATES	November 25, 1968
Capital Act for the purpose of acquiring property in the National Capital Region, excluding property being acquired for the purpose of establishing what is commonly referred to as the "Greenbelt", $4,500,000.
L95. Loans to the National Capital Commission in the current and subsequent fiscal years in accordance with section 16 of the National Capital Act for the purpose of acquiring property in that area of the National Capital Region commonly referred to as the "Greenbelt", $400,000.
James Hugh Faulkner: That concludes consideration of the estimates of the National Capital Commission.
The time being six o'clock shall I rise, report certain resolutions and request leave to sit again later this day?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock it is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton)-Grain-Saskatchewan- reported inadequate drying facilities; the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg)-Post Office Department-reclassification of surplus railway mail clerks.
It being six o'clock the house will now proceed to consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions.



HOSPITAL INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Notices of Motions-Mr. Orlikow:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of including mental hospitals and T.B. sanitoria in the federal hospital insurance program (Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act) so that the provinces will have available sufficient funds to provide for adequate treatment of the mentally ill, those people suffering from T.B. and the care and training of mentally retarded children.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) is
November 25, 1968

at the United Nations I wonder whether this motion could stand and retain its position?


Mr. Speaker:: Stand at the request of the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And
retain its position?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that this motion will retain its position on the order paper?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion stands.



JUSTICE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: That the standing committee on justice and legal affairs be empowered and directed to consider and report on the subject matter of electronic eavesdropping and to recommend legislative action which may be desirable and effective for its control.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I must confess that this motion was placed on the order paper in the hope that it would bring before the house more promptly than a private bill the subject of electronic eavesdropping. I first introduced a bill on this subject at the beginning of the twenty-seventh parliament. I have introduced a more refined bill in this parliament, but I recognize that neither my bill nor others dealing with the same subject which are on the order paper are adequate to cope with the very serious threat to freedom posed by electronic eavesdropping practised in this country.
I am glad to see that this danger has become better known within the last few months. I think there is now the prospect of action on the part of the government to recognize the invasion of privacy which electronic eavesdropping devices represent.
My own bill, Mr. Speaker, tries to raise and touch on most of the issues which have been considered by law, police and civil rights authorities in discussing electronic eavesdropping. It covers a somewhat wider field than proposals which deal with only wiretapping, a rather primitive form of electronic eavesdropping. I do not put forward the suggestions in my bill as the last word but rather as a basis for discussion, and I have submitted this motion in an effort to have the kind of public discussion which I feel is needed in order to develop adequate
Justice and Legal Affairs laws for the control of electronic eavesdropping. My own view is that electronic eavesdropping or wiretapping should be a criminal offence except when performed by police under strict statutory controls. My bill stresses the seriousness of this matter by providing for mandatory imprisonment of between one month and two years upon conviction of unauthorized use of any device for eavesdropping or interception of telephone and telegraph messages, and makes inadmissible in any trial or inquiry information obtained by such means where the use of such listening devices was not authorized in accordance with the statute.
I am encouraged by the fact that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) has indicated that he looks for legislation somewhat along these lines early in the coming year. I think it would be a mistake for the government to propose such legislation without having the benefit of public hearings and a great deal of technical data on this most complicated matter, as well as the opinions of interested individuals and groups in our country. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I hope that my motion will be accepted so that this most serious matter will receive the attention of the standing committee on justice and legal affairs in wide-ranging public hearings, and that legislative action will then be recommended by that committee for consideration by the government and by this house.
I do not see how any member of the house could fail to recognize the serious risk to our freedoms which wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping now constitute. I hope that all hon. members will support this effort to bring the practices in this field out into the open, to learn the extent of the problem, and to develop means of coping with it.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Fundy-Roy-al: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to support the proposal in this motion and I commend the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury) for his initiative in placing this matter before parliament. I hope that the necessary arrangements have been made within the structure of parliament so that the motion can be adopted.
It is more than desirable, it is necessary that criminals be detected and prosecuted as vigilantly as possible. It is more necessary that citizens of a democracy be protected in their rights of privacy from unwarranted snooping. As an instrument for oppression of free citizens, I can think of none worse than indiscriminate wiretapping.
3158	COMMONS
Justice and Legal Affairs
That is an extract from a letter written by the late President Franklin Roosevelt to representative Thomas Eliot some 27 years ago. It was published as part of the material during the hearings of the house judiciary subcommittee on wiretapping in the 77th Congress of the United States.
I think it is extremely valuable that this matter is at last being raised here in Canada through the instrument of parliament. Police and crown prosecutors who have no doubt that an accused is guilty feel frustrated when they cannot prove it. In such cases the use of wiretapping, microphones and other devices of the same kind could be a useful weapon. But such means of combating crime can open the door to many abuses and dangers affecting the privacy of people. Privacy, or the right to be let alone, is perhaps the most personal of all principles. It is also one of the newest in societies which have the capacity to nurture that subtle and most treasured possession of man, his dignity.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
I believe it also rather appropriate at this stage, when meetings are to be held here in Ottawa on human rights starting on Sunday, December 1, and continuing for a number of days with a rather ambitious program, and when human rights are being so appropriately stressed by the United Nations, that this issue which affects the human rights of all of us should be the subject matter of debate. The dilemma is whether and to what extent law enforcement officers should be allowed to engage in wiretapping and, if the right is conceded, under which circumstances the tapping should be tolerated?
Already another question arises: Is evidence obtained by tapping in derogation of the law admissible before the courts? A few months ago a royal commission was set up in British Columbia with full powers to conduct the fullest possible inquiry into bugging, the word commonly used. This happened when a certain pulp union president, Lloyd Craig, was found dead in a hotel in Vancouver and electronic eavesdropping equipment was discovered in his room as well as in two other rooms of the hotel. The premier of British Columbia stated that there would be a wide open investigation into all aspects of the case. About the same time in 1967 the prime minister of Britain was asked whether telephones of members of parliament were being

DEBATES	November 25, 1968
tapped. I am glad to see that he allayed the fears of members. He said:
I feel it right to inform the house that that there is no tapping of the telephones of hon. members, nor has there been since this government came into office.
As the hon. member for York-Scarborough points out, the issue here has been the subject matter of various bills but their progress has been frustrated by the fact that up until now parliament, with rare exceptions, has not seen fit to let private members' bills go through. Ramsay Clark, the present attorney general of the United States-and I think the record will show him to be a distinguished one when the heat of the election battle dies-told a senate judiciary committee:
Public safety will not be found in wiretapping. Security is to be found in excellence in law enforcement, in courts, and in corrections. That excellence has not been demonstrated to include wiretapping.
The same report continues:
Legislation proposed by President Johnson would prohibit wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping except in cases directly related to the national security.
In the context of matters which affect our national security I would hope that there would be very careful guide lines set out concerning the circumstances under which the police could exercise this extraordinary remedy. Years ago that very great justice of the United States supreme court, Louis D. Brandeis, had this to say about privacy-and if he were living today I think he would want to have these words underlined three times because our privacy today is being invaded far more than it was in the days of that great judge:
The right to be alone-the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by civilized men.
The writer of the article, Mr. Carl T. Rowan, wrote:
1 find it saddening, perhaps shocking, that the civilized men of our generation submit so meekly to the grossest invasion of privacy-and all because of the expediency of fighting crime or securing the nation against communists and other spies.
Mr. Rowan concludes with these words:
And the right of privacy isn't terribly precious if you don't stand for anything, if you run from all controversy, if your private love life is close enough to non-existent that you aren't bothered by having your boudoir turned into an electronic maze. You can say righteously, 'T've got nothing to hide. Only somebody with something to hide should mind wiretaps and buggings."
November 25, 19G8	COMMONS
Surely our society is not so desperately endangered that to cope with the thugs and the spies we have to give up that "most comprehensive of rights" enjoyed by civilized men.
I think the standing committee on justice and legal affairs would be an appropriate forum before which to have this issued considered. I hope the house will see fit to endorse the proposal.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I take delight in endorsing this motion. It has our wholehearted support and approval. I shall demonstrate my interest in it by saying very little on the subject because it is so commendable I do not think a lot of extra words will add to it. I certainly hope it is passed by the house so that the committee will have an opportunity to examine this question.
As the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) has so eloquently said, there is nothing more fundamental than the right to privacy. We live in an age of electronics and technology. It is an age of ever-expanding means of suppressing the spirit, initiative and individualism of men. We must be very careful in this modern world with its marvels of science and technology that we do not destroy the human spirit.
It is very often suggested that electronic eavesdropping is justified on the ground of efficiency. I do not think it is even efficient. I was involved in one of the first cases in our courts when some electronic eavesdropping material was offered in evidence and as a matter of fact was accepted. From that experience I found how painfully easy it is to doctor up the tapes and recordings that are made by electronic devices. A man could be sentenced to imprisonment or death as a result of doctored evidence that was supposed to have some scientific validity. There are handwriting experts who can deal with writing, but when a voice comes through an electronic device an alteration can be made very easily by a skilful person. Therefore I do not think these devices are even efficient.
I believe that in respect of crime there must be a balance between the public interest and the individual. There must be a balance, but in this field I believe the balance should be weighted on the side of individual rights. So in keeping with my undertaking to be brief I simply commend this motion and hope it will come to a vote.
DEBATES	3159
Justice and Legal Affairs [Translation]


Mr. Jean-Charles Canlin (Louis-Heberf):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) shares the opinion of members of this house who consider the development of this modern technique as having serious effects upon the private life of citizens.
Looking carefully at the motion, one finds that the definition of electronic eavesdropping is flexible enough to include wire tapping in the case of telegraph communications. Therefore, I intend to propose later on, seconded by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) that not only this motion but also Bills Nos. C-17, C-18, C-24 and C-78 be referred to the standing committee of this house on justice and legal affairs.
It is also my intention to ask the house to permit the scope of this motion to be broadened so as to include the bills mentioned above.
Besides, I know that other members would like to speak on this subject. I shall yield to them now, in the hope that I will be given the opportunity to rise again at about 6:55 p.m. and present the motion I just mentioned.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)


Mr. Warren Allmand (Nolre-Dame-de Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to hear the parliamentary secretary state he was prepared to permit this motion to be referred to the committee. As a matter of fact, the motion itself suggests that the question of electronic eavesdropping be referred to the committee on justice and legal affairs. I merely want to state that I give the motion my full support, because of experience I have had with private investigators. There seem to be more and more of them who are using these new electronic devices for eavesdropping or listening in on people. In this day and age people are living in closer and more cramped quarters. Our cities are becoming more populous and people are living almost on top of one another. Privacy is becoming a very rare thing and we must do everything possible to protect it. Perhaps we have reached the point where eavesdropping should be made a crime so that every citizen is protected in respect of his right to privacy.
The hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) quoted some prominent gentlemen and pointed out the importance of the right to privacy, as was pointed out by the hon. member who introduced this measure. The citizens of this country are already being
November 25, 1968

Justice and Legal Affairs looked at, listened to and telephoned against their will. They have very little privacy left, and we must make sure they are not overly subjected to any more infringements of this kind.
The Canadian Bar Association dealt with this matter at a convention held this year, and at that time a lengthy debate on this subject was held. I personally prefer the resolution which was prepared by the civil liberties section of that Canadian Bar Association. However, the one finally passed more or less expresses my thoughts on this subject. It suggested that as a general rule all electronic eavesdropping be made a criminal offence except as may be specifically provided by statute. As I said, I prefer the exception in the original resolution put forward by the civil liberties section, which was to the effect that all electronic eavesdropping be made a criminal offence, with the proviso that electronic eavesdropping may be employed by law enforcement agencies under judicial control; in other words that this should be dealt with in the same way as we now grant warrants for search, arrest and so on.
As some hon. members have said, it is possible that under judicial control, agencies of the crown which are necessary to detect crime might have to use these methods; but they should be subject to strict judicial control. Otherwise we would end up having a system similar to that described by Mr. Orwell, where big brother would have the right to peek in at us, and listen to us against our will. If we were to allow that we would end up with a gradual destruction of one of the most cherished rights we have; that is, the right to privacy.


Mr. Colin D. Gibson (Hamilton-Wenlworlh):: Mr. Speaker, eavesdropping and wiretapping are vicious practices and highly immoral evils. I support the reasonable suggestions advanced today which would empower parliament to enact measures to restrict these evils. It is true that in the field of crime detection, with proper safeguards, such as obtaining an order from a judge, the crown should not be prevented from using these devices in the interests of justice. However, such practice should be carefully confined to approved investigations under strict judicial control, and such controls can be imposed by an alert and modern House of Commons. In my view eavesdropping and wiretapping are extensions of the old law of trespass. The right to privacy needs judicial expression, and now is the time for parliament to create legislation

to protect the citizen from abuse of his right to privacy.
We have this evil in two contexts. First we have the criminal context where, if controls are imposed by parliament with care, eavesdropping and wiretapping may have a good effect in the field of Canadian justice. On the other hand if there is any stretching of the legislative use, or any illegal use, we may have more injustice and a marked increase in trespass.
So far our law does not protect the citizen by spelling out the right to privacy. Capricious business practices must be prohibited as we advance with the technological age. It will be a matter of great satisfaction if parliament brings in progressive legislation to curb the trend toward the invasion of privacy. The time has come to treat such invasions as crimes.
Our neighbours in the United States of America are struggling with this problem. To quote the United States text, "The Intruders" by Senator Edward Long, at page 183:
Most state legislatures, like Congress itself, have failed to keep abreast of advances in the field of privacy invasion.
It continues:
If some vestige of individual privacy is to be preserved for the average American adequate laws both state and federal must be enacted and enforced.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
In this great country of ours I suggest this is a field in which the provinces and the federal government should act. I strongly urge that at subsequent federal-provincial conferences, and if possible at the current one if there is time, this matter should be included on the agenda. The provinces are closely identified with the federal government in tracking down criminals, and I think if there was uniformity through use of the federal-provincial conference as a guide line, all the legislatures could adopt uniform and standard practices from one end of this great nation to the other.


Mr. Hyliard Chappell (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, as a practising barrister I appreciate the problem these new electronic devices have created, including the threat to privacy in almost every way of life. At the same time I recognize the need to use these new devices under control to combat crime as it becomes more sophisticated. It would seem the subject warrants detailed and thoughtful study. We in
November 25, 1968

the committee on justice and legal affairs will welcome it there.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walker-ville):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the motion which is before the house because it seems to me this is a subject which requires a great deal more detailed consideration than it has been possible for it to receive up to this time. I think one of the main reasons for this situation is that traditionally the right of privacy has not been firmly established as one of those rights of the subject which have come down to us through the ages. It is a developing right, a modern right perhaps, as contrasted with some of those which we have had through centuries of English history.
The traditional political freedoms such as the freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly and association, are those which are considered to be necessary for the continuance of our democratic system; they are those which are basic to the political process of this country. Freedom of speech is so directly related to this concept as to require no comment at all. The freedom of assembly, and even that of association, are also, I think, so directly related to the question of maintaining our democratic political system as to require no comment.
But the right of privacy does not have such an intrinsic place in terms of the political process; though I venture to say that many people in this country, if put to the test, if questioned whether they thought the right of privacy was an existing and important right, would perhaps contend that it is the most important right of all. It would seem to them, perhaps, to be more closely related to very fundamental matters such as the freedom of conscience and the freedom of religion.
This whole area has perhaps not been as firmly established in our jurisprudence and history as the more public rights. If we are ever to establish this right more firmly, to consider it not just in its context of wire tapping but also in the other manifestations which it may have in modern life, I think we will have to devote a great deal more study to this matter. This is now being done, of course, in other jurisdictions. In the United States a great deal of attention has recently been devoted to the question of the right of privacy, but it is not a right which in this country has been the subject of such great attention.
Justice and Legal Affairs
I do not believe it is covered in the Canadian Bill of Rights, and perhaps it would not even be included in any revised bill of rights which might be adopted by a Canadian constitutional convention. It has its relationship to the law of torts and to private law subjects such as that, rather than to the field of public law, which is normally the one which is more securely and definitely covered by the bill of rights.
I suppose the justice committee would be restricted in its consideration of the right of privacy to this particular kind of infringement of it. Nevertheless, even in considering this one particular type of infringement a wider consideration would have to be given to this very fundamental and basic right. I would therefore hope that a much more thorough idea of this basic right and its place in our society would emerge as a result of the kind of study which could be given. Therefore I am pleased to support this motion and to express my hope that the justice committee will give the widest possible interpretation to the terms of reference.


David Walter Groos: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak in support of this motion I have only a very few words to say. They are directed to part of the wording of the second line of the motion as follows, "the subject matter of electronic eavesdropping". It is the word "electronic" to which I wish to refer. I hope that when the committee gets down to the work of studying this matter they will not limit themselves to purely electronic eavesdropping, because as they get into this matter they will be aware, as probably you are also, Mr. Speaker, that the matter of surreptitiously listening to other people's conversations goes far beyond purely and simply electronic means.
In this day of such sophisticated Buck Rogers types of things as laser beams, and so forth, which are not exactly electronic in themselves although they may require some electronic device attached to them to suit the purpose-


Mr. Fairweaiher:: Those regional desks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) might want them.


David Walter Groos: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker; I could not hear what the hon. member said, so I cannot comment on it. When the committee gets down to the study of this matter I hope they will not, in these days when there are so many more sophisticated means of listening in to other people's conversations than by
3162	COMMONS
Justice and Legal Affairs purely electronic means, in these days of laser beams and optical means of picking up conversation, find the wording of this notice of motion is too restricted to give them the full benefit in what I think will be very important work.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate that the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mr. Cantin) wishes to take part in the debate, but I must bring to the attention of the house that the hon. member has already spoken on this motion and can take part again only by unanimous consent. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)


Jean-Charles Cantin: Mr. Speaker, as I said a minute ago I am rising to propose that the standing committee on justice and legal affairs be empowered and directed to consider and report on the subject matter of electronic eavesdropping and on the subject matter of Bills C-17, C-18, C-24 and C-78, and to recommend legislative action which may be desirable and effective for its control.


Mr. Speaker:: Before putting the motion before the house I should like to bring to the attention of the house that we are dealing with bills standing in the names of a number of hon. members. I am wondering whether it is quite in order to ask that these bills be discharged from the order paper without some assurance that there is agreement on the part of the members involved to have the subject matter of their bills referred to the committee in question.


Jean-Charles Cantin: I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I have the agreement of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to put forward this motion.
Bill C-17 is to amend the Criminal Code (invasion of privacy) put forward by Mr. Mather; Bill C-18, to amend the Criminal Code (wiretapping, etc.) is put forward by Mr. Peters; Bill C-24, to amend the Criminal Code (control of electronic eavesdropping and wiretapping) is put forward by Mr. Stanbury, and Bill C-78, to amend the Criminal Code (wiretapping, etc.) is put forward by Mr. Orlikow.


Mr. Speaker:: My understanding of the motion proposed by the hon. member for Louis-Hebert is that it would read as follows;
That the motion now before the house be amended by adding after the word "eavesdropping"
[Mr. Groos.l
DEBATES	November 25, 1968
the following: "and of the subject matter of Bills C-17, C-18, C-24, C-78-"


Jean-Charles Cantin: I so move.


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


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion as amended agreed to?
Motion (Mr. Stanbury) as amended agreed to.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, considering the progress we have made tonight, I wonder if the house would agree to call it seven o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there agreement to this proposal?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
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. Bechard in the chair.
Albert Béchard: The committee will resume consideration of the estimates of the Department of Labour which will found at page 264 of the Blue Book, and the details at page 266. For the information of hon. members I may say the estimates were last considered on November 21.



DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

[Stage Direction]
1. General Administration, including grants as detailed in the Estimates, $1,962,100.
Mr. Skoberg:: The other day when vote No. 1 of the estimates of the Department of Labour was being considered, it was suggested by an hon. member that there would be a great exodus of workers from Saskatchewan. I should like to suggest that the exodus of workers from Saskatchewan only began when the Liberal government, the far right Liberal government, took over in that province. It was suggested also that the New Democrats had failed in their attempt to govern that province. I should like to suggest that the only failure of the New Democrats in Saskatchewan was to allow this prairie Gold-
November 25, 1968

water type to get his tentacles on the reins of government. It would be interesting if the premier of the province of Saskatchewan were able to listen to the comments of the Minister of Labour, in so far as these estimates are concerned. I am sure it would be an education for him.
The fact of the matter is that the province, of which I am proud to be a member, experienced an increase in population of some 100,000 during the time the New Democrats were in power. Since the advent of the new Barry Goldwater type of government, we have failed to maintain our natural increase in growth. I am sure this statement could be substantiated quite easily. I may say that whenever the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour speaks I am led to believe that the premier of Saskatchewan is speaking in Ottawa at that time.
There is one aspect of these estimates with which I am pleased, and that is the continual participation of our government in the labour college of Canada. If I read the estimates correctly, I believe the government has increased its objective somewhat in that area. In my view this is one of the most worthwhile projects in which the government can participate. I should like to see the government give serious consideration to increasing the grants to both Canadian students and people who come from abroad to this college. This brings about a closer relationship between the various nations of the world.
Another point I should like to bring to the attention of the minister concerns our participation in the I.L.O. It is my understanding that the representatives we send to the I.L.O. take a very active part in that organization. However, it is unfortunate that these representatives are not able to ratify any of the proposals made in the I.L.O. until such time as the provincial governments are consulted. We are aware of course that some of the proposals made in the I.L.O. deal with the very minimum standards and regulations governing labour in the world. I believe it might be useful if our representatives could be given the authority to ratify these proposals at the I.L.O. I realize of course that such a move would necessitate close working relationships with the provinces, and I ask the minister to pay particular attention to that phase of the operations of his department.
I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that the job retraining program is one that needs very close co-operation between the federal government and the provinces. Everyone is 29180-200i
Supply-Labour
aware of the fact that many municipalities have high rates of unemployment, and for that reason it is important that technical schools be available in these municipalities. When one realizes that it is sometimes necessary for an individual to undergo six retraining programs in order to make his contribution to society, he can realize how important it is that we look after the retraining of these people. I believe this program is one of the most worth-while contributions the government can make. We do know that technical schools provide a service, and that without them we would be in dire straits on many occasions. I hope there will be no need to bring in anybody from another nation to fill some of the vacancies especially in the field of languages, because I am sure we have qualified personnel in this nation to look after that situation.
One of the members on the government side spoke about the Rocky Mountain House area and the lack of people to mine coal in that particular section. While this may be true, from what I have been able to ascertain, the living facilities in this area leave much to be desired. I believe it is the duty of the federal government to make sure that, if we are going to retrain and relocate people, we have the living facilities for those people in the areas concerned. While it may be true that there is a need for miners in the Can-more area, I am sure many families would not want to be uprooted from Nova Scotia and sent to Canmore, if they were unable to find places in which to live.
There is one thing I should like to question, Mr. Chairman, and this relates to the labour and manpower departments. It does not make any sense to me to have two departments, especially in view of the amount of indecision that could result therefrom. No doubt there are jurisdictional disputes between these departments as to which will handle a particular matter that may come up for decision. We often hear of jurisdictional disputes amongst labour unions, but I suggest that this government certainly stands accused of having jurisdictional disputes within it. As a new member of parliament I know that often when I try to get information I have to go to sometimes six different departments before I find the right one which will give me the information. I suggest that we should take a very close look at these two departments from the point of view of having the two departments merged into one.
In so far as labour legislation is concerned I am sure many of us know that some of the

November 25, 1968
Supply-Labour
most irresponsible labour legislation passed in any nation in the world has been passed in this country. I am sure there will be some members who will stand up and cite certain cases in their own provinces. I am sure many of us know that many provinces have an antilabour element in them, and as a result little consideration is given to the democratic rights of the individuals living within the boundaries of these provinces. I feel that if we had a strong lead from the federal government we would not find so many of these provincial governments deliberately trying to take away the rights of the working people. I do not say for one moment that labour should not accept a responsible role. In my contacts with the majority of labour leaders in this country I have found they were prepared to accept their responsibilities at any time, provided management would do the same, and here the term management must include federal and provincial governments. Unfortunately this has not been the situation in all cases. However, from the attitude of the minister, I would hope that within a very short time-I mean, in a matter of months- we shall see some lead taken by this government.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
I should like to refer briefly, now, to one or two of the recommendations contained in the report of the Freedman commission. The situation today makes it necessary to consider the fundamental reasons behind these recommendations. For instance, the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen has tried its utmost to get this government to realize that it is important to recognize the doctrine of managerial rights for what it is. To this date, the union has been unsuccessful in this approach, like many other unions in the running trades. The Freedman commission pointed out that there is a gap in the provisions of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act which permits employers to run roughshod over the rights of employees during the closed period of an agreement. By contrast, I would refer briefly to the legislation covering collective bargaining in Sweden. One section of the relevant act provides that during the lifetime of an agreement neither party can resort to direct action to change its terms or to settle a dispute over the interpretation or application of those terms.
This is at the root of the majority of labour problems across Canada today. Employers are

trying to change the interpretation of collective agreements during the life of the contract. The legislation never intended that this should be possible. But management has used the present provisions to its advantage, and the federal government itself is at fault for allowing the situation to continue for so long. At the request of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, a conciliation board was established by the federal labour department, one of many such boards. One of the major items the board was called upon to deal with was the union demand to give effect to the Freedman proposals. Having heard arguments from both parties, the board concluded as follows:
We believe that the differing viewpoints will not be resolved by negotiation. The only alternative therefore is legislation.
This was in 1966. Let us go back as far as 1961, when I am sure there was another government in power. The brotherhood then asked for a rule to provide that no material change or alteration of conditions of employment should be made during the currency of the contract unless mutually agreed to by both parties. In the absence of agreement the dispute was ultimately dealt with by the Robinson conciliation board. In a majority decision dated April 2, 1962, the board found as follows:
That this is a major problem which will require the full co-operation of management and labour alike is generally recognized but it would appear the solution is not likely to be readily found and may require the attention of parliament itself.
As was required by the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, copies of the majority report were sent not only to the parties in dispute but also to the federal labour department. My point is that we called attention to this problem as far back as 1961, but nothing was done. If this government means what it says, and if the minister means what he said, there is no reason why these recommendations of the Freedman report should not be brought before parliament for approval. And I see no reason why any hon. member should oppose these recommendations.
Responsible management has nothing to fear from the implementation of these recommendations. It is true that in various parts of the country types of management can be found who claim that the recommendations of the Freedman report would, if implemented, remove their right to initiate working conditions, and so on. None the less, many people high up in management are quite prepared to accept the recommendations, and I am sure
November 25, 1968

that those who do not wish to accept them, preferring the old laissez-faire system, are long outdated and should be given no consideration whatsoever.
The organization to which I referred earlier in connection with its efforts over many years to give effect to the recommendations of the Freedman report is now once more going before the public with its contract negotiations. The brotherhood intends to make a determined effort to protect its members from the adverse effects of technological and organizational changes. It is again demanding a rule which would require the railway companies to negotiate the introduction of operational changes which would affect working conditions, as recommended by the Freedman commission. Seven years have gone by during which nothing has been done. The minister told us he is prepared to sit on the back benches if his proposal is not accepted by the cabinet. I hope he is not required to do so, but that remedial measures will be introduced during the next few months.
What about the government's own position as an employer? I will mention briefly the position of the postal workers. As things stand today, the rights of management are spelled out clearly but the rights of the postal workers are buried in civil service jargon which confuses everyone who attempts to understand it. The Public Service Alliance of Canada and some of the associations it represents have been given repeated assurances that there will be no change in the terms of contracts until the bargaining process had been completed. It is my understanding, however, that the federal government has made a unilateral interpretation concerning working rights without bothering to consult the other parties concerned. I suggest it is high time this government accepted its responsibility and listened to the proper sources for advice as far as the rights of parties to a contract are concerned.
There is another matter which consistently bothers me. I refer to the position taken by those who urge legislation to bring about compulsory arbitration of labour disputes. Various voices are raised from time to time to this effect, including those of the builders exchange, the U.G.G. and the wheat pools. In some areas they are joined by the chambers of commerce, though not in all cases-chambers of commerce have gone a long way to recognizing the fact that workers should have equal opportunity with management. Then, of course, there are the John Birch societies and the Ross Thatchers in whatever province they
Supply-Labour
may be. That is a political question, and I hope something can be done about it.
I should like to remind those who suggest the introduction of compulsory measures that on May day, 1933, Hitler declared a national holiday, officially called the day of national labour. The trade unions, taken by surprise, thought this was a wonderful thing. But on the following day trade union offices were occupied, union funds were confiscated, the unions were dissolved and their leaders arrested. Hitler brought in a law providing for the abolition of collective bargaining, and he said that henceforth labour disputes would be determined by trustees. Have we not all heard the term "labour trustee" recently? Hitler then went further and said that the decision of the trustees was to be legally binding. The law outlawed strikes. We have heard about this, too, in recent days. Hitler promised to restore the absolute leadership and authority of the employers, and said to them, "You let me decide what should be done." Before the employers realized what had happened, Hitler had taken over the employers' associations and the cycle which destroyed democratic institutions and associations in Germany was complete. Hon. members ought to read "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" to learn what may be the final implications of compulsory arbitration. Hon. members who advocate compulsory arbitration ought to know exactly what they advocate. In any event, the rest of us ought to inform them what is involved. I suggest that the Minister of Labour is on trial today. If he does not produce the goods-and he knows what I mean-he will suffer the consequences.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I now wish to talk about the matter of trade union returns. Since the minister is not here perhaps his representative will take note of what I am saying. The Trade Unions Act as well as the Corporations Act require unions to file certain returns. It may not be known that labour unions voluntarily publish that information in a booklet that deals with labour organizations in Canada. The information published therein is a duplicate of the statistical information that must be filed with the Department of Labour. Hence there is duplication of effort here, the labour unions being forced, so to speak, to compile two identical sets of data. I hope the minister will examine this matter, since there is no need to publish two similar sets of figures.

November 25, 1968
Supply-Labour
One reason for unrest in the labour field stems from the foreign ownership of our industry. A case in point is the Kobin Hood flour mill at Moose Jaw. That Robin Hood flour mill was owned by a Minneapolis milling concern. At one time in Moose Jaw, on the company's notice board, there appeared a notice having to do with the Trading with the Enemy Act. It was quickly removed, no doubt on advice from higher authority within the company. The point is that the mill closed down and moved elsewhere. That mill, which was located in one of the best wheat growing areas of Canada, was forced to close because its parent company stated there was no market for its product. The mill was not under Canadian management. When it closed, many were unemployed. The point is that all across this country many people are faced with a similar situation. What is of concern to our labour force ought to be of concern to us all.
Another point I wish to raise, which admittedly is of minor importance, has to do with returns that labour unions are to file under the Corporations Act. It seems that the law has not been applied equally. Since the act was passed by the house I think only one corporation return has been filed; at the same time I think all unions that were supposed to file a return have filed one. That is no way to enforce legislation. It is no use saying that the legislation cannot be enforced, because too many small companies would have to file returns. The law should apply equally to all. It is up to government to make certain that management and labour co-operate effectively. We shall not have a good spirit between labour and management if the law is applied to labour but not to management.
May I conclude my remarks by saying a word about human rights. The international human rights year was celebrated last year. Out of that celebration came a document entitled, "Universal Declaration of Human Rights". The two articles I wish to bring to the attention of the house are as follows:
Article 23. (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
I suggest that the Minister of Labour ought to take note to those two clauses, especially when one considers the promise he made a few days ago.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak about the 338 workers at the Ford

Motor Company of Canada Limited at Windsor, who were laid off last week. I also want to speak of the lay-offs which will occur in the next few months, until approximately 1,000 men have been laid off. Unquestionably, the automotive agreement between Canada and the United States has been beneficial to us. It has meant that there has been an increase of $4 billion worth of trade between our two countries since 1964. It has meant an increase in jobs among the independent parts manufacturers of Canada, and it has also meant that Canadian productivity has risen from about 70 per cent of the United States level to approximately 80 per cent of that level. Chrysler Canada Limited said recently that now, on a proportionate basis, they can produce in their Canadian plants as much as the parent company can produce in an equal period in United States plants. That, however, is not the question. The question is the disadvantages and the consequences of the agreement which were made evident last week.
Of course there are a number of programs which are designed to alleviate the consequences of lay-offs. One of them is the unemployment insurance program of the federal government. Another is the manpower retraining program which enables those who are admitted to it to extend their skills and to take advantage of the opportunity of upgrading their earning power.
A relocation program is also available, although this is not very palatable to most communities. I shall indicate later why I think a relocation program is not the best answer in this case.
In addition to the programs I have mentioned there are other additional programs, one of them being operated by the company. That is the S.U.B-the Supplementary Unemployment Benefit program of the Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited. Also there is a federal government program. Under the S.U.B program the company sets aside five cents for each hour of work done by each worker. The fund which was recently introduced will at present pay workers who have been with the company for one year something like-


David Lewis: Will the hon. member permit a question?
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


Mark R. MacGuigan: I would prefer to have it at the end of my remarks.
November 25, 1968


David Lewis: It is a very simple one. Did he say the S.U.B program was a Ford Program?


Mark R. MacGuigan: I will take that question at the end of my remarks, Mr. Chairman. As I was saying, this is a contribution by the company of five cents for each hour of work by its employees. This is a benefit negotiated by the Ford workers in their collective agreement. At present the payment is something like 65 per cent of the weekly wage if the unemployment insurance benefits are added in, and on December 1 this will rise to something like 95 per cent of the weekly wage.
The T.A.B, or transitional assistance benefits program, is a federal government program, and comes into operation when the worker has been employed for 30 weeks in the automotive industry-not necessarily with the same corporation, provided he has been in the industry for that period of time. It pays something like 62 per cent to 75 per cent of the weekly wage, if the unemployment insurance benefits are included.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that several weaknesses have become apparent in the T.A.B program during the last few days. One of these is in the qualifying period, which is set at 30 weeks. In the case of these particular workmen, all of whom I believe were hired on August 19 or subsequent to that date, the longest period of service with the Ford Company is 14 weeks. They may have been employed previously in some other part of the automotive industry, and some of them may be eligible as a result of that, but a great many of them will not be eligible for the T.A.B grants.
These workers were not employed as part of any expansion in the Ford Motor Company. They were employed merely to replace those who had retired or gone on to other jobs. This was not an expansion program but merely the filling up of gaps that had developed among the work force.
I think the government ought to give some consideration to the payment of T.A.B benefits even when the qualifying period has been much less than 30 weeks, in a case where it is a question of replacing workers, rather than of expanding business, because it is clearly a consequence of the automobile pact. We are assured that in the long run there will be 300 more jobs available at Ford of Windsor, when the transition period has passed, but this is small comfort for the 338 workers now affected, all of whom may be laid off for 18 months during the transition period.
Supply-Labour
In addition, workers who are entitled to the
S.U.B benefits are not entitled to the T.A.B benefits. In terms of the amount of money they receive this may not make that much difference, but in terms of the equities of the case there is a great deal to be said for making the T.A.B program apply all across the board, to all the workers who may be unemployed and who qualify under the minimum qualifications which, as I have already suggested, ought to be somewhat modified.
At present, if a motor company wishes, it may pay into the T.A.B fund, so that even workers who are covered by the S.U.B program may receive T.A.B benefits, but it is perhaps a little unrealistic to expect automobile companies to pay moneys into the T.A.B fund that they do not legally have to pay. As a result the worker's benefits under S.U.B which they have built up over the requisite amount of time with the corporation, are expended much sooner than they otherwise have to be. This was not the role that was intended for the S.U.B program when it was negotiated between the company and the union. The S.U.B program was intended to cover unemployment during periods of retooling and style changes. It was not to cover unemployment caused by technological changes in the industry resulting from the Canada-United States agreement.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would draw the minister's attention to the fact that there appears to be a second gap in this program. It is to be hoped that some steps can be taken by the government in the weeks and months to come to fill up this gap by changing the regulations or, if necessary, by changing the statutes, or by renegotiating certain parts of the automobile agreement.
There are several other questions that ought to be raised. One is the question of notice. No one can seriously believe that a motor company as large as Ford of Canada decided just a week before Friday morning last that it was to make these gigantic changes. Indeed the very careful preparation of the publicity involved, which was largely focussed on the expansion in the future rather than on the short run disadvantages-the preparation of pictures and releases-indicates that the Ford Motor Company was aware, long in advance of the time that the program was announced, that it was about to take place.
If as much preparation had been lavished by the corporation upon preparing its workers and tlie public for what was to come, the

November 25, 1968
Supply-Labour
government of Canada would have been given an adequate time to deal with the problem in a way more compatible with the seriousness of the situation. One wonders indeed if even seven days notice would have been given, if it were not provided for in the collective agreement between the company and the workers.


John Edward Broadbent: Would the hon. member permit a question on that point?


Mark R. MacGuigan: I will be pleased to take any question at the end of my remarks.
Then there is the question with respect to overtime. Overtime in the Windsor operations of the Ford Motor Company is compulsory. Even at a time when there are not enough jobs for those people employed with Ford- 338 have been laid off, and some 600 more will be laid off-the company is able to give extensive overtime to the rest of its workers. This is the reason why I suggest relocation is not the answer. The work is there in Windsor, at the actual plant affected by the layoff. There is work for a great many more men than are presently employed but it is taken up by way of overtime.
This is not of course a question for the government alone; it is a question for all the parties involved. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, that is the final point I would like to make. Matters such as this are not matters for the company alone or for the working force alone. These matters require a tripartite approach, involving the government as the representative of the public, as well as management and labour. We are long past the day when one can speak of management's prerogative to make on short notice fundamental changes which affect, and in some cases greatly impair, the lives of those working for them.
This is not a question which ought to be left to management. It is not a question which ought to be left even to management and the working force. It is a question which concerns the whole public; and I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that if no solution can be found by way of agreement, if we cannot have co-operative efforts between the three forces involved, then it will very soon be time for us to consider whether or not some solution should be brought forward by legislation. I would hope, although I am not always confident, that the solution would be found by co-operation and negotiation.
I would emphasize the fact that in this age of automation, and even cybernation, the old

ways cannot be allowed to go on unhindered by government. I would commend to the minister the changes I have suggested, and hope that the government will act as a party between management and labour in matters such as this.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. member a question. In view of his criticism of the Ford Motor Company's rather hasty announcement to lay off these people, and the equally short notice given the government, would he agree with the suggestion made by a number of people that the government should not wait for the Woods report before answering the question about making it mandatory that advance notice be given both to the government and employees about a forthcoming lay-off.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Chairman, I would be in favour of awaiting the Woods report. I do not believe this is a matter which can be considered wholly in isolation from the other problems of labour relations. As a result of my knowledge of what the Woods task force is doing, and my knowledge of the people in this task force, I expect a great deal from the report, and I have reason to believe it will be before the house before many more months have passed. I would think that unless the report is delayed long beyond the time when I would expect it, we should be willing to await it before proceeding on this particular matter.


John Edward Broadbent: Can the hon. member suggest even one possible argument against this part of the Freedman report that would warrant any rational justification for waiting. I am not suggesting that we have labour legislation in many fields; I am restricting it to this one field on which the hon. member focused his attention in his argument.


David Lewis: The report is two years old.


John Edward Broadbent: Yes, the report, of course, is two years old. Can the hon. member suggest one argument a rational man might use as a ground for hesitating.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Had I been in the house at the time the Freedman report was presented I think I would have pressed for its speedy implementation, but now when we are within a month or two of the completion of this report, I think we should wait the additional time. Undoubtedly some action must be taken, but the question is how far one should go,
November 25. 1968

and how stringent the legislation should be. I would hope the Woods report would give us some guidance on this.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Chairman, at this time I should like to say a few words about the serious problems faced by middle aged workers when they endeavour to find employment. During the three years I have been in parliament I have learned of many sad cases involving men in their forties and fifties. These were cases of competent experienced men who had much to offer. They wanted to work. Many of them still had young families, but for many reasons they were unable to find employment. As a member of parliament I have endeavoured to help these men. I have spoken to personnel managers whom I know. I have tried to direct them to government jobs. In most cases, however, there seems to be some bar to the employment of men in these age categories.
If this is a serious problem today I maintain it will become much more serious unless some action is taken very shortly because, as many people have pointed out in this era of technological change and automation, many men will change their trade or employment during their lifetime, not once but two or three times. Hon. members who have spoken on the estimates so far have pointed out that men in their thirties, forties and fifties have been out of work after having been employed for many years. In these cases it is necessary for them quite often to develop new skills and look for a new type of work.
In the last few years the manpower retraining and relocation program has been introduced. This is a very good program under which we try to train men so that they will learn new skills, in order that they may fit into other employment. However, I believe all this will be of no avail if we do not do something about the restrictions and bars there seem to be in respect of employment for men in these age categories. The men who are faced with these problems are not only the blue collar workers; they are also the white collar workers, and professional people in all categories, some of whom have held very good positions for 20 or 30 years. Some of the cases I have known have involved men who have had the misfortune of being in hospital for a year or two because of serious illness. Then when they returned to the employment market they could not find anything.
It has been suggested that the solution to this problem might be through an amendment
Supply-Labour
to the Fair Employment Practices Act by adding discrimination in respect of age to the present categories of discrimination which are mentioned in that act. At present this act prohibits discrimination, I believe, for race, creed, colour and national origin. It has been suggested that discrimination based on age might be added. Some provinces have fair employment practices act, in which this is included as one of the prohibitive classes.
I believe an amendment of this type could be made, but I do not think it is the most effective answer to the problem. It would seem that one of the main reasons given by employers for not hiring men in these age categories is that their pension plans are set up in such a way that they discourage the entry into the pension plan of people at age 40, and more progressively as they become over 40. There may be other reasons. I suggest it might be very worth while for our progressive Minister of Labour to call together the major employers in Canada, trade union leaders and those insurance and trust companies which run these company pension plans. If these people were brought together it might be possible to work out a solution to this problem and, if the pension plan really is the bar, find ways in which something might be done to eliminate this problem.
It could be that perhaps the government, through some type of legislation or incentive program, might be able to help the companies and those administering the pension plans to remove these restrictions in one way or another. I do not know the answer, but I think the answer could be found, and I believe it should be found very quickly. Not only are we losing very productive people from our labour force, and potential taxpayers, but we are also placing men in a position where they must rely on pension plans, relief, unemployment insurance and unemployment assistance. We are setting up a group of very frustrated people. I can testify to this because of the experience I have had in respect of the cases with which I personally have dealt.
I know the Minister of Labour is considering a program of legislation. Perhaps there are other matters which have a higher priority. If we consider the number of matters involved, I suppose there are things with higher priority; but I believe this matter deserves a very high place in his legislative planning. I would hope that next year or as soon as possible he would try to do something about this problem, which is faced by many of our medium aged workers. I might point out also that there are many middle aged

November 25, 1968
Supply-Labour
women who often try to re-enter the labour force after they have brought up their families.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I have one or two points which I should like to raise tonight, one of which is in connection with the women's bureau. I am aware that the Minister of Labour referred to it briefly. The fact that we have a women's bureau indicates that women workers do not have equality in this country. If they did, I do not believe we would have any need for a women's bureau. I hope, now that we have a new director, that certain points will be borne in mind and specifically dealt with in the near future. Women do not have equality, although they make up one third of the labour force. They do not have equality in their choice of work. We find that a great percentage of them are working in about 15 occupations in industry.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I was very much interested in an article which appeared in the current issue of the Labour Gazette. The minister must be aware of it because his department was responsible for this survey being made under Dr. Stanis-law Judek. There were a number of very interesting things pointed out about women in industry and women in the public service of Canada. He pointed out that while there were women on the labour force in higher paid positions and grades, there were relatively few employed in these positions, particularly in administration. He also pointed out that, not only is there discrimination in respect of the kind of work that women can do, but there is great discrimination so far as pay is concerned. In his article he states:
Women in the public service earn less than men. The author attributes this to the fact that most women are placed in the lower paid occupations, and also have lower grades within these occupations. Among male employees, 8.2 per cent earned $10,000 and above in 1966, compared with 0.5 per cent of female employees. In that year, the median income of women was slightly below $4,000, whereas the median income of men was approximately $5,350.
He goes on to state:
Women with university education (except a very few) are, apparently, not being utilized, and the differential in salary exceeds, in some cases, $4,000.
The article then states:
More than 24 per cent earn between $6,000 and $10,000 whereas only 6 per cent of women are in this salary range.
There is no special program to develop better utilization of womanpower in the public service, and opportunities for advancement follow identical routes.
When appearing before the royal commission on the status of women recently, the Canadian Labour Congress, the largest body of organized workers in Canada, pointed out these same things about women workers. They pointed out that in the choice of work, in pay and advancement women were very badly discriminated against. They also indicated there was a need for a fair employment act at the federal level. The congress suggested that so far only a couple of provinces, notably Saskatchewan and to a certain extent Quebec, had attempted to legislate along these lines. The congress felt this discrimination against women related particularly to the same three fields, choice of work, pay and advancement.
It is my belief that there are two main reasons for this discrimination. The first is that traditionally women have not been out in industry or in the public service for any length of time. Second, women have been handed by nature a full time occupation for at least part of their lives. Biologically they must have the children and raise them, while at the same time keeping a home together. We should recognize that the time has come when women, are going to be out in the public service and in industry. The question is, are we going to have them occupying these positions under something like equal conditions, or do we intend to ignore the fact that they cannot spend their time working outside of the home while at the same time carrying out the job given them by nature. We must in some way equalize this situation.
Let me suggest to the Minister of Labour that a part of the time of the women's bureau should be devoted to the consideration of how we can achieve equality for women workers in industry and in various gainful occupations outside the home. It is now time for the government to attempt to become, as the minister suggested, a conscientious and model employer. Let me place before the minister a number of measures the women's bureau ought to look into, and I might predict that these measures will be found among the recommendations of the royal commission on the status of women when its report is presented.
I am sure this commission will recommend the establishment of child care centres, particularly to look after the children of those women who are employed outside their homes. I realize the Department of Labour, through the women's bureau, has already made a study of this need for child care facilities. This women's bureau should be

November 25, 1968



attempting to develop legislation in this field, in concert with provincial governments. There should be a drive on the part of the women's bureau and the Department of Labour, working with employees and organized workers, to see what can be done in respect of part time or half day work for women. It is not good enough to put women on shift work because it may be inconvenient for women to do so, and also look after their home-making duties.
Home duties should be given priority, and I think a study ought to be made by the women's bureau to see which part of the day is more convenient for women to work outside and which to keep up with their duties at home. It might well be found that the day could be divided into two parts. Women could use one part for home duties and work around the home, and the other part could be used for work in industry.
It is my suggestion that we should also explore at the federal level a measure for maternity leave. This is in line with the recommendation of the International Labour Organization. Surely we should define a maternity leave measure in light of the I.L.O. provisions. British Columbia and the province of New Brunswick are the only provinces in Canada which have maternity leave legislation in actual operation at this time. Other provinces have such legislation on their books, but as yet the regulations have not been promulgated.
I cannot go into this matter in any detail tonight, but my colleague, the hon. member for Moose Jaw, made the point that the Department of Labour ought to work more closely with the department of manpower. There could be no greater necessity in this regard than in the field of training for women. Married women who cannot now qualify for manpower training ought to be included and treated on a fair basis.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Let me refer to another point which ought to be considered by the women's bureau. A great many women are concerned in this matter because not only do they have the burden of bringing up families and making homes, but on them devolves the care of elderly parents or elderly relatives. Some attempt ought to be made to see whether a visiting homemaker service under the aegis of the women's bureau could be provided to help out in these circumstances. I know I am suggesting very heavy and new duties for the women's bureau, but I believe they are
Supply-Labour
important, and that if the women's bureau is to be of value to women workers it should enlarge its responsibilities to take in these fields. If the minister can look at the women's bureau as a means of legislating or operating so that women workers can have a chance of equality with men workers, I think this will result after some years in cutting out the women's bureau; but the women's bureau will be serving a very useful purpose between now and the time it destroys its reason for existence.
I shall touch on one other question, and I shall not take too long to do so. However I think it should be raised. We in Canada have been greatly disturbed and upset this fall in connection with the boycott of table grapes from California. I want to say a few words about this subject tonight, because I think the Minister of Labour might be able to play a role in it, even if it is only making a statement in regard to where the Department of Labour or this country ought to stand in this respect.
This is an important question in labour relations between our country and the United States. The United Farm Workers organizing committee in connection with the grape workers sent up to this country early in the summer, I believe, United States organizers to promote the boycott of California grapes. They decided to promote this boycott in the large Canadian cities of Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver because these were the cities being used as an outlet for grapes produced by non-union labour, non-organized labour in California.
The grape workers organizers complained that these non-union people were living under very substandard conditions, that their wages were substandard that Canadian citizens were being flooded by grapes. They pointed out that some American cities were not going along with this underpaid, scab labour of non-union employees. I learned about this back in the summer, when these organizers called on me, and no doubt on other members of parliament, and certainly on other civic workers. The first I heard about it was when the mayor of Vancouver made a statement urging people to go along with these people and help boycott grapes. A few days later the people on the other side of the grape conflict got in touch with the mayor and he was invited to California by Governor Ronald Reagan to see conditions down there. He came back

November 25. 1968
Supply-Labour
saying that these workers lived in air-conditioned buildings and had fine working conditions. On the other hand, Ray Haynes, secretary of the B.C. Federation of Labour, said that the mayor spent 35 minutes with the workers and the rest of the week end with the growers and Governor Ronald Reagan.
There were two sides to this story because in the meantime the mayors of New York and Detroit boycotted the grapes and publicly urged that this be done by people generally. But the matter kept hanging fire and hanging fire. Be that as it may, the grape workers kept on organizing here and apparently nothing definitive came of it. In the Globe and Mail of October 18 there appeared an article dealing with the boycott in Toronto. It seems that some stores in Toronto had been moved to restrain from selling California grapes. Then the matter was brought to the attention of the Director of Investigation and Research under the Combines Investigation Act, who said that if there were any agreement among the stores to boycott non-union grapes, he would have to launch an inquiry into the matter. He also said that if there was found to be a combination in restraint of trade, he would have to prosecute. One of the chains in Ontario expressed sympathy with the grape workers but said that because of the attitude of the combines branch the chains could not do anything about it.
In view of these conflicting stories quite a number of us-I am one of them-have had to forgo buying any grapes at all this fall, although I like them very much. We are uncertain about the rights and wrongs of these stories, and I therefore appeal to the minister to clear up this matter. I do not think Canada should be left in an ambiguous position in this regard. If the stories of the grape workers are correct, surely we should find ways and means of confining ourselves to Canadian grapes. We do not want to be a dumping ground for products sent here as a result of unfair labour practices in the United States.
If on the other hand the grape workers of California are receiving just treatment, we should know about it. I suggest that the Minister of Labour contact his opposite number in the United States, Secretary of Labour Willard Wirtz, and find out the rights and wrongs of this question. He should find out why the mayors of some cities are boycotting these grapes and the mayors of other cities are not. Why are we having this fuss about grapes in Canada? I suggest that perhaps the

I.L.O. could be consulted. In any event, Mr. Chairman, I ask the minister to clear the air in this regard and let us know where we stand. I for one would very much like to know whether he knows something about this question and, if not, whether he will find out.


Mr. Gray:: Mr. Chairman, when the Minister of Labour opened this debate on his estimates he made a most eloquent statement of his philosophy of labour-management relations, of his ideas of what the federal Department of Labour under his leadership should be doing and, I am confident, will be doing. In this statement he drew attention to one of the central issues, one of the central questions in the field of labour-management relations today when he said that "if increased productivity depends on our willingness to accept technological change, we must be prepared to face squarely the disruptive forces that technological change creates." If technological change benefits the entire community, and generally it does, then the principle burden of adjusting to such change cannot and should not be shouldered mainly by the workers concerned. This burden must be shared by the company carrying out the change; it must be shared by the entire community, by the entire country.
There are still too many instances of managements which use the highest degree of planning and organization for every phase of technological change except the phase which concerns one of the most vital portions of the labour-management equation, namely the workers involved. They use these high skills of planning and organization to determine trends in markets, changes in products required and new machinery needed to make these products; but all too often they do not use even a small fraction of this management skill in determining the effects on their workers and what should be done to assist them to adjust to the changes to be carried out.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
In other words, plans are made for almost everything except the fair and reasonable use of manpower, of the workers concerned. Even though, in the long run, the new engine plant announced by the Ford Motor Company for its Windsor operations will bring benefits to the workers concerned and to the community, certainly in the short run what has been happening there, appears to be an example of the lack of attention and the lack of planning with respect to the use of manpower and to
November 25, 1968

the human factor to which I have been referring.
At approximately 11 a.m. last Friday, November 15, the Ford Motor Company announced it would be creating a second engine plant as part of its Windsor operations. The Windsor Star speculated it would be a multi-million dollar program and estimated it would cost in the neighbourhood of $100 million. The work involved would mean the converting of an existing chassis plant to high volume engine production. The work would take some 18 months, but in the meantime a total of some 1,000 men would have to be laid off while their present place of employment was being converted to the high volume engine production I have just mentioned. The company claimed at the time of its announcement that not only would the 1,000 men in question be called back to work in the new plant but that there would be 200 and perhaps as many as 365 new jobs added to the 1,000 existing before the plant was converted.
However, not only was notice of only approximately one week given to the workers concerned, but even the federal government departments-the Department of Labour and the Department of Manpower and Immigration which were going to be called upon to put programs into effect to ease the burden of the lay-offs on these workers-were not given more than a week's notice of the lay-offs. The first announcement said that the first lay-off would be of some 475 men but this was later amended so that 338 men would be laid off only a week later.


John Edward Broadbent: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I will be very happy to answer the hon. member's question after I have concluded my remarks. I will not be speaking at any great length.
I do not claim to be an expert in the field of automobile production and on industrial matters of that sort, but I find it difficult to see how a company could decide to spend $100 million on a new engine plant only about a week before the work began. I suspect the project in question took many months of planning, and it seems to me more could and should have been done to plan the work with the workers concerned.
Supply-Labour
In a report in The Windsor Star for Friday, November 15, the president of the Ford Motor Company said:
We have been building engines in Windsor for a long, long time .. . One of the best labour forces in North America is to be found here.
If this is true, and I think I and the people in our community would agree that it is, then something more should have been done to make sure that not only the morale but also the material well-being of this labour force was maintained during this lay-off to the greatest possible degree.
It is true that in the initial announcement of the lay-off the Ford Motor Company suggested that-and here I am quoting from the press release issued by the company at the time-
-eligible employees who are temporarily laid off may draw benefits under the company-paid supplemental unemployment benefits program. When combined with unemployment insurance benefits the total can amount to almost 95 per cent of take-home pay.
Of course, as has already been pointed out in statements both outside and inside this house, this is not exactly the whole story because at least 338 of the workers concerned have been hired only since approximately August 19 of this year. Therefore there is a question whether they would be eligible for unemployment insurance and to what extent if any they would be eligible even for the transitional benefits which are available for people who cannot get the supplemental unemployment benefits referred to in the company's statement. Of course, it can be guessed that the first group who are being laid off this weekend would not have worked long enough at the Ford Motor Company to qualify for the supplemental unemployment benefits. Also, even though the next lay-off is not going to come until some time in February one has to speculate also on how many of the others to be laid off will actually draw the equivalent of 95 per cent of the take-home pay mentioned in the release.
In any event, it would seem to me that this particular incident is one from which a number of conclusions can be drawn. First, it seems to me that it is essential that companies carrying out changes of this type give a longer period of notice to the workers and to the government, departments which will be called upon to assist them during this kind of lay-off. Certainly if a longer period of notice had been given, government departments could have begun putting into effect programs that are now being implemented on a crash

November 25, 1968
Supply-Labour
basis sooner than has been possible under the circumstances, and the workers concerned also could have arranged their own lives and have made plans for themselves and their families different from the ones a number of them probably made. They would have made different plans than they did when they believed they would have steady employment except for lay-offs due to model changes or possible down-turns in the market for the product of the company. I suspect that a number of workers may have previously made commitments to purchase automobiles, appliances or homes, or else to move into new rented premises based on the expectation of continued employment over the next 18 months period, except for what might be considered to be more or less normal lay-offs because of model changes in the industry.
Second, I think that now that we have had a greater degree of experience with the operation of the transitional assistance benefits program put into effect by the government to assist workers involved in technological change arising out of adjustment due to the automotive pact, when they are not eligible for supplemental unemployment benefits, the time has come to take a good look at this program and to examine very carefully the need for modifications in the existing program. Certainly I think the contention of the unions concerned that transitional assistance benefits should be available even when workers are eligible for supplemental unemployment benefits is one that has a lot of merit. The union argues, with merit, that supplemental unemployment benefits are something that was negotiated by workers as part of the total wage package to tide them over what might be considered normal and expected lay-offs for model changes or downturns in the market, not for lay-offs of the type that come about through the expansion or changes of plant to adjust to different opportunities in markets lined with changes in government policy.
Also I think another conclusion to be drawn is that the government should encourage companies to take a look at their operations in nearby communities or the same community. If, as I understand is the case in the Windsor area, other plants which are part of the same operation are working with a high degree of overtime, then something should be done, instead of merely having the group of workers in the plants not affected by the technological change piling up overtime, to make some of the work available to workers

laid off from plants where technological changes are being carried out. Certainly those concerned would much rather be working for normal wages and in normal working conditions than receiving assistance through special programs designed to cushion the impact of lay-offs.
I might also add that in the case of the first lay-off of the Ford Motor Company at Windsor which is just taking place, many of the workers are quite young and many have not completed their high school education. Therefore every effort must be made to encourage them and to give them an opportunity to retrain and upgrade their education so that this period of lay-off could be used to give them greater opportunity in later years for a more secure employment involving higher degrees of skill.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Now, Mr. Chairman, industry and business often complain about government intervention in what they deem to be their private affairs. It seems to me that any industry of the size of the auto industry, one with such an impact on the total economy, there is almost nothing that is strictly an internal matter and does not affect the community in which the operations are carried out or for that matter the entire country. Even though in the long run it may turn out to be beneficial to the community as I believe this expansion of the Ford Motor Company will, I think it leads in the long run to more government intervention rather than less when the human factor such as the interest of the workers concerned is not taken into account, at least to the same extent as the problems of planning production with respect to raw materials and machinery, certainly you cannot put workers into some form of suspended animation; you cannot put them in some warehouse as you would a machine that is not needed for a few months until some plant is rebuilt.
I think that the industry has to be more conscious of its responsibility to its workers to help them adjust to the impact of technological change. Certainly, if this responsibility is not forthcoming on a more voluntary basis, then it would seem to me, within the constitutional authority available to the various levels of government, public opinion will lead to government intervention even more than has been the case in the past to make sure that the human factor is given attention, and to make sure that the industrial development
November 25, 1SS8

of our country has a just degree of equity and fairness for all concerned.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I think that the words the Minister of Labour as he presented his estimates are ones that all of us must bear in mind. We must be prepared, as he said, to face clearly the disruptive forces that technological change creates and be prepared to take measures to make sure that the burden of this change is one which is shared in an equitable way by all the community and not merely by the workers concerned. In the long run, as I have said, the new engine plant of Ford at Windsor, in my opinion, is a development which will be of benefit to the community and to the workers concerned. It is unfortunate, in my opinion, that what would ordinarily be considered a favourable announcement by the community and the country was marred by lack of attention to the problems which this change would create in the short run for the workers who are in the plant which is now going to be converted. We must face up to the human problems of technological change if we want to make sure that such change will be of benefit to our country.


John Edward Broadbent: I will be very brief because I see the minister would like to answer. I should like to put a few questions to the hon. member who just spoke, since he was courteous enough to state that he would answer. My first question relates to his comments about an advance industry like the Ford Motor Company. Such a company knows well in advance when it is going to be laying off people. This is not a rhetorical question on my part. I am quite sure that in an area like Windsor, as in Oshawa from which I come, these questions are considered from a sociological point of view. In the latter part of the summer people from school go to work for this company and within three months they are thrown out. Does the hon. member think that perhaps we no longer can rely upon moral persuasion but should do two things: first of all, we should require the companies to give some indication when they hire people how long they are likely to be employed. There has to be some flexibility in this matter, obviously. Second, I should like to repeat the question I asked the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville: Would he be in favour now of the implementation of that recommendation in the Freedman report which refers to compulsory information being provided by companies, both to governments and employees, well in advance of lay-offs?
Supply-Labour


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby has raised a very important point. It is my impression that many of those to whom he refers were hired in August by Ford actually to take the place of people who were retiring in the normal course of retirement schemes. They were filling existing places in the company rather than some special expansion. It seems to me the company either should have been more forthcoming with them as to their prospects for continued employment or if, for what the company considered to be compelling reasons they could not be, the company should be willing now to do more to assist them in adjusting to the burden.
In so far as the Freedman report is concerned, I think that my approach is basically similar to that expressed by the Minister of Labour. The philosophy of the Freedman report is one which I accept. Certainly there is room for more to be done by governments to make sure that the governments themselves and the workers concerned are more aware of changes in plans by companies which could affect the workers and affect the entire country. I think in this discussion if we are going to be fair and frank with those who are following our words, we should be sure to make clear just what, under our existing constitutional structure, lies within the jurisdiction of the various levels of government. Perhaps there will be other occasions when we will be able to discuss this, and I think there will be. I think we should make clear just what the limits are under the present labour relations jurisdiction of the federal government to compel moves of this type in industries which are not completely within federal jurisdiction in all aspects of labour relations.
One may wish that our constitution had evolved somewhat differently in this regard, but we have to deal with the situation as it is. Therefore, to conclude my response to the hon. member's question, which I think was a most useful question, I feel we have to make sure that in discussing these matters in this house and outside we do not inadvertently give the impression that this level of government, for example, can do things which under our present constitutional set-up the courts have decided, rightly or wrongly-perhaps wrongly-we do not have authority to do. We should seek most actively to implement the philosophy of the Freedman report along the line suggested by the Minister of Labour, to the fullest extent of our federal jurisdiction.

November 25, 1968
Supply-Labour


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Chairman, I intend to be very brief. We are still on vote 1 and this is the second day the estimates of the Department of Labour have been considered. I welcome this, incidentally, because it has been many years since the estimates of the Department of Labour have been debated by so many speakers from all parts of the house, who have concerned themselves with the problems of labour in such a sympathetic manner. I think if there is one theme that I have noticed in just about all the speeches on these labour estimates it has been the realization that, in general, if this country is to survive in an economic sense we need a much greater degree of co-operation between labour, management and government.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
I was particularly pleased, Mr. Chairman, to note that I, as Minister of Labour, the member for the New Democratic party and also the official spokesman of the official opposition, the hon. member for Central Nova, all in effect adopted, commended and endorsed the philosophy of Freedman. I think this is a breakthrough in this House of Commons, and really it has to come if we are going to maintain the maximum degree of co-operation between the three important segments. We need this type of enlightened legislation for those few industries that fail to live up to their moral obligation.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, in her usual eloquent style, mentioned the need in the very near future for some substantial legislation more favourable to the female labour force of this country. Her points were well taken. The idea of maternity leave is certainly not an original one. It makes sense and it should at least be part of the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act, if nothing else, when unemployment insurance comes up for drastic overhaul early in the new year. As the hon. lady knows, we were fortunate in obtaining the services of Mrs. Gelber to head this important branch of the department. She is already chairing a strong interdepartmental committee made up of representatives of labour, manpower and other departments concerned, preparing legislation in anticipation of some of the recommendations of the task force as well as reviewing the report to which the hon. member alluded, one which should be required reading.
The hon. lady also mentioned the problems of the underprivileged in California reflected

in the appearance of California grapes on the market here. I notice that one of our leading supermarkets indicated today that it would no longer handle this product. We are fortunate in having an excellent product from the Niagara peninsula, one to which we should be giving a preference anyway, other things being equal.


David Lewis: You are referring to the parliamentary secretary no doubt.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I might say to the older members of the house, particularly to those who have strong labour contacts, that instead of having to contact my counterpart in the United States regarding the true story behind the grape situation in California, I need go no further than Mr. Pat Conroy, the labour attache for our department in Washington who is now in Ottawa for a week or so. Without being at all facetious, let me say I would be most happy if the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway and others who are friends of Mr. Conroy could see him for half an hour or so, to discuss this problem with a gentleman who is a walking encyclopaedia, as most people know, as far as situations of this sort are concerned.
We heard an excellent intervention by the hon. member for Moose Jaw. I will not say I can comment openly on all his observations, but he was certainly accurate in his assumption that on the surface many of the recommendations of the International Labour Organization have not been implemented in this country. However I think he realizes, as most members do, that many of the recommendations of the I.L.O.-recommendations which we should like to see part and parcel of our legislation-have not been implemented for the good reason that to do so would infringe the constitution of our country. We have succeeded in ratifying at least 24 I.L.O. conventions to date. We are in constant communication with the deputy ministers of the various provinces. They attend various committee meetings of the I.L.O. as well as the annual convention in Geneva every June.
I think we are about due to get through, in some of the provinces at least, three or four recommendations of the I.L.O., particularly in the field of discrimination in employment policy and underground work for women in mines. There are many countries where there is no legislation specifying that women may not work underground in mines.
November 25, 1968

I might remind hon. members that next year is the fiftieth anniversary of the International Labour Organization, the oldest international organization in the world today. During the war years it established its base of operation in Montreal, particularly at McGill University, if I recall correctly.
I believe sufficient has been said about the auto pact. Certainly much has been said about the necessity of giving notice as far in advance as possible concerning lay-offs. The Economic Council has suggested a period of three months. I must in all fairness remind hon. members that many of the unions have included in their collective agreements provisions which prevent this type of grievance. Possibly some of the stronger unions will now be more militant in insisting upon incorporating clauses in their collective agreements which will provide for a longer period than is presently given.
It seems I have now covered all the points which have been made on clause 1. There are only four items in these estimates, and I am hoping to receive the co-operation of the committee in getting my estimates passed this evening. I should repeat that much of the legislation which is now the responsibility of the Minister of Labour needs drastic overhauling. I can think of no act, including the Labour (Standards) Code, and the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, which I am called upon to administer, which does not need a thorough overhaul. It is my opinion therefore that the year 1969 will see much activity by members of all parties when we bring forward proposed legislation, and I would welcome the participation of members of all parties as early as possible, in any legislation which is proposed next year, possibly from the white paper stage. Certainly the Woods task report should be made available as early as possible, perhaps even before the holidays, in order that when we get back all parties can get together to formulate progressive legislation based on the recommendations of that report. Perhaps we could now move on from clause 1 and get on to the specific items which complete the estimates of my department.


Randolph Harding: I had hoped to get in a few words before the minister rose, so that he could answer the comments which I intend to make, as he did those of speakers who preceded me. I intend to be brief, but there are one or two points I feel I should put on
Supply-Labour
record as far as labour organizations are concerned, and as far as the labour picture in this country is concerned.
I listened with a great deal of interest when the minister indicated several days ago that collective bargaining as between labour and management is to continue. I think this is a very sound decision; it is one with which our party agrees. As the minister is aware, there are moves in certain parts of the country to change the nature of collective bargaining. Indeed, a delegation to this government was pressing very recently, I believe, for changes in this connection. I must say it was with relief that I heard the minister announce the other day that he had looked over the Freedman report and felt his department would have some interesting legislation to present to the house along the lines of the recommendations contained in it. As other hon. members have already dealt with this I do not intend to go over this item tonight.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
I wish to make one or two comments on compulsory arbitration. I think every member of this house agrees that the fruits of the productivity of this nation should be shared to a much greater degree than we see at the present time. I am not thinking only in terms of labour unions which are strong enough to go to an employer and demand their share. Of course, the employer gets a larger share of the fruits of productivity in the form of larger profits. Another group of citizens must be considered. I am speaking of those on fixed incomes-pensioners, retired civil servants and other people in this category. They are the ones who frequently do not receive their fair share of the increased productivity of this nation. Those who sit in the seats of government, who govern this nation, make its laws and are in a position to change what is happening, are the ones who ought to be making certain that the fruits of our productivity are shared justly by all. Until we reach that stage we will not have the just society which our friends of the Liberal party talk about.
Much can be done to guarantee the people on fixed incomes that we will not erode the standard of living they now enjoy-poor as that may be-by increasing prices without at the same time increasing their initial pensions or fixed incomes. If the standard of living of this nation is to rise, and it is rising steadily, every individual in Canada should share in that prosperity. There is nothing wrong with that outlook.


David Lewis: Hear, hear.

November 25, 1968
Supply-Labour


Randolph Harding: I now wish to say a few words about compulsory arbitration. I come from a province where in the spring of this year, 1968, we passd a bill known as bill 33 which brought a measure of cumpulsory arbitration for the first time to British Columbia. I am very much opposed to this concept. Our party is opposed to it. We fought the legislation through its various stages. The Social Credit government of the province felt this type of legislation was needed on the statute books of the province, and the legislation was enacted.
Nothing has been done under this legislation. That is, nothing so far has been given to the mediation board. In short, they have not tried the legislation out to see if it will work. Yet the method by which this compulsory arbitration board has been set up will make collective bargaining a farce. Here you have a board. The government knows, the labour groups know and the employers know that if negotiations do not go properly the dispute can go to the board. And what will happen? Employers and labour will stop trying to settle their differences collectively around a table. That is not what we want. We need not be ashamed of the collective bargaining record of unions and employers in Canada. If one looks at the record, and with few exceptions the record is quite good, he will see that 30, 40 or 50 times more man-days in this country are lost through unemployment than through strikes. For every man-day lost through strikes in this country there are 20 or 30 man-days lost through sickness.
If the government wants to save man-days that are lost to employment it ought to curtail unemployment, which is currently running at 5 per cent of our Canadian labour force. That is far higher than is good for a healthy economy. That is what we are advocating-get rid of unemployment, or curtail it as much as possible.
Labour and management need not be ashamed of their bargaining record. You know, it amazes me to hear politicians say that the labouring man should not have the right to sell his labour. That is the only thing he has to sell, and he has the right to go to the market and demand as high a price as he can obtain for it. Tonight I was watching a medical man talking on television. He was talking about higher fees and saying that no one should interfere with the raising of doctors' fees. Those who are in the legal profession, or in any other professional group, no doubt make the same plea. Yet, once you

begin with compulsory arbitration to set wage rates for the ordinary workmen, where will you stop? Will you go right down the line and take in the professional groups? If you are to be fair that is what you must do. How far down the line will you go, and where does the process stop? I suggest the collective bargaining system we have today is good enough and ought to be retained without change.
I wish to point out to the minister one of the big weaknesses in some of our labour legislation and some of the collective bargaining procedures we have today. This government, and provincial governments in Canada, have not provided a strong enough mediation service-and the minister pointed this out the other day. That is abundantly clear. No matter where you go in this country you will find that one of the keys to successful labour management relations is mediation. We must enter this field with experts and trained personnel, and dig out the facts.
We must also ask labour and management, when they sit around the table, to put all their cards on the table. Far too often we find that in disputes one side will refuse to divulge information. I suggest to the minister that it is in this area we ought to tighten up; we ought to tighten the regulations in the field of mediation services. If we do we shall have untold dividends in terms of industrial peace in Canada. I cannot urge this course to the minister too strongly. In all sincerity I say to the house, do not be misled by a few people who think compulsory arbitration will solve the ills of the management and labour in Canada. It will not. It will have an adverse effect and cause far more trouble than it will ever cure.
I will not take up more of the committee's time. There are other matters I wished to raise, and I hope to have the opportunity on some other day to bring them to the attention of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Labour Relations-
5. Administration including the promotion of labour-management consultation, $1,233,200.
Item agreed to.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
Labour Standards and Benefits-
10. Administration, including the Government's contribution to Annuities Agents Pension Account in accordance with regulations made pursuant to Vote 181, Appropriation Act No. 5, 1961 and $10,000 for grants for special research studies, $3,012,700.
November 25, 1968
Stanley Howard Knowles: On
vote 10, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Minister of Labour could tell us what is happening with respect to Canadian government annuities which I believe still come under his aegis. I am aware of the fact that certain cutbacks in staff have been made and that no efforts are being made to persuade more people to take out Canadian government annuities. But what is the picture? In particular, may I ask the minister if any consideration is being given to increasing the rate of interest that is applied in the computation of annuities paid by this branch? I remind the minister that the government is paying higher interest rates on Canada savings bonds and other money it borrows. Some people who have government annuities wonder if their benefits should not be adjusted accordingly.
I realize this as a very old program. In fact it came into being the very day I was born.


An hon. Member:: Thirty nine years ago.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, thank you; so after those 39 years maybe it could be improved.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Chairman, I must admit I have very little in the way of detail but I shall get more detail for the hon. member tomorrow. He of course knows that the emphasis on this branch was drastically reduced some time ago, I presume by my predecessor. The branch still functions because of the fact that there are many plans still in existence funded with the government. One of the problems is that there has been added incentive by the provinces to acquire many of the old, traditional funds that were placed with the federal government in the Department of Labour. In the past firemen's unions, towns and cities were among the better customers of the Department of Labour in this area. In recent years certain provinces have made efforts-I know this is the case in my own province of Quebec-to discourage the placing of funds with the Department of Labour in Ottawa and have them placed with some body on the provincial level. This comes back to the rate of interest that we are paying on this particular fund.
The government has been reluctant to increase the rate of interest, perhaps through a degree of over-conservatism and a concern to protect the fund. In any event it is felt the time has come for the Department of Labour to get out of this particular function. In 196768 there were 1,058 group certificates issued,
Supply-Labour
1,332 individual contracts issued, 966,000 annuity cheques issued and over $66 million disbursed, and so it is still a fairly active program in that sense. But the emphasis has been removed from soliciting new business, and I will only suggest that I will discuss with the annuities branch the suggestion of the hon. member that a review be made of the rate of interest paid on this particular fund.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, it is not my wish to hold up this item and so perhaps I will settle for what the minister has said he would do. Perhaps he would get someone in his department to write me a letter giving the information I have requested.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: And I will deliver it myself, to save the price of stamps these days.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
minister is feeling that too?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
(The following items were agreed to:) Research and Development-
15. Administration including the co-ordination and advancement of Canada's role in international labour affairs, the administration of transitional assistance to workers in automotive manufacturing and parts industries, and related activities, $1,734,800.
20. Grants, Contributions and Subsidies as detailed in the Estimates, $1,175,000.
B-Unemployment Insurance Commission-
25. Administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act including recoverable expenditures on behalf of the Canada Pension Plan, $41,545,700.
Albert Béchard: This completes the estimates of the Department of Labour. The committee of supply-


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Chairman, I realize I am probably too late from a legal point of view, but the minister, being a very honourable gentleman, might decide to answer my question in any case.


Albert Béchard: Order. We will need unanimous consent to authorize this. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Albert Béchard: I regret that I hear some nays. The committee of supply will now consider the estimates of the Department of Public Works.
3180	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten
o'clock.


Albert Béchard: Is it the wish of the committee that I call it ten o'clock?


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



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, for the convenience of hon. members can the government house leader put on the record what legislation or other business the government plans to place before the house for the rest of the week?


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Tomorrow we will be dealing with the special order made by the house to discuss the question of the report from the external affairs and national defence committee on the matter of Nigeria. On Wednesday next we will be dealing with the estimates of the Minister of Public Works. On Thursday, as the house knows, we have the special order whereby the house will not sit but the standing committees of the house will sit to consider estimates; and on Friday, subject to further confirmation, it will be my proposal to call the estimates of the Department of Finance.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. John Burlon (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, on November 22 I drew the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to a protest sent to the government by the Saskatchewan Federation of Agriculture with respect to the adequacy of grain drying facilities and programs. I also inquired if the Prime Minister would ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) to give further consideration to this serious problem in order to determine what measures should be taken to deal with it.
The subject of harvest and grain conditions in western Canada was raised on the second day of the session. We were assured at that time by the minister that action was being
[The Deputy Chairman.]
DEBATES	November 25. 1968
taken to make full use of drying facilities. Subsequently the situation deteriorated. On September 25 the hon. member for Sas-katoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) asked for a statement dealing with the tough and damp grain situation. In a statement made on September 27 the government assured the house that matters were under control.
On October 9 the hon. member for York-ton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) asked about drying and storage facilities. He was told that inland terminals, lakehead terminals and the wheat board were acting on the problem. On October 10 the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) asked about delivery quotas, and the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) informed the house that the matter would be assessed after the unit quota had been filled.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
On October 15 on the adjournment motion I discussed deteriorating conditions on the prairies. Several points were urged upon the government at that time. First of all, there should be special over-delivery quotas to enable tough and damp grain to move to terminals. Some action has been taken on this now. Second, there should be special action to clear space at elevator points now plugged with dry grain, which prevents facilities being used to move tough and damp grain. Third, there should be adequate co-ordination and control to ensure that drying facilities are used to the maximum, and to develop emergency facilities as needed. Fourth, there should be special depreciation allowances for storage and drying facilities.
On October 16, 17 and 21 there were more questions on the subject. On October 23 the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) moved an adjournment motion for discussion of this matter. This was not granted at that time. Later, on several other occasions, several members on this side of the house attempted to obtain more information from the government with regard to the program the government planned to initiate. On October 24 the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) asked about the possibility of extending accelerated depreciation allowances in respect of grain drying equipment. He asked the question again on October 25. On November 6 I asked the same question and was told that the matter was being studied. As yet we have not had any announcement or decision from the government. On November 6 the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. November 25, 1968
Olson) informed the house that the situation was well in hand with regard to grain drying. Later, the next day, the Minister of Agriculture backtracked somewhat in dealing with the same problem.
In the past couple of weeks there have been further statements with regard to the inadequacy of box cars for the movement of grain. This is a matter in respect of which it has been difficult to obtain some of the facts. However, I think the house should be aware of the protest by the Saskatchewan Federation of Agriculture after a meeting with provincial government officials and representatives of other farm organizations. As I understand it, they sent a telegram to the Minister of Agriculture dealing with this situation and protesting the viewpoint that the situation is well in hand. I should like to quote from the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool farm news broadcast for November 12, 1968:
The committee strongly states that this is not the case. According to the information received from the northern and eastern parts of the province, farmers believe that there will be little or no problem in getting rid of the damp grain. Publicity in recent weeks relating to the availability of box cars and the availability of grain drying facilities and storage at terminals has helped them to arrive at this conclusion.
However, we wish to stress that, contrary to popular belief, both the inland and port terminals are drying insignificant amounts of grain at the present time. We ask that prompt action be taken by all authorities involved to put more pressure on railway companies to spot cars and speed up the eventual movement of grain to the terminals. The matter is urgent. Ports will close to shipping in a few weeks and as much damp grain as possible must be moved before then.
As reported in the Regina Leader-Post of November 19, 1968 the director of the Saskatchewan government agricultural representative branch stated:
Nearly 100 million bushels of damp wheat will have to be dried on the prairies this year.
He went on to state as quoted in this article:
An estimated 160,000,000 bushels had been harvested above the 17 per cent moisture content level, but drying facilities at all terminal elevators would be able to handle only 62,000,000 bushels for conditioning before the end of April, leaving 98,000,000 bushels to be dried elsewhere, he said.
But the total extent of the problem is even greater when the amounts of very tough wheat, which also need drying, are taken into consideration.
Mr. Boyes estimated that 170,000,000 bushels will have to be dried at some place other than the terminals.
In Saskatchewan there are an estimated 170,000,000 bushels of damp or very tough wheat as well as 12,000,000 bushels of damp oats.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
'It doesn't look like we will come anywhere close to handling the damp grain without farm drying," he said.
At its recent convention the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool passed a resolution which stated as follows:
That, in view of the impending disastrous economic situation facing farmers with damp, low-grade grain that could go out of condition, be it resolved that a program of financial assistance by the governments be sought, to assist producers in drying or caring for these stocks.
I would suggest that other than making use of already existing facilities which would have been used under any normal circumstances the government has not taken any extra special efforts, at least to the knowledge of members of this house and to the knowledge of the public, to deal with the situation which faces those on the prairie provinces.


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I have only three minutes, therefore it is going to take some special effort to try to answer all of the problems and questions which have been raised by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton).
First of all, I want to say categorically that we do not accept his assertion that the government has not taken any action. We do not accept his assertion that the government has been something less than frank in giving members of this house information in respect of this matter, in spite of his recital of all the questions which have been asked during the period when this harvest was coming in. For his information there will be a meeting tomorrow called by the Canadian Wheat Board, because of the serious implications of the tough and damp grain situation as it now exists in all sectors of the Canadian economy. More specifically, the western producers will be called in because it is essential that everyone affected by tough and damp grain be fully aware of the magnitude of the problems and the most effective and expeditious way of dealing with them throughout the ensuing months.
We have a report from the Saskatchewan department of agriculture which made a survey several days or, indeed, several weeks ago which indicates there are something in excess of 800 on-farm dryers, and the number is going up every day. This government has announced its intention to provide for accelerated depreciation in respect of on-farm dryers, but it requires action on the part of this house in passing the budget resolutions

November 25, 1968
3182	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion and the budget bills before that can be brought into effect. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) announced that there would be accelerated depreciation in respect of on-farm storage, and an arrangement will be worked out in this regard as well as in respect of additional on-farm dryers.
The hon. member complained about the over-delivery quotas being set for tough and damp grain, and the fact that there were not enough box cars to deal with it. He must realize that there are millions of acres in western Canada, and when you multiply that by three bushels, that does not mean automatically that the next day you can get this grain out of western Canada. Anyone who has any familiarity with the situation knows that there are physical limitations involved. It is also a well known fact that in western Canada there has been some movement of dry grain out of inland terminals to provide for sufficient space around the drying facilities in these five terminal elevators; so the maximum use can in fact be made of these drying facilities, which is something of the order of 165,000 bushels per day.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that I have run out of time, because I have lots more to say on this subject.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT-RECLASSIFICATION OF SURPLUS RAILWAY MAIL CLERKS

John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should give the minister my time. When I read an article regarding the blast that had occurred regarding the bad faith treatment of surplus railway mail clerks, it immediately came to my mind that this situation exists in my own city of Moose Jaw. This situation can be traced directly back to the action of the Post Office Department and the Postmaster General in cancelling the mail contracts to the mail passenger trains which were in existence. That cancellation of mail contracts to these passenger trains brought about this classification of surplus railway mail clerks. This was never required before. We all know that Moose Jaw at one time was one of the centres which employed a large number of railway mail clerks. At this time they are practically non-existent.
I should like to ask the Postmaster General three questions. I am sure he has read the


article to which I have reference. I should like to know whether or not railway mail clerks have been integrated in a seniority list. Let me make it absolutely clear that I am not entering into any jurisdictional dispute between the postal workers and the Public Service Alliance of Canada, or any association which is represented in this particular regard.
o (10:10 p.m.)
I would like to ask whether the Post Office Department unilaterally withdrew the guarantees given by the Craig formula to maintain job security for surplus railway mail clerks. My second question is: Was any assurance given to the surplus railway mail clerks' representatives by either the Post Office Department or Treasury Board to the effect that there would be no change in the status of surplus mail clerks until the matter could be settled through collective bargaining? If the surplus railway mail clerks have been reclassified by the Post Office Department and approved by Treasury Board without consultation or collective bargaining, I suggest this government stands convicted of bargaining in bad faith, and their word is completely suspect.
The Postmaster General should clarify this matter. In my opinion it is a complete farce to even suggest that some of the members of this cabinet are remotely concerned about democratic, collective bargaining if what is said to be happening is really a fact. I refer to what we have read in this paper. I ask the minister to clarify the points I have raised at this time.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, those are clearly inflammatory charges. I think I could probably answer all three questions by saying that on Wednesday next there will be a meeting between members of Treasury Board, the president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada and officials of my department in which they will review the whole situation. Therefore I can say that no action has been taken to reclassify the surplus mail clerks, of which the hon. member has accused us.
I would say however that we are quite impatient that this reclassification get on, because we now have a situation where there are what you might call active surplus mail clerks and those who are waiting for an assignment of new tasks. The problem that concerns us is that the ones who have already been assigned other tasks, whether as postal
November 25, 1968	COMMONS
clerks or whatever it might be, are being reintegrated into the department, and a group of those employees are still surplus. The board has ruled that they shall be represented by the Public Service Alliance, and we have no quarrel with that as such, except that it does raise some very considerable problems. If the Alliance acts for both, we will have the situation where probably red circled employees will be performing the same jobs as employees represented by the council, who receive different rates of pay and of course have different fringe benefits and other conditions of work.
DEBATES	3183
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Therefore, I would hope that most of this matter can be cleared up on Wednesday without any accusations of bad faith being imputed to anyone.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.16 p.m.
[The following items were passed in Committee of Supply this day:]



REGIONAL DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
20, 25, L90, L95.

[Stage Direction]
1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, November 26, 1968