1969-12-10

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege of which I have given Your Honour notice as required by the Standing Orders. Yesterday the leader of this party received a letter from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) which included a question that made it necessary for the letter to be referred to our party. We therefore considered the letter at our caucus meeting this morning and it is on behalf of our caucus that I raise this question of privilege, but I believe that it affects members in all parts of the House.
The Minister of Finance, according to his letter which, as I say, was dated yesterday advises us that he has had prepared a set of ten coloured slides which can be used in presenting to those who are interested the proposals set out in the white paper on income tax reform. No doubt it could be argued that these slides are informational in character. Most of us on this side feel they are propaganda on the side of the government's position.
I hope to come as quickly as I can, Mr. Speaker, to the point that makes this matter not just a grievance, not just a complaint, but a question of parliamentary privilege. Before I do so may I say that the issue being raised at this time is not the merits or demerits of the white paper. We happen to think there are some good things in it-in fact, so good that I wish they could be brought into effect right away. But that is not the issue. The issue in the first place is the use of government funds to propagandize government proposals that have not yet been adopted by Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: hear some ohs and groans of various kinds on the other side of the House. Mr. Speaker, I
suggest that in this day, when we are hearing about Information Canada and about all kinds of ways of conditioning the people of this country to accept the government's ideas, we have to pause and think about an arrangement of this kind.
It so happens, Mr. Speaker, that in 1955 and 1956 when the Canada Pension Plan was before Parliament, and I happened to be one of its most ardent supporters-


Mr. Benson:: 1965.


Stanley Howard Knowles: thank my hon. friend for the correction. Yes, 1965 and 1966. What's ten years?


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: To you?


Stanley Howard Knowles: remember that there was a terrific propaganda campaign carried on by the insurance companies against that proposal, through the medium of advertisements in newspapers and in other ways. As I say, I was an ardent supporter of the plan, and I did not like that unfair campaign against it. I spoke to the then Minister of National Health and Welfare about it and asked her if there was not something the government could do to offset it. I well remember the Hon. Judy LaMarsh telling me she had thought about this and had made inquiries but had been informed it was not proper, it was not legal, to spend government money in support of a government proposition that had not yet been adopted by the House. And yet, Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what is now being done.
Government money is being spent on these coloured slides, and most of us know how expensive coloured slides are. We have no idea what other expenses are being incurred. We have no idea what advertising agency may have been engaged for this purpose. The whole thing, as I say, Mr. Speaker, is contrary to the accepted practice that public money should not be spent to propagandize government proposals that have not yet been adopted by Parliament.


An hon. Member:: A good job is being done.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My
hon. friend says a good job is being done. I am prepared to agree with that and I am
1790	COMMONS
Alleged Tax Reform Propaganda prepared to admit that there are some good proposals in the white paper. But the issue here is much deeper. Are we moving toward an age in which the government will use its financial resources, its machinery, to condition the people at their own expense to accept government proposals?
Lest Your Honour feel that this is in the nature of only a grievance or a complaint- you will pardon me if I think you might get that idea because it seems to me that quite often that is your response to a question of privilege-may I submit it is more than that. Yes, it is a grievance that the government is using money in this way. Yes, it is a complaint that taxpayers' money is being spent to argue one side of the question. But in this instance the government has gone farther. It has asked the members of our caucus, and I believe the other opposition caucuses have had the same request, to join it in this wrongdoing. The government has asked us to be accessories to this malpractice.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
The government has asked us to give our blessing to what they are doing by taking their slides and going around the country showing them. In that respect, Mr. Speaker, I submit that this is an affront to parliament and constitutes a breach of parliamentary privilege. I believe, therefore, that this whole matter should be looked into.
As is so often said, this may only be the tip of the iceberg. This is what we know is being done-these coloured slides. How much else is being done? How many advertising agencies have been engaged? How much of the taxpayers' money is being spent propagandizing a government proposition that has not yet been approved by Parliament? I think this matter should be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. The committee should look into the whole question of the rightness or wrongness of this whole practice. It should determine why this was entered into before there was any consultation with Parliament. Information should be obtained as to how much money is being spent on this whole proposition.
I offer this to Your Honour very seriously as a question of parliamentary privilege. My hon. friend, the President of the Privy Council, laughs. We got along very well last Friday when he was not here. I hope he will not be here this Friday so we can get a lot of business done.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

DEBATES	December 10, 1969


Stanley Howard Knowles: My
friends opposite are not aware of how close they are moving us to 1984 by these ideas, by using the people's money to condition them to accept the ideas the government wants them to accept. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that applies whether the idea is good, bad or in between.
As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, if it is Your Honour's inclination to see in the first instance that this is obviously a grievance or complaint, I ask Your Honour to think it through a little further and realize that we, as Members of Parliament, were not consulted about this and yet are being asked if we would like to have these slides to show around the country. We have no intention of doing so, but we are being asked to be accessories to this malpractice. I did not say crime. I am content to call it a malpractice. But we are being asked to give our blessing to something that ought not to be done. Of course in recent days there have been some complaints about fact sheets being distributed over there. This may be an attempt to offset that.
If this was paid for by the Liberal party we could not object. If it was paid for out of public funds, we strongly object. We also object to the insult to Members of Parliament in our being asked to join in this malpractice. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, if Your Honour will be good enough to find I have a prima facie case of privilege I should then be prepared to move:
That the action of the Minister of Finance in asking members of parliament to make use of propaganda material produced by the government at public expense, without any consultation prior to the production of the said material, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, and that the said committee be empowered to inquire into the total amount of money being spent on the government's propaganda campaign in support of its proposals for income tax reform.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the argument put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is an argument that the people of Canada should not have the right to consider tax reform before it is legislated into law.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edgar John Benson: When he talks about preparing slides, perhaps he should be talking about the printing of the white paper and suggesting that we should have the kind of government in the future which does not involve participatory democracy, which does not inform the people of what its intentions are-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
December 10, 1969


Edgar John Benson: -one which does not provide Members of Parliament on both sides of the House with information so that there may be a reasonable discussion of the issues before a decision is made.
I have heard a great deal from the hon. member and from other members of his party about the press conferences which were held before budgets were produced in the House. On this occasion, for the first time in Canada's history, we agreed to brief members of his party and, indeed, members on both sides of the House on the proposals which are being made to change taxes basically in this country. We have put forward proposals which have been placed before the Canadian people not as a fait accompli but rather as an approach to tax reform. We have asked for comment from the opposition and from the people of Canada-


Mr. Horner:: Let us look at the amendments, too.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister of Finance has the floor and he should be given an opportunity to make his argument.


Edgar John Benson: The hon. member says: "Let us look at the amendments, too." Well, if he can bring forward some reasonable amendments to these propositions, we have stated-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You show us yours.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I should bring it to the notice of the House that we are not now discussing the white paper. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre raised a question of privilege and the Chair will have to decide in due course whether there is a prima facie case. Hon. members who wish to take part in this interesting debate should limit their contributions to the aspect of privilege.


Edgar John Benson: All I can say, and I shall do it briefly, is this: if hon. members opposite think it is a breach of the privileges of this House to bring forward proposals for tax reform in a white paper, or if they object to a white paper, if they are objecting to these slides which are purely informative and contain no propaganda-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Edgar John Benson: -if they are against informing the Canadian people about the proposals in

Alleged Tax Reform Propaganda the mind of the government before decisions are reached in the House, then perhaps there is a question of privilege and we should discuss the matter in the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: We
have just heard an eloquent exhortation by the Minister of Finance-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -who
seems to be blinded by the justice of his own case. The complaint does not concern the white paper. The Minister of Finance has unfortunately lost sight of the essence of this communication and what he is trying to do.


Edgar John Benson: It could have been in the white paper.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: If the minister can do it in the case of this legislation, then every one of his colleagues could do the same.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: They could take selective extracts, produce them extensively and seek to propagandize them through Members of Parliament.
We find in this letter to the Leader of the Opposition what amounts almost to the offer of a bargain from the basement. The minister says in effect in his letter: I am sorry I have not got any English copies; here is a French copy as a sample.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)


Mr. Aiken:: One of the leftovers.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, a leftover. We are wondering where the English copies went to; obviously somebody else got them.
I discussed this matter with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre before he rose this afternoon, and I too should like to know precisely why this administration has used, as was indicated, public funds to put forward its own case. I recall that a similar thing was done with regard to the Canada Pension Plan, but after the plan had been adopted. Some very informative booklets were distributed at public expense to explain to the people just what had been adopted, and I think those
1792	COMMONS DEBATES	December 10. 1969
Alleged Tax Reform, Propaganda booklets provided quite a good explanation of the law that had been passed. But certainly one could have complained at that time had the booklets been printed and distributed before the Canada Pension Plan had been approved by Parliament.
The narrow issue here is whether the government can use public funds to put its own side of the case and nobody else's. The same principle applies whether it be the publication of a white paper or the introduction of a bill. I support the arguments which have been advanced in favour of the motion, if accepted by Your Honour, put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take too much time in this debate on the motion introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), but I want to say that I would have preferred it if, before preparing color slides on the white paper on tax reform, the officials of the Department of Finance had seen to it that enough copies of this document had been printed to supply the needs of every hon. member.
Last week I brought to the attention of the House that we did not have enough copies of the white paper. To inform the public, on all aspects of the tax reform, the government should not distribute slides that represent only a part of the truth, but should make sure first that there are enough copies of the white paper for businessmen as well as a number of officials who are in a position to study every aspect of it.
I support the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre because, having the white paper in hand, businessmen are able to study the report and to express some criticism to the Department of Finance.
This is why the minister should have had first a sufficient number of copies printed and made available to citizens, especially to hon. members so that they might study it on their own and be able to give answers to inquirers instead of trying to sell his policy.
As a matter of fact, I think that he will need salesmen after the Constitutional Conference if he wants to have the policy set out in the white paper adopted.
These were, Mr. Speaker, the few remarks that I wanted to make.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance
has followed the old practice of governments; whenever you have a weakness you attack some phony issue.


Edgar John Benson: It is a phony issue.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No one in this House is suggesting for one moment that we should not have the fullest possible discussion all across Canada of the white paper on tax reform. No one is suggesting that there should not be public debate or that there should not be opportunities for people to gather all the information they can. That information surely ought to be disseminated by political parties and by groups interested in the contents of the white paper. The white paper is a subject for discussion all across this country. Those who are for it or against it have a responsibility to place their views before the public in order to allow the various economic groups in Canada which will appear before the parliamentary committee that will be discussing this document the opportunity of presenting their views. No one is objecting to the fullest possible participation in the democratic process. What we are objecting to is the government's use of public funds to propagate its own ideas before these matters have become legislation.


Edgar John Benson: What about the white paper itself?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The white paper is not legislation.


Edgar John Benson: It is going to result in legislation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If the minister is now taking the position that the moment the government introduces either a white paper or a piece of legislation it can then use the taxpayers' money to build up support for its proposals, then we have started down a very dangerous course.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is this to be the thin edge of the wedge? Is it to be the case that every time a
December 10, 1969	COMMONS
minister introduces a piece of legislation the taxpayers' money will be used for television programs, radio programs and newspaper advertisements? The minister himself let the cat out of the bag when he was answering the hon. member for Crowfoot by saying that if he had something reasonable to suggest the government would agree to include his views. Is the minister to decide what is a reasonable amendment? Are we now to be allowed to have our views put to the country by the generosity and consent of ministers opposite?
There is only one way we can have a free debate in this country and that is on the basis of those who hold certain views advancing those views at their own expense and not at the expense of the taxpayers of the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the decision you have to make on whether this is a basic question of privilege, let me state that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre set out no precedent to support his point with the possible exception of an oral opinion of our former colleague, the Hon. Judy LaMarsh. Notwithstanding the authority of her opinion, I think what is paramount is the fact that this is not a basic question of privilege. The point which clearly the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre missed, that while they thought it to be perfectly and legally justifiable for the government to lose public funds to print and issue the white paper and press releases based on it they deny that funds should be used for certain modern visual aids to supplement it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: What about television?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon.
member says "What about television?" Indeed, an extension of the argument of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is that one should not use any of these means, visual aids or audio aids, in order to assist in the exposition of any government program. The member for Winnipeg North Centre suffers from a high-button shoes mentality. May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that all these categories are in the same class. The real situation is that there is a generation gap between the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-
DEBATES	1793
Alleged Tax Reform Propaganda [DOT] (2:30 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: -and the rest of the country. I think we should bear in mind that this is the silly season for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. This time last year he was talking about clearing the galleries. I suggest that his point of privilege in this connection should be given the same effect as last year, that is, rejected.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to defend their abuse of public funds both ministers have indicated that in their view this is one way to get people to participate in democracy. So far as I am concerned all they are actually doing is getting the Canadian public to participate only in discussion of Liberal policies.


Edgar John Benson: Proposals.


Paul Yewchuk: The Conservative Party, Mr. Speaker, has counter-proposals and its own views on taxation. The New Democratic Party has its view on taxation, as has the Social Credit Party. On no occasion have these parties used public funds to promote their own ideas in this regard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Yewchuk: It is as wrong to say that what the government has now done is to engage in participatory democracy as it would be if each of the three other parties requested government funds to promote their own personal and private views on these various topics.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois):: Mr. Speaker, it might be a good thing to let the Canadian public know the reaction of the opposition to the reform of the parliamentary system, of the working methods of members of Parliament and of information in general.
Everyone knows that in the last few months the Liberal caucus has tried to adopt new structures. In that regard, the opposition made only negative criticisms. It was never thought that members of parliament could do anything else in the House but negative and destructive work at which members of the opposition seem to be expert.
About the new methods, the whip of the Conservative Progressive party-
1794	COMMONS
Mutual Funds and Investment Reforms


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member could perhaps resume his seat. I regret to interrupt him, but the discussion seems to be getting ever farther away from the matter now under consideration, that is the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I would invite hon. members who wish to take part in this interesting debate to restrict their remarks to the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Speaker, my argument is quite simple: it is that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre seems to deny the right to information of the people and of all hon. members. For example, a similar criticism meant to deny to the government members the right to information, advice and participation, was made by the opposition.
This indicate all the same that there is within the opposition a negativism which is ineffectual and outmoded nowadays.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I thank hon. members for the advice and counsel they have given the Chair. I am informed there are a number of precedents which perhaps should be looked at by the Chair before a decision is made. If hon. members will allow me to do so, I will hold the matter in abeyance and look into the precedents which have been brought to my attention. I shall do so as soon as possible and perhaps within the next few hours give a ruling on the proposed motion of the hon. member and on whether there is a prima facie case of privilege.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
TABLING OF REPORT OF COMMITTEE Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table the report of the Canadian Committee on Mutual Funds and Investment Contracts in the two official languages.
This was a special federal-provincial study group. I want to thank all members of the committee and those who helped them for this thorough report. As hon. members will see, I will want to study it before making any further comment.
DEBATES	December 10, 1969


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the House I should like to move a motion at this time under Standing Order 43. I hear from the other side the comment, "No consent." In other words the government is saying, "Do not give me the facts, my mind is already made up." Standing Order 43 reads as follows:
A motion may, in case of urgent and pressing necessity previously explained by the mover, be made by unanimous consent of the House without notice having been given under Standing Order 42.
In order to make the case for urgent and pressing necessity I should like to point out briefly that some two years ago an extensive tour of Indian reserves was mapped out by the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The situation was critical and there was a great sense of urgency about the matter. Unfortunately, since that time other events well known to members of the House have intervened including the advent of the just society and the visits have never been made. Meanwhile the situation on the reserves has worsened considerably as we have discovered in the House from various comments by members.
I raise this matter now because of a report from Manitoba that a touring committee of the Manitoba legislature has visited the reserve at Reindeer Lake in northern Manitoba and discovered that this community faces a grim winter with little food. The report is substantiated by Mr. G. E. Smith, an anthropologist with the Canadian National Museum who has been in that area for several months, in these words:
It looks quite bad. With the late freeze-up there is even some suggestion that there will be no tractor trains in here this winter.
Because Indian affairs come directly under the jurisdiction of Ottawa I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk):
That the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development be authorized to adjourn from place to place so that it might during the Christmas recess investigate the rapidly deteriorating plight of the native people of Canada and report forthwith to this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon.

December 10, 1969

member. The Chair has to inquire whether there is unanimous consent. There cannot be debate. The minister may wish to rise on a point of order later but at this stage there should be no debate. I can only ask whether there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will have heard, as I have, that there is not unanimous agreement and in view of this I cannot put the motion.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Mr. Howard (Skeena):: It is the Liberals who turned it down.



NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION ACT


Mr. Hu Harries (Edmonion-Strathcona) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-170, to amend the National Transportation Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Hu Harries: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to relieve Canadian producers and consumers of an unwarranted economic hurden amounting to as much as $22 million a year. This economic burden stems from the practice of the railways of charging high rates in non-competitive areas. This bill would remove long and short haul discrimination.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

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

Mr. Lewis: 1.	Was the Government of Canada, as a member of NATO, aware of the United States Government plans for atomic, chemical and biological weapons use in Europe and, if so, when was the Government of Canada informed about the United States Government's plans?
2.	Were these United States plans discussed at meetings of members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization?
Questions


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: 1 and 2. Canada is informed of NATO plans concerning nuclear weapons. NATO plans do not include the use of chemical or biological weapons except with respect to protection and defence against them.


OIL POLLUTION IN ARCTIC
Mr. Thomson (Baiileford-: Kindersley):
1.	Has any department of the Government of Canada undertaken or comissioned a study on the effects of oil pollution in the Arctic?
2.	Has any department of the Government of Canada studied the minimum structural requirements for oil tankers operating in Arctic waters?


Mr. R. J. Orange (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: 1. The Interim Interdepartmental Committee on Water (ICW) has a working group developing an "Interim National Contingency Plan for oil and other toxic material spills" which would be applied in the event of a spill of oil or hazardous material that would threaten the fresh water resources and/or the coastal waters of the Nation. The prime objective of the Plan is the removal of the pollutant from the water environment and the clean-up of any damaging residue that might remain. After completion of the Plan and its acceptance by ICW, it will be submitted to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources for his review and recommendation for its approval by the Government. In addition to the ICW study and complementary to it, the Polar Continental Shelf Project has initiated a study of effects of oil pollution in the Arctic.
2.	The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, in co-operation with the Department of Transport, has provided basic data on ice conditions and characteristics to oil companies concerned with ship design for safe Arctic operations. The matter of specifications for ships operating in the Arctic is under continuing observation by the Government.


CANADIAN COASTGUARD-SECONDARY CANALS-AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Skoberg: 1.	Which ships of the Canadian Coast Guard are now being retired as a result of the Department of Transport's budget reduction for the 1970-71 budget?
2.	Which construction projects on secondary canals are being cancelled as a result of the Department's budget cutbacks?

December 10, 1969
Questions
3.	Which aspects of airport development including renovations at some air terminals are being cancelled as a result of the Department's budget cutbacks?


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. No
ships are being retired directly as a result of the Department of Transport budget reduction. The following ships were due to be retired following many months of analysis and operations research which showed that Coast Guard activities could be conducted satisfactorily without them and the budget reduction has accelerated this process slightly. CCGS Gannet, CCGS Edward Cornwallis, CCGS C. D. Howe, CCGS Auk, CCGS Estevan, CCGS Mink, CCGS Marmot, CCGS Lurcher, and the CCGS C. P. Edwards.
2 and 3. Estimates for the Department of Transport for 1970-71 have not yet been determined by Treasury Board.


PENSIONS OF RETIRED PUBLIC SERVICE PERSONNEL
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg: Norih Cenire):
1.	How many retired federal civil servants are receiving pensions of amounts within each of the following brackets: (a) less than $20.00 per month (b) $20.00 to $29.99 per month (c) $30.00 to $39.99 per month (d) $40.00 to $49,99 per month (e) $50.00 to $59.99 per month (f) $60.00 to $69.99 per month (g) $70 to $79.99 per month (h) $80.00 to $89.99 per month (i) $90.00 to $99.99 per month (j) $100.00 to $149.99 per month (k) $150.00 to $199.99 per month
(1)	$200.00 to $249.99 per month (m) $250.00 to $299.99 per month (n) $300.00 per month and over?
2.	How many widows of civil servants or of retired civil servants are receiving pensions of amounts within each of the brackets indicated in the above question?
3.	What is the number of retired civil servants and also the number of widows of civil servants or of retired civil servants presently residing in each province?
4.	In respect of how many orphans of federal civil servants are pensions being paid and what is the average amount thereof?


Hon. James Richardson (Minisler of Supply and Services):: On behalf of the Department of Supply and Services, the following information is provided: 1. See Table 1 following.
2. See Table 2 following.
3.		Widows
	Retired	of Retired
	Civil	Civil
	Servants	Servants
Newfoundland	424	179Prince Edward Island	223	110Nova Scotia	1,739	934New Brunswick	1,059	546Quebec	6,073	3,456Ontario	15,381	7,703Manitoba	1,618	789Saskatchewan	1,091	447Alberta	1,983	886British Columbia	5,641	2,268Northwest Territories	69	8Outside Canada	573	39135,874	17,717
4. Pensions are being paid to 77 orphans of public servants and the average annuity per annum is $237.

Table 1 - Annuitants
Years of Service
Monthly Dollar Brackets	0-4	5-9	10-14	15-19	20-24	25-29	30-34	35 and Over	TotalLess than $ 20.00	49	187	26	11	6	9	4	1	293$ 20.00	- $ 20.99	16	988	91	16	4	2	6	1,123$ 30.00	- $ 39.99	16	1,474	349	42	13	8	2	3	1,907$ 40.00	- $ 49.99	7	1,179	629	104	25	15	9	7	1,975S 50.00	- $ 59.99	4	679	1,051	202	35	16	10	9	2,006S 60.00	- $ 69.99	8	357	1,128	344	105	15	9	7	1,973$ 70.00	- $ 79.99	5	173	1,072	466	148	39	8	6	1,971$ 80.00	- $ 89.99	5	94	839	540	215	83	19	7	1,802S 90.00	- $ 99.99	4	45	596	620	215	128	37	18	1,663$100.00	- $149.99	13	88	971	2,350	1,500	803	614	428	6,767$150.00	- $199.99	6	54	164	826	1,474	846	639	1,003	5,012$200.00	- $249.99	1	7	30	195	583	763	599	1,218	3,396$250.00	- $299.99	2	15	64	259	394	373	1,208	2,315$300.00	- and over	1	15	93	296	594	535	2,191	3,725Total	. 134	5,328	6,976	5,873	4,878	3,715	2,858	6,112 35,874	35,874
In addition to these amounts, persons of age 66 and over, with the necessary residence qualifications, would be eligible for the Old Age Security pension of $78 per month in 1969 plus the Guaranteed Income Supplement of up to $31.20 for those with the loweer incomes.
Some of these pensioners will be receiving additional pensions in respect of service in the Armed Forces of the R.C.M.P. or other employment.
The cases shown in this table, where there is a combination of long service and small pension, can arise from two sources: (1) Newfoundland Government employees who transferred to the federal service in 1949 at the time of Union who retired soon after transfer and before their higher federal government salaries had been received long enough to raise the pension level, and (2) Revenue and Assistant Revenue Postmasters in low revenue offices who were brought under the Civil Service Superannuation Act in the late '40's.
All cases which have been identified are of the former category.
December 10. 1969	COMMONS DEBATES	1797
Questions
.
Table 2 - Widows
Years of Service
Monthly Dollar Brackets	0-1	5-9	10-14	15-19	20-24	25-29	30-34	35 and over	TotalLess than $ 20.00	111	1,167	354	29	8	5	8	1,676$ 20.00 - $ 29.99	5	732	895	296	53	7	1	2	1,991$ 30.00 - $ 39.99	1	191	841	526	260	52	6	7	1,884$ 40.00 - $ 49.99	1	47	438	480	396	218	31	6	1,617* 50.00 - $ 59.99	1	21	213	432	290	324	192	24	1,497$ 60.00 - $ 69.99	1	9	99	283	247	255	270	179	1,343$ 70.00 - $ 79.99	1	9	38	189	216	224	241	298	1,216$ 80.00 - $ 89.99	4	20	124	147	161	186	237	879$ 90.00 - $ 99.99	12	68	139	127	164	227	7373100.00 - $149.99	1	2	25	129	277	368	440	926	2,168$150.00 - $199.99	7	455	450	435	300	201	155	349	2,352$200.00 - $249.99	1	9	24	24	29	107	194$250.00 - $299.99	2	10	16	13	46	87$300.00 and oyer	8	16	15	37	76Total	129	2,637	3,386	3,002	2,375	1,998	1,743	2,447	17,717
In addition to these amounts, persons of age 66 and over, with the necessary residence qualifications, would be eligible for the Old Age Security pension of $78 per month in 1969 plus the Guaranteed Income Supplement of up to $31.20 for those with the lower incomes.
Some of these pensioners will be receiving additional pensions in respect of service in the Armed Forces of the R.C.M.P. or other employment.
The cases shown in this table, where there is a combination of long service and small pension, can arise from two sources: (1) Newfoundland Government employees who transferred to the federal service in 1949 at the time of Union who retired soon after transfer and before their higher federal government salaries had been received long enough to raise the pension level, and (2) Revenue and Assistant Revenue Postmasters in low revenue offices who were brought under the Civil Service Superannuation Act in the late '40's.
All cases which have been identified are of the former category.
1798	COMMONS DEBATES	December 10. 1969
Questions
December 10, 1969


INTERNATIONAL GRAINS ARRANGEMENT MEETINGS
Mr. Burlon: 1.	Since June 1, 1969, how many meetings have been held by members of the International Grains Arrangement?
2.	What member countries participated at each of these meetings?
3.	What subject matter was discussed at each of these meetings and what were the results of these discussions?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. The International Wheat Council met in London on June 23-27. The Prices Review Commi tee of the International Wheat Council met on September 24 and 25. The following exporter meetings have been held: Washington-July 10 and 11; London- August 1 and 2; London-August 10-13; Washington-September 10-11; London-September 7-13; Winnipeg-September 16 and 17; Brussels.-Oc ober 2 and 3; Buenos Aires -October 27-Nov. 1.
2.	All members of the I.G.A. attended meetings of the International Wheat Council. Members of the Prices Review Committee for 1969-70 are: Canada, Argentina, Australia, EEC, India, Japan, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom and the Uni ed States. Exporter meetings have been attended by representatives of Canada, Argentina, Australia, EEC and the United States.
3.	Although the exporter meetings were unable to prevent price declines in July and August, they have resulted in an important degree of stability since mid-September. The discussions among exporters have enabled each of them to obtain a better appreciation of one another's pricing problems and there is confidence that the present stability can be consolidated. Mee ings of the International Wheat Council and Prices Review Committee have, in addition to dealing with the administration of the International Grains Arrangement, enabled exporters to acquaint importers wi.h the outcome of exporter meetings.


PUBLIC BUILDING, BRIDGEWATER, N. S.
Mr. Crouse: 1.	Is the Department of Public Works planning to construct a federal public building in the Town of Bridgewater, Nova Scotia?
2.	Has a site been selected for a federal public building in Bridgewater and, if so, what area has been approved?
Questions
3.	What is the total amount of funds allocated for this project?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Yes.
2.	No.
3.	Funds allocated for this project in Main Estimates 1969-70 is $400,000.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT STAFF
Mr. Coates: 1.	What was the total staff of the Post Office Department on June 25, 1968 and what is the present staff?
2.	What was the total cost to the federal government for salary and wages on (a) April 1, 1968 (b) April 1, 1969?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General and Minister of Communications):: 1. June 1968, 48,800. October 31, 1969, 48,491.
2.	1967-68	1968-69
From Parliamentary
Appropriations $201,882,000 $239,140,000 From Postal Revenue 39,483,000	47,167,000
Total	$241,365,000	$286,307,000


BANNING OF PHOSPHATES IN DETERGENTS
Mr. Harding: 1.	Is the government considering banning the use of phosphates in detergents?
2.	How much has been allocated to research into this problem?
3.	Have any studies, memoranda or reports been prepared on the subject?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. No, however officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare as members of the Lake Erie and Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Advisory Boards were parties to recommendations of these Boards in their recent report to the International Joint Commission which stated:
That a program of phosphorus control be implemented in the drainage basins of Lakes Erie and Ontario to reduce the adverse effects on water quality and water use resulting from excessive biological growth.
2.	Not available.
3.	Yes, the recent report to the International Joint Commission by its Water Pollution Boards entitled "Pollution of Lake Erie, Lake Ontario and the International Section of the St. Lawrence River".

December 10, 1969
Questions


IMMIGRATION OFFICES APPLICATIONS
Mr. Barneil: 1.	For each country where Canada has immigration offices, what percent of applicants were successful for each of the past two years?
2.	What were the absolute number of applications in each case?
3.	What was the size of the office staff in each country?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1, 2 and 3. See following table:
Canadian Immigration Operations Abroad 1967-1968
1967	1968
Number of	Number of
Country	Number of Staff	Applications Processed	Percentage Approved	Number of Staff	Applications Processed	Percentage ApprovedAustralia	(1)	1	4,631	67.5	10	7,257	42.5Austria	15	5,366	62.4	16	14,181	73.6Belgium	10	4,074	41.3	8	2,884	40.6Denmark	8	2,012	84.9	7	2,309	58.2Eire	3	3,232	75.3	4	2,873	64.1Finland	2	1,512	51.5	2	2,273	34.5France	33	45,589	24.5	45	40,020	20.2Germany	61	35,032	40.5	42	18,015	50.6Greece	14	14,501	45.6	16	19,734	32.4Hong Kong	30	16,200	34.5	38	14,290	49.1India	18	24,653	14.3	16	26,463	10.8Israel	9	4,652	44.5	9	3,080	40.6Italy	49	54,725	57.6	50	39,216	49.9Jamaica	(2)	5	1,049	50.6	10	6,919	31.4Japan	8	953	83.5	10	893	62.4Lebanon	(3)	7	4,983	31.6	12	4,651	34.6Netherlands	14	6,929	75.5	13	5,011	68.5Norway	2	634	83.8	2	918	81.9Pakistan	5	2,664	19.4	9	12,504	4.1Philippines	8	5,573	33.9	9	4,880	45.1Portugal	18	7,342	74.1	17	27,119	26.6Spain	,8	6,585	25.4	8	7,783	16.4Sweden	7	1,417	57.5	6	1,445	41.3Switzerland	21	7,752	57.9	15	5,027	63.9Trinidad	(1)	5	1,531	48.9	12	7,745	33.0United Arab Republic.	7	3,961	39.7	6	2,331	76.6United Kingdom	113	114,595	62.6	106	88,990	55.9Yugoslavia	(4)	5	2,455	80.3	7	2,730	77.1
Legend: Canadian Immigration office facilities established in (1) June, 1967
(2)	August, 1967
(3)	May, 1967
(4)	October, 1967.


ELIGIBILITY FOR CANADA PENSION PLAN BENEFITS
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many Canadians are eligible at the present time to receive Canadian Pension Plan benefits?
2.	How many Canadians will never be able to receive Canada Pension Plan benefits under the present legislation?


John Carr Munro: 1. All members of the labour force who contribute to the Canada Pension Plan or to the Quebec Pension Plan are eligible to receive a retirement pension if

they live to age 65. Should death occur before or after age 65, a lump sum death benefit is payable provided the deceased contributor had made the required number of contributions. Also, upon the death of a male member of the labour force, a widow's pension will be payable to his widow if she is over the age of 35, and will be payable if she is under age 35 if she is disabled or if she has dependent children. Orphans' benefits are also payable on behalf of the dependent children of a deceased male contributor. A married woman who is a member of the labour force and who has a disabled husband who has been unable
December 10, 1969

to obtain substantially gainful employment can expect that her husband will receive a survivor's benefit upon her death. Any children who were dependent upon a working mother would also be eligible for survivors' benefits upon her death. A disability pension will be payable to a contributor who became disabled within the meaning of the Act and who had made contributions for the required number of years.
2. In general, a person will never receive Canada Pension Plan benefits under present legislation if he retired from the labour force before 1966, if he has not been a member of the labour force since 1965 and if he or she is not the disabled widower or widow of a person who had contributed to the Canada Pension Plan. The Plan is a contributory social insurance program which was not designed to cover persons in the categories mentioned in the preceding sentence.


USE OF DDT ON AGRICULTURAL CROPS
Mrs. Maclnnis: 1.	For what 12 agricultural crops will registration be granted, permitting the use of DDT under the Pest Control Act in 1970?
2.	For what reason is the tolerance for DDT reduced from seven parts per million for vegetables and fruits such as beans, carrots, corn, lettuce, peas, tomatoes, strawberries and all citrus fruits, while the DDT tolerance is to be reduced for apples, pears and celery to three and a half parts per million?
3.	Why is the DDT tolerance of seven parts per million to be left unchanged for the fat of the meat of cattle, hogs and sheep while there are no tolerances for DDT in potatoes, eggs, fish, milk, butter, cheese, ice cream and other products?
4.	In view of the widespread kills and reproductive failures among populations of birds and fish owing to contact with DDT residues, what are the reasons for believing that similar buildups will not inevitably reach lethal levels in the human species?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: 1. I am
informed by the Departments of Agriculture and National Health and Welfare as follows:
1.	Apples, strawberries, raspberries, blackberries, red beets, celery, radishes, sugar beets, turnips, rapeseed, mustard, and tobacco.
2.	The DDT tolerances were reduced in all instances to the level which could be achieved under the reduced use pattern of DDT. For most fruits and vegetables one part per million was considered to be adequate. However, in the case of apples, pears, and celery, a level of 3.5 parts per million was required. The important point to consider is that the
Questions
total consumption of DDT will be drastically reduced under the new proposals.
3.	DDT tends to concentrate in the fat of the meat of cattle, hogs and sheep. A level of seven parts per million in the fat of meat is required to accommodate residues that can arise from the recommended use of DDT to control insects on beef cattle. It is not considered desirable to establish tolerance for potatoes, fish, eggs or dairy products although trace amounts are found in these foods from time to time. In the absence of a tolerance, it is possible for the Food and Drug Directorate, Department of National Health and Welfare, to act rapidly to remove any of these products from the market if the pesticide residue levels represent any possible hazard to health.
4.	The levels of DDT in the fat of all species is related to the amount in the diet. On a specific amount of DDT in the diet, the levels in the fat reach a plateau and do not increase any further. Data which has been obtained in the Laboratories of the Food and Drug Directorate, Department of National Health and Welfare over a period of some five years, suggest that on the average, the fat of Canadians contains from four to five parts per million of DDT, a level which has not changed significantly over this period. This amount is similar to the values reported from the United Kingdom but approximately half that of average figures reported from the United States. There is no evidence that present levels of DDT in the Canadian diet or in the fat of Canadians have caused any harmful effects in humans.


RECALL OF EMPLOYEES OF DIPLOMATIC MISSIONS
Mr. Coates: 1.	How many employees of the Diplomatic Missions of the Department of External Affairs have been recalled to Canada since April 1, 1969, and how many additional persons will be recalled before March 31, 1970?
2.	Of those recalled or about to be recalled to Canada, what is the breakdown as per classification?
3.	How many Diplomatic Missions will be closed out by the Department of External Affairs and what was the total staff of each Diplomatic Mission closed out?
4.	How many of those recalled will be placed in other positions within the Department of External Affairs and how many will be asked to seek other employment within the Public Service and how many will be laid off as employees of the Public Service?

December 10, 1969
Questions


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: 1. 164 from April 1, 1969 to November 1, 1969, as part of the Department's normal rotational program. It is estimated that 233 will be redeployed to Ottawa between November 1, 1969 and March 31,
1970. 2.	
For the period from April 1	, 1969
November 1, 1969:	
Foreign Service Officers (FSO)	26
Administrative Services (AS)	14
Clerks (CR)	25
Stenographers (ST)	54
Communicators and	
Technicians (CM, EL)	37
Guards (PRC)	8
For the period from November 1, 1969 to March 31, 1970:
FSO	66
AS	22
CR	36
ST	54
CM, EL	35
PRC	20
233 (estimate)
3.	(a) Seven, (b) In so far as Canada based staff is concerned, the total staff for each of the missions being closed is as follows: Berlin, 4; Montevideo, 4; Nicosia, 6; Quito, 4; Phnom Penh, 4; Santo Domingo, 4; Vientiane, 7. (c) The locally engaged staff employed at each of these missions is as follows: Berlin, None; Montevideo, 7; Nicosia, 5; Quito, 5; Phnom Penh, None; Santo Domingo, 6; Vientiane, None.
4.	Employees serving abroad being redeployed to Ottawa will not necessarily be surplus to departmental requirements. While it is clear that some staff reductions will be required prior to March 31, 1970 the precise numbers and occupational groups affected cannot yet be finally determined.


RESIGNATIONS FROM CERTAIN EXTERNAL AFFAIRS BRANCHES
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 407
Mr. Coales:: 1.	How many employees of the Administrative and Foreign Services Branches of the Department of External Affairs have submitted resignations since April 1, 1969?
2.	How many employees of the Passport Division have submitted resignations since April 1, 1969?


Mitchell William Sharp: Employment	Total number	Of these resignations the following number transferred to other Federal GovernmentCategory	of resignations	DepartmentsAdministrative Services Officers	6	1Administrative Trainees	3	2Foreign Service Officers	17	3Permanent employees	6	1Term employees	10	0


Mr. Sulatycky: 1.	(a) How many square feet of office space in Ottawa were leased by the government from Cam-peau Corporation during the month of July, 1969?
(b) What amount of rent was paid to Campeau Corporation for this space?
2.	(a) How many square feet of office space were rented in Ottawa by the government during the month of July, 1969?
(b) What amount of rent was paid for this space?


Arthur Laing: So far as the Department of Public Works is concerned: 1. (a) 858,044 sq. ft., (b) $312,766.67.
2. (a) 4,357,281 sq. ft., (b) $1,442,272.52.


Mr. MacGuigan: 1.	Is the government seeking the agreement of the provincial governments to the ratification by Can-
December 10, 1969

ada of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, which was signed by Canada on August 24, 1966 and, if so, which provinces have (a) agreed to the ratification (b) withheld their agreement?
2.	When does the government expect to be in a position to ratify the Convention?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. and 2. Since signing the convention, the Government of Canada has been consulting provincial governments with a view to obtaining their approval of Canadian ratification. No province has withheld its agreement to ratification. This process of consultation is nearing completion, and the Government is hopeful that in the near future the way will be open for Canada to ratify the convention.
Questions


Mr. Foriin: 1.	For each of the last ten years, what were (a) the revenue (b) the expenditures of the Post Office Department?
2.	Do the figures for revenue and expenditures take into account the value of services supplied to the Post Office Department by other departments as well as the value of services supplied to other departments by the Post Office Department and, if not, what is the estimated value of such services?
3.	For each of the last ten years, what was the surplus or deficit of the Post Office Department?
4.	For each of the last ten years, how many post offices were in operation?
5.	For each of the last ten years, what was the total number of employees in the Post Office Department?


Eric William Kierans: 


[Stage Direction]
1959-60	1960-61	1961-62	1962-63	1963-64	1964-65	1965-66	1966-67	1967-68	1968-691.	(a) Revenue	
196.9	205.6	217.5	226.7	240.3	268.7	285.1	305.4	335	374.9(b) Costs	
220.3	236.8	246.8	251.4	277.2	279.6	315.8	353.1	404.2	463.12.	Yes.3.	Deficit	
23.4	31.2	29.0	24.7	36.9	10.9	30.7	47.7	67.2	88.24	
11,414	11,335	11,291	11.224	11,149	11,097	11,172	11,059	10,838	10,4505	
39,855	40,542	41,197	41,512	42,027	43,067	44,244	46,767	48,376	49,058
Mr. Fortin: 1.	With reference to Question No. 2,229 answered on June 11, 1969, what instructions were given by the government to Eldorado Nuclear Limited limiting prospecting?
2.	When did the government lift the ban on prospecting and what was the substance of this instruction?
3.	Did studies made by the company establish that supplies of uranium and uranium derivatives are adequate?
4.	Does the company intend to sell shares or bonds in order to finance prospecting?


Robert John (Bud) Orange: 1.	In March 1961, the Minister of Trade and Commerce advised that Eldorado Nuclear Limited should withdraw from the field of outside exploration and not proceed with its proposed 1961 program.
2.	On July 19, 1968 the Government approved the re-entry of Eldorado into the field of mineral exploration, and directed that
Cabinet approval be obtained for any arrangements to dispose of any orebody holdings of Eldorado.
3.	No.
4.	The Company has no plans at this time to finance prospecting by the sale of shares or bonds.


Mr. Rose: 1. Is there any recording of earthquakes by Canadian government scientists and, if so, did these scientists record a strong earthquake in the Aleutian Islands at the end of October 1969?
2 What was the shock measure of this earthquake on the Richter scale?


Robert John (Bud) Orange: December 10, 1969
Questions
which occurred at 11 hr 33 m 05 sec Universal Time Oct. 31, 1969, was sufficiently strong to be recorded at all the stations of the network.
2.	The magnitude of this earthquake was 6 on the unified body-wave magnitude scale used by seismologists for events at this distance. This scale is often referred to as the Richter scale, although there are small, highly technical differences. On another scale, involving surface waves, the magnitude was 6.4.


Mr. Dumont: Is the aid granted to the University of the West Indies in the amount of $1,731,000.00 an interest-free loan or a gift from the Government of Canada?

Kon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs): It is a gift from the government of Canada.


Mr. Mather: 1.	Is the government aware of the experimental development in the U.S. of a smogless motor vehicle powered by turbo-electric means?
2.	Is consideration being given to prohibiting the use of pollution-creating motor vehicle engines?


Gérard Loiselle: 1. Yes.
2. Prohibiting the use of such engines is not considered to be a feasible solution to the problem at this time, as practical alternatives are not as yet available. Passage of Bill C-137 would make it possible to establish and enforce maximum limits of the exhaust emission from new motor vehicles. The limits would be set in relation to the levels of air pollution in Canada at a given time so as to minimize the danger to the health of Canadians.


Mr. Howard (Skeena): Has the Post Office Department conducted an investigation into the claim that the Liberal Federation of Canada mailed hundreds of press releases to the Parliamentary Press Gallery free of charge and, if so, what is the result?


Eric William Kierans: Yes, it was

determined that 286 items were mailed. As soon as the error became known to the mailers they remitted to the Post Office Department full payment of first class postage in the amount of $17.16.


Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Were letters from the Liberal Federation of Canada delivered in the mails in Ottawa recently without postage and, if so, on what dates and in what quantity?
2.	Did the Post Office Department investigate such delivery and, if so, what was the result?
3.	How many complaints were received concerning this matter?
4.	What would have been the total revenue accruing to the Post Office Department, had the postage on the items in part 1 been fully paid?


Eric William Kierans: 1. Yes, November 10, 1969-286 items.
2.	Yes. As soon as the error became known to the mailers they remitted to the Post Office Department full payment of first class postage in the amount of $17.16.
3.	None.
4.	$17.16.


Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Since July 1, 1969, what improvements have been made at the Charlottetown Airport?
2.	For what reason was the calling of tenders for paving the parking lot and runways and extending the terminal building delayed beyond the announced date?
3.	What is now the estimated completion date for all such improvements and extensions?
4.	When is it intended to obtain more land for the Charlottetown Airport and commence construction of a new terminal building?
5.	At the present time, how many daily commercial flights use the facilities of the Charlottetown Airport?
6.	What is the total passenger capacity of each and all such flights?
7.	What is the seating capacity of the passenger lounge of the Charlottetown Airport?


Gérard Loiselle: 1. Taxiway and apron have been extended for larger aircraft. A car park enlargement is underway and 90 per cent complete.
2. Paving Contract delayed due to funding, design time, and tender call. The Terminal
December 10, 1969

enlargement was delayed due to establishment of user requirements and design; tender closing date December 18.
3.	Paving completion date June 1970; Terminal completion date May 1970.
4.	When forecast operational requirements justify such action; currently, and pending further detailed studies of needs of the role of this airport in the overall Maritime aviation system, we expect such work might be necessary in the 1975-80 period.
5.	Four flights.
6.	Of the four flights noted, two are B737 -105 passengers; and two are Dart Herald- 41 passengers. Total daily passenger capacity -292 passengers.
7.	Thirty-two passengers.


Mr. McQuaid: Of the 278 development incentive grants or loans approved by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion since January 1, 1969, for firms establishing new plants or expanding in the slow-growth regions of Canada (a) how many of these have been approved for the Province of Prince Edward Island (b) what are the names of the ones so approved (c) what is the amount of financial assistance given in each case and is this assistance by way of loan or grant (d) what is the estimated permanent employment which win result from these approvals?


Mr. Martin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: (a) 13; (b) and (c) details of development incentives are provided when, but only when, the company has actually begun construction (under the new legislation) or gone into commercial production (under the old legislation); (d) 711.


Mrs. Maclnnis: Are animals still being used to test material in connection with research into chemical and biological warfare at the Defence Research Station at Suffield, Alberta?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: In its program of chemical and biological defence research, the Defence Research Establishment Suffield uses animals as they are used in medical research generally, which is concerned with man's welfare both in peaceful and defensive environments. The animals employed are obtained from the same sources from which other medical
Questions
research laboratories obtain them, and the most humane techniques according to the "Guiding Principles for the Care of Laboratory Animals" formulated by the Canadian Federation of Biological Societies, are observed in all such work.



FOREIGN EMBASSY MAILING PRIVILEGES

Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg: North Centre):
1.	What arrangements or agreements have been established between the Government of Canada and foreign embassies situated in Canada regarding mailing privileges through the Canadian Post Office from these embassies to places within Canada?
2.	Does all mail distributed by foreign embassies within Canada go postage free and, if so, how is this mail labelled?


Eric William Kierans: 1. Under the provisions of the Convention of the Postal Union of the Americas and Spain, correspondence, other than air mail, of duly accredited members of the diplomatic corps situated in Canada representing the following countries: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Salvador (El), Spain, United States, Uruguay and Venezuela may be conveyed free of postage when mailed at Ottawa and addressed for delivery in Canada or in the countries mentioned. As Canada is a member of this particular Union our Embassies situated in the above mentioned countries enjoy the same mailing privilege.
2. Only mail originating with Embassies of countries of the Postal Union of the Americas and Spain is entitled to the free mailing privilege referred to in (1). Such mail must bear the name of the Embassy and be prominently endorsed "Diplomatic Correspondence" and "Free of Postage".



QUEEN OF CANADA SIX CENT STAMPS

Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Are six cent stamps available featuring the Queen of Canada and, if not, when were these stamps removed from issue?
2.	Does the government intend to re-issue them and, if so, when?


Eric William Kierans: 1. Yes.
2. Not applicable.

December 10, 1969
Questions



WELFARE PAYMENTS, CANADA ASSISTANCE ACT

Mrs. Maclnnis: Is the federal government, by legislation, regulation or otherwise, preventing the Province of British Columbia from making welfare payments under the Canada Assistance Act to casual longshoremen or other workers laid off by strikes?


John Carr Munro: There is no federal legislation, regulation or other requirement that would prevent the province of British Columbia from making welfare payments under the Canada Assistance Plan to casual longshoremen or other workers laid off by strikes other than that any assistance paid must be based on a test of need and be consistent with the provincial law under which assistance is granted.



CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN PAYMENTS TO BRITISH COLUMBIA

Mrs. Maclnnis: How much money has been paid to the Province of British Columbia under the Canada Assistance Plan in each year since the Plan came into operation?


John Carr Munro: Federal payments to the Province of British Columbia under the Canada Assistance Plan in each year since inception of the Plan:
Year
1966-	67
1967-	68
1968-	69
1969-	70
(to Oct. 31/69)
Payment



$32,719,792 37,215,887 20,781,117 $90,716,796 DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES TO FIRMS

Mr. McGrath: 1.	By province, what firms received development incentives in the current calendar year for the establishment of new plants or for expansion in the slow growth regions of Canada?
2.	By province, what are the names of the firms who qualify for such development incentives?
3.	By province, how many new jobs are to be created by such development incentives?


Abram Ernest Epp: 1 and 2. Details of development incentives are provided in the monthly
[Mr. Kierans.l
report to Parliament when, but only when, the company has actually begun construction (under the new legislation) or gone into commercial production (under the old legislation).
3.	Newfoundland, 1,015; Prince Edward Island, 711; Nova Scotia, 3,627; New Brunswick, 3,582; Quebec, 4,906; Ontario, 1,467; Manitoba, 656; Saskatchewan, 311; Alberta, 382; and British Columbia, 1,281.



MID-CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORRIDOR STUDIES

Mr. Southam: 1.	What department or official of the federal government is responsible for the "Mid-Canada Development Corridor" studies presently under way?
2.	What Minister of the Crown will report to Parliament on the progress of these studies?
3.	Will the proceedings of the First Session of the Mid-Canada Development Corridor Conference be available at an early date and will Members of Parliament have copies made available to them?
4.	Will the seven task forces, now established in relation to these studies, be making regular reports and will these reports be made available to Members of Parliament?


Abram Ernest Epp: 1. There are no such studies.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	The Mid-Canada Development Corridor Conference held at Lakehead University last August was privately sponsored and any reports of its proceedings must be distributed by the sponsors.
4.	Not applicable.



MILITARY PERSONNEL STATIONED IN THE NORTH

Mr. Dinsdale: In 1959, 1963 and 1969 how many Canadian military personnel were located in (a) Whitehorse (b) Inuvik (c) Churchill (d) Frobisher Bay, and (e) Alert?


Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: As of
30 September:
1959	1963	1969(a) Whitehorse	583	596	NIL(b) Inuvik	61	108	225(c) Churchill	679	675	1(d) Frobisher Bay	NIL	23	NIL(e) Alert	71	144	194
December 10, I960



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Paproski: 1.	By country of origin, how many persons were granted landed immigrant status in Canada in each of the following years, 1965-66-67-68?
2.	By country of origin how many were rejected in each of the same years?
3.	By country of origin what was the province of final destination of those accepted in the above years?
Return tabled.


GRANTS TO CESO
Mr. Lewis: 1.	For each of the years 1967, 1968 and 1969, what federal government grants have been given to the CESO, the private organization providing technical assistance overseas?
2.	Who are the principal officers and directors of CESO, and what business organizations do they represent?
Return tabled.



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 AIR TRANSPORT POSSIBLE STRIKE BY AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS-ALLEGED INTERFERENCE IN NEGOTIATIONS BY MINISTER OF TRANSPORT

John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the crisis stalemate existing today in the nego iations between the Treasury Board and the Canadian Air Traffic Control Association, which has been aggravated by the uncalled for interference by the Minister of Transport by way of public statements with legitimate bargaining processes and by his suggestions, which blatantly disregard public safety, for a makeshift preservation of services in the event of a strike, despite his undertaking made to the Public Service Staff Relations Board on July 31, 1969, to respect a legal strike.
The delays of the Treasury Board and the improper interference of the Minister of Transport so certainly call into question the good faith of the government that settlement by negotiation may well be impossible, and this House should now consider alternative
Motions for Papers
modes of settlement. I draw this to your attention, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member knows that according to the Standing Order he can only give to the House the statement of which he has given notice to the Speaker and which ends with the words "should now consider alternative modes of settlement."
The hon. member for Crowfoot has, as I have intimated, given the notice required by Standing Order 26, and I have had an opportunity to consider all aspects of the proposed motion. While the issue of a possible nationwide strike of air traffic controllers is one of national importance and of immediate interest to all hon. members, I have grave doubts about the advisability of putting the hon. member's motion to the House at this time. After giving the matter my most serious consideration, I have come to the conclusion that the provisions of Standing Order 26 do not allow for the adjournment of the House for the purpose proposed by the hon. member. This does not preclude the hon. member from raising the matter later. My decision is simply that the motion should not be put at this time.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 177, 178, 196, 215, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241 and 242 are acceptable to the government.



VITAMIN A INTAKE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 177-Mrs. Maclnnis:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the studies carried out by the Food and Drug Directorate for five Canadian cities showing that there are many persons who receive an insufficient intake of Vitamin A.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 178-Mrs. Maclnnis:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the special study by Dr. Eldon Boyd, professor of pharmacology at Queen's University, on new drug regulations prepared for the federal Food and Drug Directorate.
Motion agreed to.
1808
[Stage Direction]
December 10, 1989
Motions for Papers
POLLUTION OF INLAND AND	province of Saskatchewan and referred to in the
COASTAL WATERS	answer to Question No. 262.
Motion No. 196-Mr. Rose:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the paper indicating Canada's position on pollution of inland and coastal waters prepared for the Inter-governmental Maritime Consultative Organization held at Brussels in November. 1969.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 215-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report by Stevenson and Kellogg Limited on butter and skim milk production undertaken for the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce in the fiscal year 1965-66, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the past Session.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 236-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of any report or other document which describes the weighted measures of rates of economic growth (employment, income and population) and of potential for secondary industry which were used by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion as criteria in selecting designated areas for the province of British Columbia and referred to in the answer to Question No. 264.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 237-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of any report or other document which describes the weighted measures of rates of economic growth (employment, income and population) and of potential for secondary industry which were used by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion as criteria in selecting designated areas for the province of Alberta and referred to in the answer to Question No. 263.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 238-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of any report or other document which describes the weighted measures of rates of economic growth (employment, income and population) and of potential for secondary industry which were used by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion as criteria in selecting designated areas for the

Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 239-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of any report or other document which describes the weighted measures of rates of economic growth (employment, income and population) and of potential for secondary industry which were used by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion as criteria in selecting designated areas for the province of Manitoba and referred to in the answer to Question No. 261.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 240-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of any report or other document which describes the weighted measures of rates of economic growth (employment, income and population) and of potential for secondary industry which were used by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion as criteria in selecting designated areas for the province of Ontario and referred to in the answer to Question No. 260.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 241-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of any report or other document which describes the weighted measures of rates of economic growth (employment, income and population) and of potential for secondary industry which were used by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion as criteria in selecting designated areas for the province of Quebec and referred to in the answer to Question No. 259.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 242-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of any report or other document which describes the weighted measures of rates of economic growth (employment, income and population) and of potential for secondary industry which were used by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion as criteria in selecting designated areas for the province of Newfoundland and referred to in the answer to Question No. 256.
Motion agreed to.
December 10, 1969
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions Nos. 155, 165, 244 and 257 are acceptable to the government, subject to the usual reservations concerning privileged papers and authorization of the government authorities concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the Parliament Secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that notices of motions No. 155, 165, 244 and 257 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



WATER POLLUTION

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 155-Mr. Harding:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all briefs, memoranda or other correspondence received from the manufacturers of detergents in relation to water pollution.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 165-Mr. Saltsman:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all representations received by the Minister of Finance on the subject of foreign takeovers of financial institutions as referred to in answer to Question Number 2,612 reported in Hansard on October 22, 1969, page 11682.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 244-Mr. Bell:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all letters, communications, telegrams, agreements and other data concerning the proposed take-over of Lancaster DVA Hospital between the Government of Canada, the Government of New Brunswick, the Commissioners of the Saint John Hospital, Royal Canadian Legion and other bodies or agencies involved in said transaction.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 257-Mr. Yewchuk:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he wil cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and all other documents exchanged between the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Devel-21545-441
Motions for Papers
opment or any agency or division thereof, and the Government of the Province of Alberta or any agency, department or division thereof, on matters pertaining to Wood Buffalo National Park with reference to (a) change in boundaries (b) highway construction (c) industrial development (d) park administration.
Motion agreed to.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call the following notices of motions: Nos. 3, 5, 25, 45, 50, 76, 100, 127, 128, 130, 152, 153, 154, 172, 173, 175, 176, 182 and 243?
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.



BACKGROUND PAPERS, INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND MEETING

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 3-Mr. Saltsman:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all background papers prepared for the September annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund.
Hon. Herb Gray (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, the papers requested by the hon. member are internal working papers prepared for ministers by departmental officials and, as such, are privileged documents. In view of this I hope the hon. member will consider withdrawing his motion.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn



NEWFOUNDLAND REFINING CO. LTD. TAX EXEMPTIONS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 5-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the order-in-council granting Newfoundland Refining Co. Ltd. of St. John's certain exemptions from the provisions of Section 1100 of the Income Tax Act Regulations.
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, Order in Council P.C. 1969-1643 amended section 1100 and Schedule B of the Income Tax Regulations to the effect that all corporations which were affected by Section 14(1) of Chapter 44 of the Statutes of 1968-69 were granted the right to accelerated capital cost allowance in respect of certain depreciable property. The Order in Council did not name any specific corporation.

December 10, 1969
Motions jor Papers
With this reservation, the government would have no objection to accepting the motion and tabling the Order in Council.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the minister, is it the pleasure of the House that Notice of Motion No. 5 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 25-Mr. Gilbert:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid belore the House copies of all correspondence between the Government of Canada and the Government of Ontario regarding the private health insurance companies in Ontario acting as agents of the federal medical program in that province.
Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the hon. member that the correspondence referred to in this motion does not exist. Most of the negotiations between the province of Ontario and the federal government concerning that province's entry into the medical care program took the form of discussions at ministerial and official levels. In view of this perhaps there would be agreement to withdraw this motion.


Mr. Gilbert:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



LOBBYING

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 45-Mr. Mather:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the report on Lobbying prepared for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the material referred to in this motion is part of a continuing study which was never intended for other than internal use by officials of my department and me. In view of this, I would ask whether the hon. member would withdraw his motion.


Mr. Mather:: No, Mr. Speaker. I should like to have it transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
tMr. Gray.]
MUNICIPAL SEWAGE PLANTS Motion No. 50


Mr. Harding:: That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all applications received by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation from municipalities for the period January 1, 1969 to September 30, 1969 regarding financial assistance for the construction of municipal sewage plants under the National Housing Act.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, the Minister without Portfolio informs me that such transactions are private matters between the municipalities and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. As a matter of policy the corporation does not reveal details of applications made to it by municipalities. Applications for loans under Part VIB of the National Housing Act do not take any particular form and may be very lengthy, including extensive plans and specifications for the work proposed. I therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I had asked for the applications by municipalities and I feel that these could and should be made available. May I ask that the motion be transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 76-Mr. McGrath:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of each interim and final report on lobbying prepared for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



DISCONTINUANCE OF CHURCH AND OTHER PUBLICATIONS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 100-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all letters received by the Postmaster General from churches, professional organizations, trade unions, co-operatives, credit unions and private organizations, indicating that as a result of the increase in postal rates they intend to discontinue or curtail their publications.
Mr. Yves Fores! (Parliameniary Secreiary io President of the Privy Council): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Communications informs me that this motion is not acceptable as the information requested would necessitate a review of over 5,000 files. It is estimated that several hundred man-hours would be expended in drawing files and searching for
December 10, 1969
[Stage Direction]
desired correspondence without taking into consideration lime expended in copying such correspondence. The expense of such a project is not considered warranted. I therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.
Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, it may not be considered warranted by the minister but it is by me. I should like to have a vote on this motion.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
CITE DU HAVRE, MONTREAL Motion No. 127-Mr. Gilbert:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the plan prepared by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation regarding the development of Cite du Havre in Montreal and discussed in May between officials of CMHC, Montreal and the National Harbours Board.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, the Minister without Portfolio informs me that no such plan has been prepared by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the lands known as Cite du Havre. However, the corporation and the National Harbours Board have commissioned the services of Community Development Con-sultan'.s Limited to prepare a development plan for these lands. A preliminary study has been submitted to the corporation but no final plans have been prepared. I therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


John Gilbert: Transfer for debate, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
PRIVATE MORTGAGE MARKET Motion No. 128-Mr. Gilbert:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the survey of the private mortgage market undertaken by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in September, 1969 to determine whether adequate private funds for housing are available.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, the Minister without Portfolio informs me that a survey was conducted on a confidential basis between the officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the officials of individual approved lenders. This survey was done by way of personal
Motions for Papers
interview. A report on these personal interviews was made to the minister by the corporation. It is privileged by virtue of the relationship between the corporation and the minister who reports to Parliament for the corporation. It covers matters of a confidential nature and would not be in the interests of the public to have it disclosed. If the government was obliged to disclose the contents of the survey made, the approved lenders would not be prepared in the future to provide the corporation with such confidential information. I therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


John Gilbert: Transfer for debate, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



CONTRACT, ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LTD. AND TAIWAN ATOMIC ENERGY COUNCIL

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 130-Mr. Gilbert:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the contract between the Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd. and the Atomic Energy Council of Taiwan regarding the sale of a nuclear research reactor.
Robert John (Bud) Orange: Mr. Speaker, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited advises that the contract between Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and the Atomic Energy Council of Taiwan is a commercial contract and it has not been customary to make documents of this class public because of the confidential nature of their contents. In view of this, I would ask that the hon. member withdraw his motion.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I would ask for a vote on this matter.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
PHOSPHATE DETERGENT PRODUCTS Motion No. 152-Mr. Harding:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence between the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the United States authorities in relation to phosphate detergent products.


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, my minister wishes to

December 10, 1969
Motions for Papers
advise the hon. member that there is no correspondence of the nature referred to in Motion No. 152. Perhaps, therefore, the hon. member may wish to withdraw this motion.


Randolph Harding: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



BANNING OF DDT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 153-Mr. Harding:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence between the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the United States authorities in relation to the banning of D.D.T.
Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, with regard to Motions Nos. 153 and 154 communication with the United States was by telephone due to the urgency of the investigation. Perhaps, therefore, the hon. member may wish to withdraw his motions.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, according to Hansard this was an interdepartmental committee discussion and I presume there must be some material somewhere, but if all the discussion took place by telephone I presume they have not got a record of it so I shall just have to withdraw it.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
BANNING OF CYCLAMATES Motion No. 154-Mr. Harding:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence between the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the United States authorities in relation to the banning of the use of cyclamates.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
INTERIM REPORT ON OIL POLICY Motion No. 172-Mr. Saltsman:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the interim report of the Task Force on Oil Policy (Northern Development), as mentioned by the Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in Hansard on April 25, 1S69, page 7956.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Mr. Speaker, the task force on northern oil development is an interdepartmental group of officials reporting on an interim basis directly to ministers on developments as they occur. It

is not customary to release such communications, but when a final report is made consideration will be given to making it public. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Saltsman:: Mr. Speaker, although it is not customary I think it is important that this information be made available now.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



PETROLEUM-REFINERY CAPACITY AND MARKET DEMAND

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 173-Mr. Saltsman:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the National Energy Board studies assessing refinery capacity and market demand for refined petroleum products in Regions I, II and III referred to by the Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources before the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works on May 8, 1969, page 361 of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence.
Robert John (Bud) Orange: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the National Energy Board that the survey of Regions I and II referred to in this motion has not yet been completed. However, the board has prepared a summary of its report on the survey of Ontario (region III) refining capacity. If the hon. member would consent to withdrawal of his motion, I would be prepared to table this document now.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this motion adopted subject to the conditions outlined by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 175-Mr. Saltsman:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the studies on the impact of deferred capital allowances, taxes on air fares, speed-ups, in bringing about the final three stages of the Kennedy Round tariff reductions and any other reports, studies, or reviews etc. prepared for the June Budget brought down by the Minister of Finance.
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the papers requested by
December 10, 1969
the hon. member are internal working papers prepared for ministers by departmental officials and as such as considered to be privileged documents. In view of this information I hope the hon. member will consider withdrawing his motion.
Mr. Salts man: Mr. Speaker, I think I should like to have this transferred for debate. The minister's point is not very compelling.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



PHARMACEUTICALS AND DRUGS-REMOVAL OF SALES TAX

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 176-Mr. Salisman:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of any reports, reviews or studies of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs regarding the removal of the federal sales tax on pharmaceuticals and drugs.
Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the reports, reviews or studies referred to by the hon. member in this motion consist of working sheets and memoranda composed for internal use in the department. As such they are privileged documents. In view of this I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Max Saltsman: Transfer for debate, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
REPORT ON WATER Motion No. 182-Mr. Harding:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the interdepartmental committee report on water referred to by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources as reported in Hansard, November 4, 1969 on page 468.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the hon. member's motion I have to advise that no such report is available as the interdepartmental committee on water has not yet completed its study of this matter of water pollution through the input of phosphates. As the minister stated in the House of Commons on November 4, he is to receive the ICW recommendations as to appropriate federal government action in this regard and to submit them to cabinet for its consideration. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the motion at this time and submit it later when the report is available.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



FISH AND GAME LAWS IN RELATION TO INDIANS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 243-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the report of the interdepartmental committee, the establishment of which was announced on March 29, 1965, which studied the question of fish and game laws as they relate to Native Indians.
Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the minister stated, as recorded in Hansard for November 6, 1968, in reply to an identical motion by the hon. member that the report deals with privileged papers and cannot be tabled in the House. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw the motion.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, that request and the position that the government took earlier about its coloured slides simply show how two-faced and hypocritical the government is about giving information.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion to be withdrawn or transferred for debate?


Frank Howard: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not dropped. I want it transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that we have the Minister of Finance here in person and not merely on a slide-


Edgar John Benson: In living colour!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -although I might get just as much information out of a slide. I would like to ask him a question that the Acting Prime Minister could not answer yesterday. In view of the report by the Purchasing Management Association of Canada which reveals

December 10, 1969

Inquiries o] the Ministry that fully 60 per cent of surveyed businesses expect higher prices in 1970, can the minister say whether the government proposes to take any additional measures to offset this kind of development, rather than simply leaving the whole problem to the Prices and Incomes Commission?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the matter of inflation in this country is under continual review by the government and any measures we propose to take will be announced to the House in the proper manner.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In light of this very general response, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Finance whether it is still the intention of the government to continue to refuse a parliamentary committee review of the trendsetting price increases made recently and other matters related to inflation? I ask this question particularly in view of the apparent inability of the government to bring forward helpful measures.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, if I may reply for the Minister of Finance, I have in the past made it clear to the House that we intend to ask the House to establish a parliamentary committee on price stability, but when the opposition spends six or seven days debating CNR financing it becomes difficult to get a motion like that before the House.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I ask the minister when he proposes to take steps to establish such a committee.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I am ready to establish it right away. It is simply a question of when the House is ready to establish it.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Arising from the remarks he made in Vancouver yesterday, wherein he indica'ed that the government was developing new inflation control measures for use in the event that voluntary restraints do not work successfully, is the minister now in a posi ion to take the House of Commons into his confidence wi h respect to the nature of these controls and, if so, will they also be placed on coloured slides?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.



PROSPECTIVE INCREASE IN COPPER PRICES

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance regarding reports that the copper producers of Canada, who have had three price increases in the past year, are now discussing a fourth increase in price. Is the government taking the precaution of having discussions with the copper-producing companies in order to prevent, if at all possible, a fourth increase in the price of copper within a single year?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the question as notice and look into the matter.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Have the min ster or the Prices and Incomes Commission had or are they planning to have discussions with the copper producers to deal wi'.h the matter of a possible fourth increase in the price of copper?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I think the answer to this question should be given by the Minister of Finance.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister a question with respect to his department and the Prices and Incomes Commission, which allegedly comes under his jurisdiction. I asked him if that commission has had discussions or is planning to have discussions with the copper producers of this country. That matter does not come under the Minister of Finance.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, as I have previously explained to the House, I do not get a daily report from the Prices and Incomes Commission. They are having discussions across the country with various groups who are making private and group wage and price decisions, in an attempt to get an agreed package of voluntary restraint. However, I am not informed whether they have met or have the intention of meeting with spokesmen of the copper industry.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary question I ask the minister whether he will request the
December 10, 1969

Prices and Incomes Commission to initiate such a discussion in the immediate future before this price increase comes into effect.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, as I have made clear to the House, the commission is an independent body-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: How independent?


Stanley Ronald Basford: -and I have outlined to the
House what it is endeavouring to do. Because it is an independent commission, I think it would be quite unwise for me to be directing it every hour as to what it should be doing.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Haslings):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Could the minister advise the House how high the government considers the cost of living must go before it will realize and admit that its anti-inflationary program is a farce and a mockery?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I noted that in his answer the minister said that the commission makes decisions from day to day. The word he used was "decisions", and decision means finality. Is he in a position to table the decisions made by this commission during the last two weeks?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I said the commission does not report to me on a day-to-day basis.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister cannot get away with that. He said decisions were being made from time to time. Will he secure from the commission the decisions made in the last two weeks with reference to this matter?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I would have to check the record as to what I said. I believe I said the commission does not report to me day by day.


John George Diefenbaker: I rise on a question of privilege. The minister cannot misstate or misinterpret what he said. He did say decisions were made. Now he is trying to back away because he does not know anything about the decisions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Shefford.
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



SHIPBUILDING


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Could he tell the House if the government intends to implement the main recommendations of the CNTU and the Federation of Metallurgists, Miners and Chemical Workers about the shipbuilding industry in Canada?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, these recommendations have been made to the committee of the Canadian Transportation Commission. I shall look at the brief and, above all, I shall wait until the Commission's recommendations are known.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. In view of the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Drybones case, can the minister assure the House that no native people are at present being unjustly held in our penal institutions?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: hope that is the case, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: A	supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the Drybones case, has the Minister of Justice, his department or the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development studied the Indian Act to ascertain which sections now have no effect by reason of the momentous judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in its approval of the Bill of Rights?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the right hon. member that we proposed to withdraw the Indian Act completely on June 25 last.


John George Diefenbaker: In withdrawing it, will the sections that are discriminatory be removed?
1816	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: There will be no such law; the sections will be removed. There will be a new act, the Indian Lands Act. It will cover-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: -the lands of the Indians, and not-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice. Intrigued, of course, by the answer of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, who obviously is not going to listen to anybody, I ask the Minister of Justice whether he will be prepared in the interim, until the day mentioned by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development comes to pass, to refer the Indian Act and all such legislation relating to the Indian people to the Supreme Court for determination of which sections may be contrary to the Bill of Rights?


John Napier Turner: I want to echo what my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, said. Under the policy stated by the government, the Indian Act will no longer be on the statute books. This was a very important decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. If I might say so, it was a very creative, judicial decision establishing the primacy of the Bill of Rights in respect of federal legislation. We are looking very carefully at that judgment. I think it is fair to say, from the majority judgment delivered by Mr. Justice Ritchie, that he was careful to limit the extent of the judgment to the particular section, 94(b) I think it was, of the Indian Act.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not quite correct.


John Napier Turner: Perhaps the right hon. member and I-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, has the Minister of Justice or anyone in his department have made a survey of this matter to ascertain whether any native people are being unjustly held at the present time, in light of this decision?


John Napier Turner: I will certainly take that very important suggestion under consideration.


Paul Yewchuk: A supplementary question to the Minister of Justice,

DEBATES	December 10, 1969
Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that an Indian convicted of a drinking offence can receive a three months' sentence while for the same offence a white man is liable to receive only one month, what is the minister planning to do about this situation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



PROSECUTIONS FOR SEDITION BY FEDERAL ATTORNEY GENERAL

John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, on November 27 during an exchange with the right hon. member for Prince Albert I stated that a search of the records of the Department of Justice disclosed that at no time since Confederation had a prosecution for sedition been undertaken by the federal Attorney General. I regret to say that it has now been brought to my attention by a very senior member of the bar that this statement was based upon what turned out to be a faulty search of the records of the Department of Justice.


John George Diefenbaker: That was the point I made.


John Napier Turner: A file has been found indicating that in 1919, arising out of the general strike in Winnipeg, one Robert B. Russell and several other individuals were prosecuted for seditious conspiracy by counsel retained by the then Acting Minister of Justice, the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen. The error contained in what I said on November 27-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether the minister is now answering a question, making a statement or speaking on a question of privilege. I think he should make the answer as short as possible.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, because of the very important exchange I had with the right hon. member, I wanted to do him justice and apologize to him in the House for inadvertently misstating the record. This is the first opportunity I have had during the question period to set the record straight. The error contained in what I said does not, however, change the basic point I was trying to establish, namely, that the prime responsibility for enforcing prosecutions for sedition under the Criminal Code is provincial.
December 10, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry THE CANADIAN ECONOMY	TRANSPORT



WARNING BY BANK PRESIDENTS OF INSTABILITY IN 1970

Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Has the minister taken under careful advisement the warnings of the presidents of two of Canada's leading banks that the economy is showing some very disquieting signs of instability and slowdown in the early 1970's?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I have simply read the same newspaper reports as my hon. friend regarding what the heads of two chartered banks have said.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If this matter is under careful advisement, what changes does the government envisage in its monetary and fiscal policies in the event that there is such a slowdown in the early 1970s?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that if the minister feels this information should be given to the House it should be presented in a statement on motions.



HARBOURS


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport always looks so comfortable in his seat that I hesitate to disturb him with a question. However, I feel compelled to ask him to inform the House whether we are now any closer to having a statement of new policy with respect to small vessel harbour administration on the Pacific coast than we were when I asked him the question several weeks ago?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are several weeks closer.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Speakman Barnett: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister to be somewhat more explicit and tell us how much closer we are?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



RAILWAY ORDER RESPECTING FROST DAMAGE TO FLOWERS

Donald Campbell Jamieson: While I am out of my comfortable seat, Mr. Speaker, may I have Your Honour's indulgence to reply to two questions asked recently by hon. members.
The first question was from the right hon. member for Prince Albert who a few days ago was worrying about flower power. I am happy to advise him and others who have requested the information that the owners' risk provision on flower shipments will be lifted as of December 15. The necessary arrangements have been made.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



POSTPONEMENT OF INCREASE IN POTASH FREIGHT RATE

Donald Campbell Jamieson: The answer to the other question, Mr. Speaker, is that the Canadian Transport Commission has advised that the railways are prepared to accede to the request of the Premier of Saskatchewan for a postponement of the effective date for the 6 per cent increase in the freight rate on potash shipped to Vancouver.



BABY CHICKS-REGULATION RESPECTING OWNERSHIP RISK

Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Transport. It relates to the ownership risk provisions. Is it planned that they will also be lifted on the shipment of day-old baby chicks?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have been
involved with flowers to date. I will now take on my hon. friend's chicks.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



HEALTH INSURANCE


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is he aware that federal employees, residing in Quebec, must contribute to the Ontario health insurance plan?
1818	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: I think this question could be put on the order paper. It it is urgent, it might be discussed at the time of adjournment.



AIR TRANSPORT


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the breakdown of negotiations between the federal government and the air traffic controllers, will the minister assure the House that adequate contingency plans have been made to ensure that the safety of people travelling by air will not be jeopardized, perhaps through the inexperience of those taking the places of the air traffic controllers?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I can give an unqualified assurance that such is the case, Mr. Speaker.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Did the Minister of Transport not assure the Public Service Staff Relations Board on July 29, 1969, that in the event of a strike movement by air would cease?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's supplementary question is argumentative.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: May I rephrase it, Mr. Speaker? I certainly did not intend to be argumentative.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, Oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I was only seeking clarification of the statement the minister made on July 29. Did he not state that in the event of a strike air traffic would cease? I am asking for clarification, not for an argument.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: With the greatest respect, I have to say that the question is hypothetical. There is no strike. I re-emphasize that in no circumstances will we in any way compromise public safety. I am sincerely hopeful that the necessity to make this kind of decision will not arise because a strike will not take place.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darimoulh-Halifax East):: May I ask whether the contingency plans involve the staffing of both air traffic control centres and local air traffic positions with supervisory personnel?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The details will depend on the circumstances. I repeat that we shall take

DEBATES	December 10, 1963
whatever steps are necessary to protect the public interest and public safety. As for the specific measures used, they will to a large measure depend upon the outcome of the negotiations and the situation which prevails thereafter.


J. Michael Forrestall: Can the minister assure the flying public that these very vital posts will not be filled by supervisory personnel?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I cannot give that k'nd of assurance. I can only say they will be filled, if they are filled at all, by people who will protect the public safety.


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplemen4 ary for the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister assure us that in the event of a strike by the air controllers, personnel of the Armed Forces will not be used as a strike-breaking tactic?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: If the question refers to a statement allegedly made by the Minister of Transport, I am informed he did not say that.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: My
question is to the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister make a statement on motions telling us why his department, although invited, was not represented at an important meeting called by provincial and municipal authorities to discuss the location of a second airport site in the neighbourhood of Toronto?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to make a statement on motions within a few days, not specifically on the question referred to by the hon. member but on the whole question of our involvement wi h the proposed airport for Toronto and southern Ontario.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Would the minister deal with this question, too, and tell us whether he is prepared to accept the proposal made at the meeting to which I have referred concerning the setting up of a technical committee representing all three levels of government, including the municipal authorities, to look into this question?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I do not doubt the accuracy of the representations made by the hon.
December 10, 1969
member, but I would prefer to await a formal proposal from those concerned. When I look at it, if it is within our responsibilities I shall certainly be pleased to comply.



TAXATION


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. It arises from the statement he made in the House earlier today regarding the government's tax reform proposals. Who selected from the white paper the recommendations which were to be put on slides? Was it the minister himself or was it someone else? Who did the drafting and preparing of those slides?


Edgar John Benson: The slides were intended for use in connection with my exposition of the white paper. They were prepared by the National Film Board by officials who were sworn to secrecy, and they were supplied to my department.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Can the minister tell us who did the selecting? Who picked from the white paper certain recommendations to be illustrated by slides and accompanied by this fine writing?


Edgar John Benson: I must accept responsibility for the selection. They are most informative slides, and they are not slanted in any way.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I ask one more supplementary question?


Mr. Speaker:: I will allow one further supplementary, but I have to remind hon. members that the time allotted to the question period is running out. I ask for the co-operation of all hon. members in asking supplementary questions.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell us how much it cost the Canadian taxpayers to put out these slides, prepare them, and make the selection from the white paper?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member is now asking for the type of information which would normally be given in answer to a written question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I realize that, Mr. Speaker, but this issue was raised in the House earlier today and it affects the taxpayers directly. I am prepared to debate it at ten o'clock. It
Inquiries of the Ministry occurs to me, though, that the minister probably has a figure of so many million dollars on the tip of his tongue and he could tell the taxpayers what it cost.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Edgar John Benson: I am glad to give the information, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Skeena.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Acting Prime Minister or to the leader of the House, whoever may wish to reply. Are they aware that today the RCMP is conducting an investigation into the death of two native Indian children, one aged eight months and the other aged eighteen months, who were found frozen to death in an unheated building on the Sturgeon Lake Reserve 200 to 300 miles northwest of Edmonton? If they are, would they consider withdrawing their objection to the motion proposed by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris in order that a parliamentary committee might make an inquiry into the broader aspects involved in a situation of this kind?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of the House share the feeling of grief at the death of these children.


An hon. Member:: "Shame" would be a better word.


Mitchell William Sharp: I might even say "shame", that a thing like this could happen in Canada. The government would welcome as much information as possible about the circumstances. The question of the motion is quite a different matter; it is very broad in scope and goes far beyond this occurrence.


Frank Howard: Would the Acting Prime Minister or the leader of the House be prepared to authorize the committee to make such inquiries? I have no doubt there would be unanimous consent to accepting a motion on those lines if it were put forward either later today or tomorrow.

1820	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: As the leader of the government today I should like to read the police report before giving an answer. The government would not want in any way to hamper any inquiries into this terrible tragedy.



HAY LAKES RESERVE-INFECTIOUS HEPATITIS EPIDEMIC

Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Would the minister inform the House of the steps his department has taken to stamp out the epidemic of infectious hepatitis which has broken out on the Hay Lakes Indian Reserve?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware, personally, of this particular epidemic.
I shall have to check with the officials of my department to find out what action has been taken, and I shall be pleased to get in touch with the hon. member.


Paul Yewchuk: Is the minister aware that he would have that information on hand if there were a flying doctor service in the north?



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the recent statement by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, is the minister considering the feasibility of a regionally differentiated federal minimum wage? I think I know what the minister's reply will be, but there are many people across the country interested in the matter who would like to have it on the record.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I do not particularly endorse the idea of regional disparity. I think we should all strive for parity and equality right across the country.


Robert Muir: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I ask the Minister of Labour whether he would at the first opportunity make it known to the Canadian Manufacturers' Association that neither he nor the government believe in a

DEBATES	December 10, 1969
differential in the minimum wage for different regions of Canada?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and the Minister of Labour exchange viewpoints, sometimes similar, sometimes at variance at various times during the year.



DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN IN RESPECT OF EMPLOYMENT

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. In view of the minister's interest in equality, and in light of a statement made by Miss Sylvia Gelber that women graduates are being denied the opportunity of competing, even on their own university campuses, for two-thirds of the jobs for which graduates are recruited, is the minister or his department co-operating with provincial human rights commissions in investigating this rank discrimination? If so, would the minister be prepared to make a statement in this regard as soon as possible?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hamilton West, with his usual courtesy, gave me prior notice of his question. He may have forgotten to mention that Miss Gelber is head of the women's branch of the Department of Labour and has been concerned with this problem, in conjunction with her provincial counterparts, for some time. I instructed her, in my capacity as Minister of Labour, to make a complete survey of existing legislation, which I think is imperfect, relating to this matter. Based on her report and recommendations, we hope we will be able to produce more suitable legislation to eliminate discrimination against women in the work force of Canada.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I have a further supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I did invite hon. members a moment ago to limit their supplemen-taries, but perhaps I might allow the hon. member for Hamilton West a further supplementary.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was very pleased to receive the reply of the minister, but I am wondering whether he could give the House any indication of when we could expect either a white paper on this matter or the proposed legislation?
December 10. 1969


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I do not think a white paper would be necessary. Certainly I would not put it on slides. What I should like to do is put the amendments on the Order Paper as soon as possible. However, this again will depend on the speed and dispatch with which we clean up legislation already on the Order Paper.



POLLUTION


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport relating to the greatly increasing concern over continued dumping of oil and other waste from ships in the Great Lakes, in contravention of the Fisheries Act. What efforts has the government made to increase surveillance so that a greater proportion of major offenders are promptly prosecuted?


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


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, with great
respect, may I draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that before very long the shipping season on the Great Lakes will be completely closed, and complaints that oil is being dumped into the lakes are constantly being made. I should have thought that the minister would have a reply.



TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Privy Council. In view of the discussions that have taken place in relation to the business coming before the House today, would the minister be prepared to move a motion forthwith giving the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications terms of reference to study the financial structure of Canadian National Railways and the CNR pension fund, with provision for calling witnesses as determined by the committee?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I wish to confirm there have been discussions with hon. members. I would be prepared to make such a
Inquiries of the Ministry motion on the understanding that the bill would be disposed of today. I gather that there are several speakers in two of the groups opposite who wish to participate in the debate on the bill. If the House is prepared to give consent to revert to motions, on that understanding I would move:
That the question of the financial structure of the Canadian National Railways and Canadian National Railways pension fund be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion put by the President of the Privy Council. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question about a government advertisement carried by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation television service. This advertisement shows the figure of a man beating a drum and blowing his own horn, so I will direct my question to the Minister of Labour. I would ask the minister whether this advertisement is directed to the individual when it states: "It is your right"?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, since the minister does not care to answer, may I ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs a supplementary question? Would the minister check into the truth of this government advertisement, since in view of what is happening in Cape Breton it is far from the truth?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen this advertisement, but if the hon. members wants to send me the text of it, or a copy, I would be glad to look into the matter.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Send him a colour slide.


Donald MacInnis: May I ask the Minister of Labour-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

December 10, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry FINANCE



POSSIBILITY OF REDUCING INTEREST RATES TO FARMERS

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of Finance. Since it has been government policy to fight inflation by increasing interest rates, which has resulted in a record profit of $157 million for the banks, would the minister consider discussing with the banks the possibility of reducing interest rates to farmers? If this is not acceptable, would the minister consider deferring some of the interest payments that are now due?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to consider the proposition put forward by my hon. friend but I should point out to him, since this question was raised the other day, that after deducting the provision for income taxes-we increased the taxes on banks this year by changing the reserves-the after-tax income of the banks will aggregate $244 million in 1969 compared with $252 million in 1968. Expressed as a percentage of total assets-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Edgar John Benson: -after-tax income in 1969 was 0.63 per cent, of assets compared with 0.77 per cent in 1968.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I should like to rise on a point of order. On many occasions I have perhaps been guilty of adding too many words to my questions, but on this occasion the minister skirted around the answer to my question. I believe he had an answer, so perhaps he could be allowed to finish it.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend would look at the first part of my answer he would find that I did answer the question.



FAMILY ALLOWANCES


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainle-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
In view of the fact that at the constitutional conference the province of Quebec and the

federal government failed to agree on the transfer to Quebec of the administration of family allowances and that this matter has been referred to a committee of officials, could the minister tell us whether or not it is his intention to pass off that responsibility to the province of Quebec, until such time as the committee of officials has ruled on the matter?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the
government's intention in this regard has been expressed by the Prime Minister. The federal government has no intention of turning over jurisdiction for family allowances to any province.



BROADCASTING


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence may I rephrase a question I asked yesterday? I see the Secretary of State in the House so I will direct my question to him. In view of the many protests being made to the Secretary of State concerning the recent decision of the Canadian Radio-Television Commission on microwave broadcasting, will the minister consider making a statement on motions as early as possible?


Hon. Gerard Pellefier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, we have indeed received representations to this effect and it might be possible to make a statement in this regard.
I, however, wish to point out that while under section 23 of the Broadcasting Act the governor in council has authority to request the CRTC to review the issue, amendment or renewal of broadcasting licences, neither that section nor any other section of the act authorizes the governor in council to request that the CRTC review the rejection of an application for a licence.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, could the minister tell us whether the cabinet is in fact reviewing sections of the CRTC decision in order that recommendations can be made to that body in the areas mentioned by the minister, and could that be included in his statement?
December 10, 1969


Mr. Pellelier:: I am sorry, but I am afraid the member for Annapolis Valley has misunderstood my remarks, since I specifically stated that we are dealing with the rejection of an application for a licence and that the governor in council has no authority to request the CRTC to review the rejection of an application. We will of course look into the decision, which is interesting from many points of view.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, one month ago I put a question to the Secretary of State. My colleagues also asked the same question, to which the minister answered: Very soon, very soon.
I wanted to know when he expected to appoint the Commissioner of Languages. At federal-provincial conferences it has been said that the program concerning that matter would soon be implemented. We would therefore like to know when that Commissioner will be appointed by the government.
One month ago the minister said: Very soon-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member asked the question. The minister might wish to answer it.


Gérard Pelletier: have no definite answer to offer to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to point out that the implementation of the Official Languages Act does not make of the appointment of the Commissioner a matter of urgency.
What must come first and will come in the near future, I think, is the appointment of the Bilingual Districts Advisory Board.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Can the minister tell us when the regulations concerning the Official Languages Act will be adopted by the cabinet and proposed to the provinces?


Irénée Pelletier: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I am not sure I understand what the hon. member means by the word "regulations".


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
On November 12, 1969, in answer to a question from the hon. member for Charlevoix
Inquiries of the Ministry (Mr. Asselin), the Secretary of State said, as recorded in Hansard, that he would render a decision "in the near future". As this was a month ago, I think it is important for hon. members to know exactly what a Crown minister means when he says "in the near future". Is it one month, six months or a year? I feel that the Secretary of State should give us this piece of information.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have one short question for the Minister of Finance. Is he giving any consideration to preparing a series of slides on the subject of how to live on $30 a week?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I was going to prepare a set of slides indicating how the hon. member could ask sensible questions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion in a position to answer the two or three serious questions asked in the House on Monday and Tuesday about the closure of Fairey Aviation and the plans of the government to provide immediate alternatives in respect of this very serious problem?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, as the other hon. members and the general public, I have learned that Fairey Aviation has decided to close down its plant; however, there is still hope that the plant might be purchased by an American company and remain open. In fact, there are two parties negotiating at the present time. Unfortunately, I cannot provide details, but the situation is not past hope. On the contrary, I am confident that we shall succeed in finding another business interested in the Fairey Aviation plant.

1824	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary and I direct it to the Minister of National Defence or possibly to the Minister of Supply and Services. Will the Minister of National Defence use his good offices to provide as much work as possible to Fairey Aviation in the next few months so the company can be made more viable and more attractive to possible purchasers?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I believe it has been the practice of the Department of National Defence to give as much work as possible to local enterprises. Of course we intend to continue doing this.


J. Michael Forrestall: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must bring to the attention of hon. members the fact that the question period expired some minutes ago. I felt that because of the circumstances a few additional supplementary questions should be allowed. I would now suggest to hon. members that the hon. member for Dart-mouth-Halifax East might be allowed a further supplementary and that we then move on to Orders of the Day.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for that indulgence. I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. What reply has been made to the telegrams, communications and messages sent to the Prime Minister's office by the Premier of Nova Scotia, the mayor of the city of Dartmouth and the warden of the county regarding this matter.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I saw the Premier of Nova Scotia this morning and gave him the answer I gave a few moments ago. That is the type of answer that will be given.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask your indulgence in respect of one short, supplementary question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the House that we have gone four or five minutes beyond the time allocated for questions. This fact points to the validity of the suggestion I made earlier today that hon. members should try to limit supplementary questions because we rapidly run out of time. I noted a number of hon. members who were anxious to ask

DEBATES	December 10, 1969
questions today. I have tried to identify them in my mind in order that they may be recognized tomorrow.



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill C-140, an Act to amend the Customs Tariff and to make a consequential amendment to the Excise Tax Act, without any amendment;

and a message has also been received to inform the House that the names of hon. Senators Pearson and Quart have been added to the list of Senators sitting on the Joint Library of Parliament Committee.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, December 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gray (for Mr. Benson) that Bill C-7, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways system and Air Canada for the period from the 1st January, 1969, to the 30th day of June, 1970, and to authorize the guarantee by Her Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railways Company and certain debentures to be issued by Air Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Peters (p. 1578).
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday evening at the time of adjournment I was attempting to illustrate by means of a local anecdote my concern for our national railway system, its equipment, certain facilities and conditions. I was pointing out that its depreciation was due, in part at least, to inadequate financing provisions. Over the past few days there has probably been strong sentiment on the government side that the opposition is being difficult and naughty and is again doing its best to spoil the Christmas holidays. I think all hon. members who
December 10, 1969

were in the House today and heard the motion of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) realize that the concern expressed by those on this side of the House may be satisfied in part by a referral of this matter to the standing committee. I think this is an important step forward.
Our position before the referral rested, and still does on two crucial points. The first is the miserly treatment of CNR pensioners, and the second is the inappropriate handling of increasing CNR debt. Once we can achieve a firm commitment, which I assume we now have, that this matter will be dealt with in an honourable way at the next session, we can anticipate an historical improvement in the way we handle these matters. We will then be delighted to let this bill go forward so that Liberals and other hon. members can swing off for their vacation at Christmas. Our position, then, is not one of obstruction. I believe it is fair to say that only by this kind of procedure can a number of spokesmen bring the concerns of the country to the attention of Parliament and thereby express the views of the regions they represent. This is the only power we as opposition members have, and we are delighted that our efforts in this respect have borne some fruit.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
We have a national railway which was not wanted by the government in the first place but was forced upon it in order to bail out speculators as long ago as 1923. We do not have an integrated national transportation policy because the government does not want it. That is basically the reason we are stuck with a transportation system facing almost insurmountable problems. I should like to return to this matter later.
Earlier I mentioned the miserly treatment accorded retired CNR employees. This matter has been well documented by previous speakers from my party and others; I do not think, therefore, it needs much more elaboration. I might point out, however, that a Crown corporation such as the CNR should be a model for other Canadian employers to emulate, rather than a horrible example of how not to treat men who have served their time and been put out to pasture. The continued reduction of passenger service is also relevant to any discussion of retired employees.
Over the years we have witnessed the gradual abandonment of passenger services by both main railways. Many little towns which were once served by rail lines are no
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada longer served. It has been stated that this is due to the inevitability of progress. All through their working years employees who are now retired were offered the fringe benefit of free railway passes; this was dangled before them as a retirement plan. It was believed that although working conditions and wages were sometimes deplorable, at least in their declining years these men and their families would be able to take advantage of a free railroad pass. What happens if the railway no longer serves the community in which these people live when they retire? What happens when there is no service which a man can use? This reneging on a promise adds to the low morale of not only present workers but retired railroad workers.
The point about financing, which is one of the two points some of us have been emphasizing, I think bears some repetition because it is obvious that if we continue the way we are, we will wreck our national railway system and saddle the people of Canada with a debt which in the long term is unpayable. Surely, by proceeding blindly along the path of national annual foolishness represented by Bill C-7 we saddle the corporation with an impossible burden.
One needs only to glance at the CNR annual report to perceive the dismal picture. At page 40 of the 1968 Annual Report we see there is a long-term total debt of almost $2 billion and an almost equally high shareholder equity debt. The total is about $4 billion. With a picture like this, how could the CNR be expected to do anything but cut the number of employees by 4,600 since 1950? What has been the result of this policy? Insufficient attention has been paid to maintenance; a great number of carmen have been laid off; stations have developed into dilapidated rural slums; there is a great deal of shoddy equipment; there has been an increase in train wrecks because money has not been put into building adequate roadbeds and because track men have been laid off. Another result has been the limited delivery of items important to our national economy, such as grain and potash, to the ports. This has been caused by improper track maintenance as a result of having insufficient capitalization to bring about such improvements.
At least we cannot direct at the CNR the blanket condemnation that we can to the CPR, that fat multi-corporation with interests in hotels and real estate which expropriates and pollutes with apparent impunity while often deliberately downgrading its passenger
1826	COMMONS
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada services, and then comes whimpering to the CTC for assistance.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I have made the point before that the bill deals with the financing of the CNR and Air Canada. I think the remarks of the hon. member should be directed to that subject.


Mark Willson Rose: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I shall endeavour to respect your ruling. I was attempting to draw a comparison between the progress, in certain directions, of the privately-owned railway compared with the publicly-financed railway, the CNR. I think there are comparisons to be made. I request your indulgence and hope I shall be allowed to make these comparisons, because I shall attempt to relate each one to the other. I think it is fair to say that many of these losses tend to be bookkeeping entries, while the remainder of this many-headed CPR complex rings up handsome profits. Its subsidiaries carry on their merry way, frustrating the renaissance of our urban cores unless they can make a great deal of money out of urban renewal. We cannot blame the CNR, either, for spending more money on boxcar paint than on track maintenance. There is an attempt to refurbish CNR's desolate image by hiring more men to paint boxcars rather than to fix tracks. Heavily-laden grain and potash cars are often subject to wreck and delay because of what I believe to be emphasis in the wrong area.
I do not think we can lay at the feet of the CNR another matter that can be forcefully directed to the CPR. If they are no longer really interested in operating as a transportation company, if they no longer feel they can fulfil the obligation for which they were granted millions of acres of land, we should say to CP, "We have given you millions of acres of Canadian land, and if you want to get out of passenger and telegraph services you should return the land to the Crown."
I do not think we can criticize the CNR, at least not too strongly, for curtailing yet another service in my province of British Columbia. I believe the public is only minimally aware of this. I refer to the recent decision of the CP telegraph system to close over-the-counter service in Vancouver after 8 p.m. commencing February 1, 1970. They did this in Victoria last August. I think it is important that we realize how this came about; it is an interesting story. I believe I should take some time to examine the background because it is very revealing. Briefly,

DEBATES	December 10, 1969
this is the story: because of discussions between the CNR, the CPR and the union, the United Telegraph Workers, the railways made application for the reciprocal abandonment of competing telegraph offices. This was agreed to in a judgment of the Canadian Transport Commission dated February 22, 1967. This seemed to be a sensible move because it avoided wasteful duplication in many small towns.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
In the judgment which I have here it is noted that telegraphers would be absorbed by the company which remained after the duplication was eliminated and the agreement concluded, and they would receive full salary and seniority rights. That is all to the good and no one complains about it. However, what is most important is that the judgment quoted the railways' undertaking that "no curtailment of services would result from this rationalization".
According to section 380(13) of the Railway Act, each company-that is, the CNR and the CPR-has the right to abandon any office in any town unilaterally without coming before the CTC. But a joint proposal, if that were offered-or a reciprocal agreement, as in the case that I am now discussing-demanded by section 380(12) of the Railway Act required the companies to apply to the CTC for approval. They did this and as I mentioned earlier, approval was granted on February 22, 1967. Subsequently, eight offices were closed, including CNR offices in Victoria and Vancouver, British Columbia's two most important communities. Therefore, we are back to square 1 again, leaving CPR in the position of unilaterally curtailing a service without complying with the provisions of section 380(13) of the Railway Act. This is exactly what they did, and what they are doing now. After two years they applied to close down various offices at certain times of the day. They were allowed to do it because the reciprocal arrangement was concluded. They once again became separate offices of different companies. This was done unilaterally.
What is the result of closing over-the-counter services at 8 p.m. in Vancouver and Victoria? First of all, 18 men are out of a job. I think the railways are breaking the spirit, if not the letter of the law laid down by the CTC nearly three years ago. In those two cities you cannot wire money after 8 p.m., so if you are travelling in the interior of British Columbia and you need money, or if you wish to wire money to someone, you cannot do so.
December 10, 1969

If you are in the east, you cannot wire money to Vancouver after 5 p.m. because of the time zone difference.
What concerns some of us is, where will this curtailment-which according to promises would not take place-occur next? I am sure that both companies, which are greatly interested in telex services, have undermined their telegraph services. Large businesses can instal telex systems, but small businesses continue to need the telegraph offices. This is another example of downgrading. I think the railroads were less than frank in their original application two years ago. Perhaps they obtained this favourable judgment under false pretences.
In any event, I have said enough about this matter to indicate why people are cynical about the railways. We should also remember that the railways attained a substantial portion of their financial eminence today as a result of passenger and telegraph services, in which they are no longer very interested. No matter where we put the blame, in principle we in Parliament are certainly to blame if we continue to offer a patchwork, band-aid type of financing solution which will eventually bury the undercapitalization of the CNR and starve it out of existence. An annual interest of $70 million is too high a price to pay in perpetuity if it means that our railroad will be able to just hobble along, pleasing neither the railroaders employed by it nor the general public. But, more important, when we grant subsidies to our national railway, the CNR, and we set the rates for them, we also award these subsidies to the competing line. Therefore, the people of Canada in effect subsidize, through the freight rate structure, the rich and powerful private railroad which appears to need little help from us.
This brings me to the final point of my thesis, that is, that Canada desparately needs a national transportation policy. I believe such a transportation policy should be under the jurisdiction of federal, provincial and municipal authorities. Let me clarify that last sentence because perhaps I did not state my proposition very clearly. Our national transportation policy should embrace federal, provincial and municipal services. I also believe that it should be integrated, and comprehensive enough to include roads, trucking, railways and automobiles; it should include air cargo, passenger service, and perhaps even postal and inland shipping; it should include perhaps the futuristic concept of pipelines through which to convey solids. At
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada present the CNR is contributing research funds for this project. Of course, we will never get this because Liberal and Conservative governments have opted for private enterprise, and they boast about it constantly except when an industry or area the MPs represent badly needs a subsidy because of the lack of planning caused by too much private enterprise and unbridled buccaneerism in the first place.
Let us face facts. Every community cannot have every kind of transportation service; the cost is just too great. We have opted for the automobile. I like them too, but what has been their legacy-vast sums paid for freeways, centres of cities desecrated with foul air from exhausts, and crippled attempts at mass, public transportation by rail or bus. I should like to quote briefly from a speech made on Thursday, November 20, by Mr. Douglas H. Fullerton, speaking before the Ottawa Board of Trade. His speech is entitled, "A Losing Battle: Public Transit Versus the Automobile". In discussing subsidized public transit he said:
It would be vastly cheaper to subsidize public transit directly than to build new arterial roads or thruways. When will our governments wake up to this fact? Clearly we cannot expect people to switch to buses until the service is much better and more convenient, and the buses more comfortable, and equally clearly this means laying out a lot of money in the transition period to build up the service we need.
What can the Board of Trade do to help solve these problems? Well, one thing is to get your membership to understand that in terms of the downtown area, the automobile is a lethal monster.
There is no end in sight as long as our atmosphere provides a satisfactory sewer system for the lethal by-products of the automobile. So long as we spend billions of dollars to build better highways, we increase urban sprawl because people move farther and farther from the cities. It is like the situation where the dog is chasing its tail. We have only so much money available. We are chronically short of money to clean up the messes caused by lack of planning and lack of foresight in matters of transportation. We duplicate the rail service in Canada with equal inefficiency. Many of us believe that the CNR, especially in British Columbia, should have been selected to transport the Crows-nest coal through my riding to Roberts Bank, but it did not happen.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
We now have four railways connected to this federally financed super port. There is
December 10, 1969
1828	COMMONS
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada now an application before the CTC asking it to approve the building by a foreign-owned railway of an 80-mile road link from Elk Valley, British Columbia, in order to ship Canadian coal through the United States, thereby avoiding the CNR. Ultimately the coal will be shipped to Japan through the port of Roberts Bank. How would a national transportation policy affect this decision, Mr. Speaker? I think if we had a policy which would discourage an application such as this, it would affect the health of our rail system markedly.
What is this government's option for private transportation, which I have attempted to illustrate, really doing? It is contributing to the costs so markedly that Bill C-7 will look like peanuts compared to the one our successors will have to consider 20 years from now. Therefore, we do not change our ways. In the long run there is no alternative, Mr. Speaker, to a publicly-owned and co-ordinated transportation system where each service is considered in terms of the people it serves, whether it is rail, bus or air. We cannot expect a solution until we begin to think about these things. In the short run, however, we seem to be doing our best to destroy our rail service.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I shall not detain you nor the House long on this important matter. Although brevity in speeches is a fairly subjective concept to our audience we are never as brief as we think we are to ourselves. I am happy to hear the arrangements that have been made in this legislation and I endorse the spirit. I do not think there is any reason why there should have been surprise that this particular measure has provoked a good deal of debate.
Down through the years in this Parliament representatives of the people have been concerned with and have been involved in long discussions about railways. One of my less illustrious political ancestors once said very simply, "Railways are my politics." That was Sir Allan MacNab. It is interesting that today we in Parliament are talking about railways and for a part of the day governments were in the old railway station talking about Canada-I presume; I was not there. It is symbolic, too, that those discussions are being moved farther and farther away from this particular institution.
Clearly railways are still fundamental to the economy of the country, to the politics of the country in the broad and, I suppose at


times, even the narrow meaning of the word politics. The debate demonstrated that, and I think it has been an interesting debate. In Prince Edward Island, railways have always been important matters, even before it became a province, and since. Indeed, if we make a confession of history, railways had a lot to do with our becoming a province. We hoped that the Dominion would bail us out but the bailing out job was protracted and incomplete.
I should like to touch on one or two points of our continuing problem and the current question. I was much impressed by one part of the statement made by the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Rose) in connection with telecommunications. It seems to me that since there was a CN-CP merger the efficiency of telegraph services across this country has diminished.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: This is a very, very serious matter. We talk about being in the satellite age and yet we find it so difficult to send a telegram. In the evenings and on week ends the situation amounts to a black-out. I had a letter from a very prominent and public-spirited citizen of Prince Edward Island the other day, who had a distress call from a young man in Kingston on a week end. The young man needed money. When my correspondent went to the telegraph office in Charlottetown he found a note on the door, "Phone Moncton." But if one did phone Moncton with a request to send a money order, the reply would be to come in and send it. Instead he phoned Kingston and was asked, "Who are you?". This was a very serious emergency and he was not able to transmit the funds. So there is a communications black-out in the evenings and on week ends, as the hon. member mentioned. We are a generation behind in this particular field and yet we live in what Marshall McLuhan calls the "electric age".
On the same day that my constituent had the foregoing experience there was a ferry strike, so even had he wanted to go to Moncton he could not have arranged it. This brings me to a discussion of the very important transportation lifeline which connects Prince Edward Island to the mainland. Not too long ago ships were tied up in port for eight hours. People with families, people wanting to keep appointments or those who needed to travel discovered that the CNR service was not, in fact, functioning.
December 10, 1969

Much of the trouble clearly came from faulty decisions on the part of Canadian National Railways. They seem to have a strange tendency to make our difficult transportation problem there positively acute at times. Eruptions and disruptions occur from time to time. It even seems that they have to create these conditions every so often.
Instead of having the vessel Confederation remain at Borden as it always had, someone had the brilliant idea of moving it to Halifax. This imposed unemployment on the men of Borden and diminished the ferry fleet at the onset of winter just as they were in the process of negotiating a new contract. I need not point out what this does to the whole concept of the National Labour Code. It would be interesting if the minister could find out who assumed the authority to make this far-fetched and unnecessary transfer of the ship from Borden, its home port, to Halifax. Was it Canadian National Railways or the Department of Transport?
Whilst I have no need or desire to talk about the Canadian Pacific Railway in this regard since our province never had that corporation, I always find it necessary to invoke the Department of Transport because one is never sure what the role of the CNR as an agent or manager for the Department of Transport is as it relates to our ferries. When there is trouble, confusion follows as we seek explanations. I wonder why the suggestion was made? It looks like foolish economy, if economy at all. It could only be economic if no human beings were involved as workers or as potential travellers.
The crews of the ships in Borden have rendered fine service through the years, and have shown a great deal more sensitivity to the needs of the general public than has the management of the CNR. I can say this without prejudice or partiality since, to a large degree, these men are not constituents of mine. They are very fine workers for the public in this most important and essential service. It is essential for Prince Edward Island which has been troubled and traumatized by transportation difficulties for some 90 years.
It is essential, Mr. Speaker, that we get some sort of guarantee that our links with the mainland will not be subject to administrative stupidity of the type which has so often tied up our ships. The one thing we were solemnly guaranteed was continuous and efficient communication with the mainland. But when one sits in one's car for eight hours
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada looking at an idle boat, it is neither continuous nor efficient but it is terribly frustrating.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
This is where the government of Canada has a responsibility. This is why it is proper for me to mention it as the Parliament of Canada seeks to look at a piece of legislation. I have been wondering why there has been a recent rash of efforts toward petty economies, or apparent economies in the ferry service. I wonder whether it is because those of us who, after careful thought and consideration, endeavoured to argue that the ferry service would be so expensive that it was sound economy to build a permanent crossing, were so successful in our advocacy of this point of view that someone suggested to the CNR, "Make no mistake about it; try and make this work as economical as possible regardless of what you do to the service." This could be the reason, or it could be that so many blunders have been made in the service, for instance putting narrow-gauge lines on the new ferry thinking it was destined for Newfoundland, that when it was arranged to go to Prince Edward Island there had to be a costly widening of the rails with a consequent enlargement of the expenditure.
There are many things I would like to discuss, and perhaps they may come up in committee, but the final matter I wish to discuss now concerns the oldest and perhaps the noblest-and I use that word advisedly-railway ferry on this continent, the old boat the Prince Edward Island, which I see now is advertised for sale by Canadian National Railways. This was a boat promised by Robert Borden when he was campaigning for election in 1911 in the city of Charlottetown. He said very simply, "If I am elected prime minister of Canada you will have your rail car ferry." He was, and they did. The interesting thing about it is that in the midst of a tremendous world war when every British shipyard must have been working at top capacity that contract, which had been let in 1912 or 1913, was pushed forward. The boat was built in 1915 and sent across the submarine-infested Atlantic in 1917 to honour that commitment and to give to the people of Prince Edward Island that which that very honourable and able man, Sir Robert Borden, told them they would have-a proper adjustment of their transportation claims on Confederation as at that time.
I am pained when I read that this fine ship is up for tender. But we are told that the
December 10, 1969
1830	COMMONS
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada wheelhouse is going to be removed. What it means is that the old dowager of all ferries is not going to find its proper place as a great museum of navigation or transportation. It will have its wheelhouse hauled out, and then it will fall to the actioneer's block and the junkman's hammer. The history of transportation across the Northumberland Strait has been one of much suffering, much hardship and a lot of romance. So far as the little province of Prince Edward Island is concerned, it has been the history of the warp and woof of our relations with Canada.
In the first place, I wonder why the CNR is selling this ship, and not Crown Assets. We were always told that the CNR was only the manager and not the owner of these boats. I wonder why, in an age in which we can be so profligate with so many millions of dollars, we do not have the imagination or cannot find the few dollars to turn this ship into a museum of transportation. We could have in it some of the old ice boats, actual or replica, in which people were hauled across by strong men. If you helped with the haul you got over for a dollar, and if you were luxurious enough to sit, you paid $3. It brought struggle, and sometimes tragedy, and a determination to make contact with the outer world. We would have, too, a remembrance of Borden, af .er whom the town of Borden was so appropriately named. In fact, as well as the museum of transportation it could be a museum of promises fulfilled.
I do not know why the Museum of Science and Technology cannot be satellized. I am sorry that the Postmaster General (Mr. Kier-ans) is not here to hear me use that word. There is no reason why the whole structure has to be under one roof. It would be a fine thing to have that boat preserved for posterity so that future generations might know something about the struggles of those who preceded them. This remarkable boat is one with which many people are concerned, and I appeal for a reconsideration so that we might do some hing which would memorialize not only a saga of the sea but the statesmanship of a great man. I cannot believe that this country cannot do a little better than drag a disloca ed wheelhouse to Ottawa to memorialize a whole story of struggle, of ingenuity and of suffering.
I finally refer to a railway line, not in Prince Edward Island, but a unique railway line. I am sure it is unlike any other on the continent, or perhaps in the world. I refer to one of the newest railway lines that has been
[Mr. Macquarrie.l

built and that has never been used. We talk about the declining rails and of the end of the iron horse, but in recent years we had constructed in New Brunswick 4.98 miles of railway line heading from Bayfield down to the open sea in the Northumberland Strait, and it is still heading for the open sea, because in those days solemn commi ments were being made that a cross ng was to be built and that the crossing was to have railway lines.
If those rails could see, they could turn a bit to the east and see millions of dollars worth of approaches for the highway, and they could look across the nine miles of the Northumberland Strait and see there more millions of dollars worth of approaches coming from Prince Edward Island. But alas, the approaches never approach any closer than nine miles one to the o her, and so we have another museum of unfulfilled promises and millions of dollars spent on a project which was callously abandoned. So perhaps the government or the CNR might build over in New Brunswick a museum of unfulfilled promises and some of these rails might be put in the largest room. Some might be sent to the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith) and some to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing), remembering their part in this construction, or non-construction, and 1o add a little variety the walls could be lined with the 10,000 scholarships that were never awarded.
With this regrettable, foolish performance of building nearly five miles of railway lines, and now taking them up, is it not difficult to say to people that government and Parliament are really credible institutions? How can you cast aside the arguments of the cynic when such things as this go on?


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have an opportunity to say a few words on Bill C-7 which has been referred to as the CNR railway bill. The motion moved and passed earl er to refer the financing of the CNR and the pension problems of CNR employees to a commit ee has cut a great deal from the remarks that I had intended to make this afternoon. I feel the move will be a good one, Mr. Speaker. The committee will be able to call witnesses and I presume make a more detailed study of this aspect of Canadian National Railways financing than we might be able to do in a short speech in this House.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Every year a similar bill is presented to the House of Commons. The amount of money
December 10, 1969	COMMONS
requested may vary, but the legislation has the same intent. We are asked to vote public funds to cover the fixed-charge debt. This guarantee was given by the federal government many years ago when the CNR system was formed in 1923 from a number of railway lines which were on the verge of bankruptcy. A similar bill to this is presented to the House each year and we see more public money being voted to honour this old obligation. I believe this bill gives us an opportunity to comment generally on our national transportation system as it relates to the CNR and to other rail systems in Canada. Not only does it relate to rail systems, but it is related to Air Canada and other airline systems in this nation.
One of the keys to the success of any country is a very sound transportation policy which of course results in a sound transportation system. On reading some of the debates over the years, which I have had an opportunity to do in the past few weeks, I have found there has been constant criticism both inside and outside this House of our transportation policy, or perhaps I should say the lack of a sound and proper transportation policy. As far as Canada is concerned, we need only examine the trouble that is caused in various sections of our nation by the system of freight rates which we have. They apply to the whole railway system, including the CNR.
It seems that the whole system of transportation needs a thorough review by the government and members of this House. We are faced with a hodge-podge of regulations, different freight rates and different methods of setting air fares which in some instances show great discrimination against certain parts of Canada. Many of these concepts were set down many years ago when conditions were different. The times have changed, but our transportation policy throughout the length and breadth of Canada has not changed with the times. I believe this is one of the reasons why transportation in Canada generally has been the focus of so much public attention.
I am not going to repeat all the points or arguments presented to this House by other hon. members. It has been stated that we need a thorough review of not only the financing of the CNR and its pension system, but a complete review of our whole transportation system as it applies to every mode of transportation in this nation. I include the railway system and the setting up of a merchant marine, which is another type of transportation that we have almost let go by the 21545-45
DEBATES	1831
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada board. We should be looking into the airline set-up, the trucking industry and so on down the line.
Year after year the various railway lines complain of the government forcing them into uneconomic positions. We hear talk of trying to abolish much of the passenger service throughout the country. Railways ask for subsidies on various lines because of the limited amount of freight traffic on those lines. We as a nation are in a position to lay down some sound, constructive guidelines as to what should be shipped over our national lines. I, personally, think it is almost criminal to have two national lines running from east to west in Canada. In many areas the services are overlapping. In many instances each line is carrying only a fraction of the traffic which it should be carrying.
On the other hand, we see the national railways subsidizing other forms of transportation to compete with their own railway system. Some of this competition must naturally take place, but this is something that might well be looked into. I am convinced that far more traffic could be funnelled over our national rail lines than the amount of traffic which they presently haul. It would be good for them and for the economic set-up in our nation. I am not going to spend too much time on that matter; I just wanted to make a few general remarks and suggest that the over-all transportation policy for Canada is certainly in need of a complete review.
I now wish to say a few words about the national passenger service which the various rail lines have indicated they would like to abandon. We have seen newspaper reports of the tremendous losses which the Canadian Pacific Railway and Canadian National Railways have acquired by operating passenger services over various sections of their lines. It is very easy in any type of business or organization to build up a good story by taking just one facet of its operation. In this case I am referring to passenger service.
We never hear the other side of the story. We do not hear of the many millions of acres of land that were given to these rail lines at the time of their construction many years ago. We do not hear of the vast return received by some of the railway companies from the exploitation of the resources which are found on their lines. I can give one example. On Vancouver Island, for an expenditure of $3J million we turned over in excess of $2 billion worth of natural resources to the E & N Railway which is a subsidiary of the CPR.
1832	COMMONS DEBATES	December 10, 1969
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada The sale of timber, coal and all the other financial returns from this land, are never taken into account when they talk about passenger services between Esquimalt and Nanaimo.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
This is one of the areas they want to abandon. I speak out against these proposals for abandonment on the part of the railways. One or two adjustments may be necessary with regard to some of the lines but we should take a careful look at all these requests for abandonment; perhaps they are just another method of attempting to get a further subsidy from the federal government. The fact is, we cannot begin to segregate one small phase of an operation and say it is uneconomic and must therefore be brought to an end. We must look at the whole picture.
There is one other point I should like to make. We know that requests for authority to construct railway lines are frequently made to the Transport Commission. Two companies in British Columbia are currently requesting permission to build spur linos to hook up with the Great Northern Railway system in the United States. The intention is to haul Canadian coal to the Pacific coast via United States railway lines. When we examined the situation we found that the CPR had adequate facilities for doing the job. In my opinion the position of the government and of members of this House generally should be that in cases where it is at all possible, all Canadian resources should be hauled to the ports via an all-Canadian route. There may be the odd instance in which freight rates are so fantastically high that a diversion would be necessary, but the over-all policy should be as I have stated it. If we get away from this principle we are doing damage to the economy of Canada by cutting down the number of jobs available on the locomotives, and so on, which are used in the transportation business. This is why I say that applications whose acceptance would mean the diversion of traffic to United States lines, when our own lines are being used only to partial capacity, should in most cases be turned down.
I should like to say something now about the over-all debt of the CNR. We have all been through the annual report. It is rather distressing. We see that in the fiscal year just ended the CNR made a net income of more than $41 million. At the same time, the interest on the old debt which we guaranteed many years ago amounts to more than $70

million, and the federal treasury must end up paying the difference. We find that the longterm debt of the company amounts to almost $2 billion, a terrific sum of money which includes bonds to the value of $1,132 million. Some hon. members have declared it is time to transfer this debt from the books of the CNR to the federal treasury. I am not sure this is the proper way of dealing with it, but interest repayments of this magnitude are obviously killing the CNR no matter how efficient it may be.
The regrettable thing is that when the CNR was formed over 40 years ago in 1923, the central government took over a whole network of private railways which at that time were on the verge of bankruptcy. The price of the stocks was high, however, and we guaranteed the interest payments on them. This is why we are in the glue today. The situation needs a thorough review and I am glad to see the subject going to the committee.
I understand, Mr. Speaker, that there are two or three other hon. members who would like to speak on the bill before the House rises at six o'clock. I wish to conclude by emphasizing the extent to which a country like Canada, one of the largest in the world, depends upon the existence of a sound and efficient transportation system. I hope members in all parties will give a great deal of thought to the subject within the next few months and that before this Parliament is over we shall see a change in transportation policy as compared with the policy we have followed so far.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, in the opening days of this debate on the affairs of the CNR, I spoke at length expressing some of my concern about the whole transportation system in Canada. While I do not wish to repeat myself, I believe some things ought to be emphasized before this debate concludes.
In the course of the Federal-Provincial Conference just ended, three or four of the prairie premiers expressed concern over freight rates. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who took the chair at the conference indicated that if they really wanted it done, an investigation or a study could be made of the freight rate question. In retrospect, this whole discussion at the conference would have been unnecessary if this House had given more careful consideration to the transportation bill which, at the time, stressed that competition would become the main factor in
December 10, 1969	COMMONS
the setting of freight rates. We on this side of the House argued that though the stage might one day be reached in Canada at which competition would be keen enough to influence freight rates, such a stage had not yet been reached. We admitted that progress was being made toward that point, but it had not been reached.
Watching the television reports yesterday of the Federal-Provincial Conference it became evident that our concern, expressed a couple of years ago, had been fully justified. Four western premiers all agreed that transportation costs and freight rates were still far too high; they still felt justified in asking for fairer treatment and more consideration in this respect. Answering a question directed to one part of the transportation problem, namely, the proposals for railway line abandonment, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) had this to say as reported at page 642 of Hansard for November 7:
I would be glad to consider that suggestion but I believe the procedures are well established under the act. There is ample opportunity lor representations to be made by all parties. In any event, should the decision of the CTC be challenged by any authority, then there is a right to appeal to the Governor in Council.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
In other words, what he is saying is that the whole question of freight rates and passenger traffic should be taken to the CTC. In the absence of a satisfactory solution there, appeal may be had to the Governor in Council-in other words, to the minister and his government. The whole problem is that we in this House have shelved our real responsibility. No longer do we thoroughly examine CNR financing or the loan made by CNR to Air Canada. We do not examine those matters in depth. This afternoon we reached agreement that we would refer the financing structure of the CNR to a committee. Although this agreement was not to my liking, since prior arrangements had been made between two of the parties I went along with it. I suggest we in this House of Commons are slowly giving up our rights to examine the actions of government agencies that affect people across the country. People are complaining and are sufficiently agitated about the matter even to demonstrate.
The costing formula laid down by the CTC will greatly affect the financing both of the CNR and the CPR. At page 642 of Hansard the Minister of Transport admitted that if anybody did want to challenge a decision by the CTC they could appeal to the Governor in
21545-45 i
DEBATES	1833
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada Council. But in this particular case the railway companies did not so appeal. On the other hand, the government did not state their position as to the costing formula. The railroads are going to appeal, not to the Governor in Council but to the Supreme Court of Canada, to the highest court of the land. One could say that it really is taking the matter further and further out of the hands of the people directly concerned. I say that bearing in mind it is very difficult to defend the CNR and CPR costing figures. The people who prepared the figures would find it difficult to develop arguments before the Supreme Court of Canada, to say nothing of the cost of so doing, whether in the form of a provincial government body, a municipal body, a rail line abandonment association, or what have you.
The situation is grave and further consideration should be given to it by the House. I say that in view of concern expressed at the Federal-Provincial Conference by western premiers, and particularly in view of the remarks of the Prime Minister, who in reply to the Premier of Saskatchewan said that while this is not in fact a constitutional matter, it does relate to the whole problem. Certainly we in western Canada have long felt that transportation, the Crowsnest Pass rates and the whole gamut of east-west movement of goods, is part and parcel, as I have said many times, of a moral constitution vis-a-vis western Canada's commitment to a united Canada.
One other matter that I think needs to be emphasized before this bill passes is team spirit. There is no question that any organization that lacks spirit, drive and energy on the part of its employees will undoubtedly lose and continue to lose money. According to recent figures, employment of linemen in the CNR is down to a little over 80,000. A few years ago the figure was 110,000 but it has dropped continually. Applications are at this moment before the CTC to abandon rail lines and to discontinue certain passenger services. If the Commission rules in favour of the abandonment of many railway lines and the discontinuance of a great part of the present passenger services, which still play a very important part in linking Canada together, there is no doubt in my mind that this will mean further reduction of employment in the CNR.
On the question of seniority, one must have well over ten years', nearly 15 years' service, in order to get in any runs. Whether a man be a conductor, an engineer or a brakeman,
December 10, 19G9
1834	COMMONS DEBATES
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada he must have a fair amount of seniority to put in travel time during a month. This illustrates quite vividly that railroading, particularly freight hailing, is at a low ebb, certainly in western Canada.
It might well be argued that the railway trucking firms are growing and making money. However, transportation by freight and boxcar is diminishing, and this partly because of the limited movement of potash and grain. As I say, this has brought about lack of spirit and zest, lack of pride in the enterprise, on the part of employees, with consequent loss of revenue. I urge the minister and the CNR to take a fresh look, not at how fast they can discontinue existing services and hope to save money, or at how fast they can put the books in the black by getting out of this sort of service, but at how fast they can put the books in the black by seeking to increase employment in the company. Let them entice more people to use their passenger services, instead of applying to discontinue them and discouraging people from using them.
As I said in opening the debate some weeks ago, it is the responsibility of the CNR and the CPR to create an effective demand for their services if they really want to bring about an esprit de corps among their employees. I must emphasize this because it is paramount in a business that wants to reduce its losses and show a profit, or at least a margin of profit. The railroads, particularly the CNR, have been notoriously lax in this respect. I realize that a few years ago they did make efforts to enlarge their passenger services, which were fairly good between 1962 and 1968.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I can only assume as a result of recent applications to withdraw passenger services immediately that the railways feel the only answer is to get out of business and get out of the red. Perhaps this will mean they will go further into the red. You cannot shut the doors of your shop and hope to stay in business. If you have three doors you cannot hope to shut one and keep only the other two open, because in this way you will discourage people from even looking at your products. People will not consider railway transportation as an answer to their problems if the railways continue their present policy. I should like to urge the railroads, the CPR particularly and the CNR, to take a new approach to this matter. These companies 
might find such an approach will be more beneficial to their financial needs, particularly in the long run.


Mr. John Burion (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, it had not originally been my intention to take part in the debate on the amendment to the motion because I had already spoken on the main motion prior to the introduction of the amendment. However, two matters have arisen since I originally spoke which make it necessary for me to take part in this debate today.
I wish to raise two matters of particular concern to the people of my constituency and to the people of other areas of western Canada. These matters involve railway policy and railway operations, and I feel they require consideration at this time. Last Friday afternoon I had the opportunity of meeting with a group of Wheat Pool committees in sub-district 6 of district 6 of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. The meeting was held at Edgeley. There I was presented with six briefs on behalf of the Wheat Pool committee. These briefs were submitted to their Member of Parliament. Most of them are located in my constituency, and two are located in the constituency immediately adjacent to mine.
One vein of thought ran through all these briefs, along with a number of other proposals which I do not intend to deal with today because they do not come within the scope of this debate. I did note that all the briefs presented to me last Friday afternoon indicated signs of concern regarding problems of transportation, particularly railroad transportation. These committees presented some of the problems as they saw them from their own community level. I should like to make reference to these briefs and draw them to Your Honour's attention and, through you, to the attention of the government and the authorities of Canadian National Railways.
These briefs were prepared entirely by the local Wheat Pool committees. They prepared them entirely on their own without outside assistance or coaching. The briefs represent the way they see things from the local community point of view. For example, I have the brief presented by the Winro Wheat Pool committee. This is a very well drawn-up brief which indicates a good deal of thought in respect of those problems presented to me as
December 10, 1969

a member of this House of Commons. In dealing with problems of transportation this particular Wheat Pool committee said the following:
We also feel there is too much discrepancy in the allocation of box cars. The railways have a monopoly on the movement of grain to the Lake-head and the West Coast have a great deal to say in the final allocation of box cars. We feel that the railways are in no position to know at what elevators and how many cars should be spotted and should have no say in the final allocation.
The fact that when an embargo on the movement of grain was imposed last summer because the line elevators at the Lakehead were congested, the Pool terminals at the Lakehead had 12,500,000 bushels of space and the Pool terminal at Vancouver had 1,500,000 bushels space, seems an indication of poor allocation between companies. We suggest that the final allocation of cars be done by the Wheat Board, if possible.
Many farmers who would prefer to deliver to the Pool where they actually are members are forced to patronize companies not of their choice because their own elevators cannot get their rightful share of cars. We feel this situation contributed largely to the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool's operating loss this year. We believe a workable plan could be devised wherein each producer, when making application for his permit book, would indicate not only the shipping point he wishes to patronize but also the elevator company at that shipping point and that cars and shipping orders be allocated on this basis.
We also contend there is too much discrepancy in the allocation of cars between shipping points. We can see where this is possible toward the end of the year when trying to even up delivery quotas or due to grade preferences in orders. But, at the beginning of the crop year when all things are more or less equal, the discrepancy should not be great.
Here is an example on a 30 mile stretch of the CPR in our area-from McLean, Saskatchewan to Sintaluta, Saskatchewan-with five shipping points, for the period August 1st, 1969 to November 12th, 1969, (just over 1/4 year).
There were 529 permits with 181 cars received. At McLean there were 64 permit book holders and 11 cars were received. At Qu'Appelle there were 126 permits and 25 cars were received. At Winro there were 18 permits and no cars were received. At Indian Head there were 197 permit books and 106 cars were received. At Sintaluta there were 124 permits and 39 cars were received. The brief goes on to state:
We wish to point out that we do not begrudge any point the cars they have received. We wish only to point out the wide variation in distribution in an area with pretty much the same grades and grains. We also realize there would be some difference due to malting barley and flax shipments. But the differences should not be so great.
The railway admittedly does not like to spot cars at single elevator points like Winro. However, as they have a monopoly on moving the grain we believe they must be obliged to spot cars at these
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada
points whether it is a paying proposition or not. We contend that it is largely because of this type of discrimination that this point has been reduced from around 40 permits and a 200,000 plus handling to 18 permits this year and a 70,000 handling last year.
Those were some of the comments by this one Wheat Pool committee. This brief sets out the situation very well. Comments of less length were made by some of the other Wheat Pool committees in their presentations to myself. For instance, the Qu'Appelle committee stated as follows:
We will require cars to finish off the present quotas as quickly as possible if we are to be able to get a one bushel quota this winter.
Since coming under the new block shipping system on November 6, I have received 7 cars and will get another 2 cars next week for 2 wheat.
The Indian Head Wheat Pool committee also had some very pertinent comments. It stated in its brief in respect of boxcar distribution:
During the 1968-69 crop year the Pool loaded 94 cars against 260 for all the line elevators at Indian Head. Gross receipts at the same time were 187,380 bushels for the pool and 522,000 bushels for the line elevators. Although our cars loaded against receipts showed up as equal, that is loading 2,000 bushels average in each car, our percentage of cars to orders were down badly. The CPR at this point always maintain they distributed cars according to the percentage of orders on hand. This is not so and is a controlling factor in our elevator receipts at this point.
For example, it indicates that for August,
1968	the Pool had seven orders and received two cars. The line elevator companies had eleven orders and received six cars. In September the Pool had nine orders and received five cars. The line elevators had 14 orders and received 14 cars. In November the Pool had twelve orders and received four cars. At the same time the line elevator companies had 25 orders and received 22 cars. In February of
1969	the Pool had 16 orders and received four cars while the line elevator companies had 12 orders and received nine cars. In March of 1969 the Pool had 19 orders and received seven cars while the line elevator companies had 28 orders and received 24 cars. The brief continues:
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
The balance of months were quite fair but our receipts could have been increased considerably if we had received the percentage of cars to orders. The Indian Head committee have complained numerous times over many years re the distribution of boxcars and the following resolution was passed at our annual meeting this year.
"That all permit holders be given the privilege through a ballot to designate the elevator of their choice for their deliveries, this ballot to be taken
December 10, 1969
1836	COMMONS
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada annually and the Canadian Wheat Board allocate boxcars in accordance with the results of the ballot."
In addition the McLean Wheat Pool committee also made special reference to the question of boxcar supply. They stated as follows:
The Pool operates the only elevator at this point which eliminates inequity of car distribution here. However, being aware of this problem at most points throughout the province we support the resolution passed by our delegates at their annual meeting in Regina last month.
"That the Wheat Board institute a system whereby the farmer designates his choice of elevator by a declaration, and shipping orders be allotted accordingly."
The Edgeley Wheat Pool committee also made reference to the shift in boxcar loadings at their points over the past four crop years. They noted that in 1965-66, 237 cars were loaded at their points; in 1966-67, 201 cars were loaded; in 1967-68, 107 cars were loaded and in 1968-69, 113 cars were loaded.
Finally, the Avonhurst Wheat Pool committee also gave detailed figures of grain movements out of their point. They noted that a total of 86,340 bushels of grain were shipped and that a handling of 86,500 bushels was established at that point in the current crop year. The total number of cars at the point of Avonhurst during the past crop year was 102. The Pool received only 45, giving the opposition a total of 57 cars. I also have information that at this point there are 77 permit holders and that approximately 45 of those permit holders delivered grain generally to the Pool. During the past crop year there were roughly 86,000 bushels for the Pool and somewhere between 95,000 and 100,000 bushels for the line elevator. All this seems to point up a very serious situation which must be taken into account in the future.
It has been noted that the block system is expected to bring about some improvement in the situation. I think this probably will result in some improvement in the situation, but it seems to me some problems will still remain because the allocation of cars to the various elevator companies will be based on a formula using the average in the last three crop years. It would seem that due to the declining market situation which has existed during the past three crop years, it will be difficult to obtain equitable and fair distribution of boxcars based on the wishes of the grain producers themselves. It seems to me this would also give both the railway and elevator companies the opportunity to consolidate their boxcars
[Mr. Burton.1

at a local point without due consideration to the needs of the farm people.
Another example I received a few weeks ago is an indication that one railway line gave a preference in cars to one point which had a great many more cars than other points with the same number of permit holders. The railway is attempting to carry out the rationalization of their service by having a smaller number of points and hauling greater distances. Also, this will enable the elevator companies, in the manner in which the new block system will operate, to carry out their own consolidation. I do not think anyone will argue that some consolidation will not take place, but this gives the elevator companies the power to carry out a rationalization of their operations without any reference to the needs of the farmers and without many of the farm organizations being consulted or having any role to play in carrying out this reorganization of operations.
I indicated that another matter had come to my attention. I think it requires some attention by the government. I received in the mail this morning a copy of an application that has been filed by Canadian National Railways with the Railway Transport Committee of the Canadian Transport Commission asking for authority, and making a preliminary proposal, to establish a master agency for a large part of Saskatchewan, located in Saskatoon. First of all, I should like to compliment the CNR, as I have previously, for making available this information immediately and for indicating quite specifically what it plans to do. It has made this information available to a large group of interested and potentially interested people. I must say at the outset that I do see some potential for improved railway service in the master agency plan as it has been developed and in fact as it has been used in some locations. It is indicated in their application that the CNR has in mind that the total implementation will be carried out progressively over the next two years.
While I indicated that this plan may have a potential for improved service, on the question of improved service the railway might note in answer to any comments I might make in this regard that, after all, they do not receive too many complaints. I think it must be noted by all concerned that there has been and is an attitude on the part of the public, a sort of a shrugging of the shoulders, in which they seem to say, "What is the use?" They give up in their attempt to get the
December 10, 1969

railway to provide better service and overcome inadequacies. I realize that this comment may not be fair in some cases, but I think it must be noted that this attitude exists and must be taken into account by the proper authorities.
As I look at the application which has been filed by Canadian National Railways, to which I have referred, I notice there are a number of points which should be noted and about which many people will be concerned. First of all, it is noted that Saskatoon will become the master agency centre for all line points on a number of stated Saskatchewan area subdivisions. These include a number of points which are located in my constituency. These are sizeable communities such as Kel-liher, Lestock and Punnichy, all of which have given the railway a good amount of patronage.
In addition to that, I note also that the Edmonton master agency will be extended to include the Wainwright, Dodsland, Porter and Bodo subdivisions. When we look at the points that are included in these subdivisions, we note that Dodsland includes Loverna and that the Porter subdivision includes Bat-tleford and I believe a number of other points in Saskatchewan. These points in Saskatchewan are to be served by the Edmonton master agency.
I imagine such an organizational structure has been proposed because the operating sections of the railway are located in Edmonton for these particular stretches of railway line. But these points are in Saskatchewan. Most of them are more closely adjacent to Saskatoon and other Saskatchewan centres than to Edmonton. It seems to me that customer services provided to these centres and points, many of which are located in the constituency of my colleague the hon. member for Bat-tleford-Kindersley (Mr. Thomson), should be provided into Saskatchewan and out of Saskatchewan points rather than from the city of Edmonton. This seems to be one of the faulty approaches that may be of concern to many people.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I also note that it is proposed to ask for authority to remove the station buildings from a large number of locations, including a number of locations along the CNR line with which I am familiar, such as Goodeve, Hubbard; then Kelliher, Lestock and Punnichy which are in my constituency and, farther on, the points of Quinton, Semans, Nokomis, Venn,
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada Young, Zelma, Bradwell and Clavet as far as the city of Saskatoon and other points on the CNR line. Many of these are communities with anywhere from 500 to 1,000 people living in the urban centres and a much larger population living in the surrounding rural areas who use the particular centres as their shopping district. It seems to me that to remove the station buildings from these locations is a very questionable procedure which indicates that the railway does not any longer-intend to provide an adequate service to these points.
With respect to the Saskatchewan area subdivision, it is proposed that three mobile customer service supervisory positions be established to maintain personal contact at the line points where agents have been removed. I have no doubt that competent people will be obtained who can handle public relations and the business aspects of the operation in a very satisfactory manner. But I ask:	Is it
possible for three customer service supervisors to service the entire area under this master agency plan? I submit it is simply not possible to do so.
In saying this I wish to acknowledge that the role of the station agent of the past has changed. With the introduction of centralized traffic control there is no longer the same need for the telegraph operator function as it has been carried out in the past by many station agents. Thus, their duties are more restricted. Some reorganization can be justified and would probably be useful, but I question whether simply having these three supervisors will be adequate to serve the needs of the people along these railway lines if it is the intention to maintain an adequate level of service.
I suggest that the contacts with the local community of a number of people who are in fact working for the railway, who have a responsibility to the railway at a number of points along these lines, should be examined very closely because if they are not satisfactory they will only further weaken the railway service as we hope to see it in the future.
Of course there are alternatives. The railway company suggests that it will establish, on a seven-day per week basis, a 24 hours a day free telephone system for Saskatoon for all carload, express, passenger and telecommunications requirements. That sounds very good, and as a matter of fact it does hold some potential for improvement of service. I cannot say that I know of any examples on the CNR system wherever they have established a master agency plan such
December 10, 1969
1838	COMMONS
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada as at Edmonton, but I have known examples on the CPR system where people have dialed the Zenith number and have not been able to obtain an answer or have had to wait an inordinately long time to obtain an answer to their call. Personal contact is removed, and while some attempt will be made through the customer service supervisors to maintain a level of personal contact, I suggest that on the basis established by the railway they will not be able to provide an adequate level of service.
1 have not had an opportunity to study in detail or at length the full plan of operations for the Saskatoon master agency as it was attached to their application, but I know that they are suggesting that express services be handled in large part through their trucking operations which of course take advantage of new developments in technology and services.
I also note that it is planned to have on hand representatives in many of the places which have been served by railway agents working on a full-time basis in the past. I suggest that in many cases this will not be adequate. I note, for example, that in a number of instances there are already on hand representatives at various local points, people who are operating a local store. In some cases this may be the only outlet and the only person available to provide this type of service and to act as a local representative, but when there are a number of businesses in a locality, certainly if there is another store in the community, I imagine they would not want to go to their competitor in order to pick up their express deliveries, so that certainly an independant representative or agent should be located at some point. Thus, it seems to me that more attention must be paid to the provision of an adequate level of local services in these communities and centres where it is proposed to withdraw the station agent who has been there for many years.
With respect to the matter of service, I also note that claims and tracing will be handled through Saskatoon via the Zenith telephone system. Again, it seems to me that this would be inadequate. I have had some experience of this system because I worked in the railway freight operation for several years. I know that many customers of the railway who receive merchandise and goods and who have a claim, want to have it looked after right away and want the service to be provided immediately or very soon. There are very good and valid reasons for wanting the service to be provided immediately. If all claims


and tracings are to be handled through Saskatoon, it seems to me, the service provided will be rather inadequate. I could go on to a number of other aspects of the operation as it is proposed under the new master agency plan. As I indicated, I think there is some potential for improved service in the new plan if it is implemented properly and if it is put into effect adequately. But it seems to me that for many centres in the province which are at some distance from the larger, more central, locations, more attention needs to be paid to ensuring the provision of an adequate level of local community service. As I indicated, it was only because of these two developments which came to my attention since the beginning of the debate on the main motion that I decided I should also speak at this time in the debate.
In conclusion, I noted earlier in the day during the question period that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Bas-ford) complained that he was not able to get some of his business before the House because six or seven days had been used in debating this bill on CNR financing. Of course, as usual, the minister had his facts wrong. This is becoming rather habitual with the minister in terms of the whole operation of his department. Up to that time the bill had been debated for only four days. Certainly it is an extended debate and a rather longer-than-expected debate for some members on the other side of the House. I think it has been shown that there are legitimate areas of concern which require debate.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that this debate has been worth while in view of the motion which was agreed to earlier today to have the subjects of Canadian National Railways' financial structure and the CNR pension fund referred to the transportation committee for further study. So far as I am concerned, it means that this debate has served a very useful purpose and will in future years be of great value to the people of Canada. I hope that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs as well as other members will recognize this fact as we proceed with the business of the House.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. I understand there have been consultations amongst the parties of the House and as a result there has been unanimous agreement that the motion for second reading of the bill be changed to provide that after second reading the bill would go
December 10. 1969

immediately to Committee of the Whole rather than a standing committee. Then after consideration by Committee of the Whole, the bill would be given third reading immediately thereafter so that it would go through all stages today before six o'clock. If my understanding of the arrangements are correct, I would ask the House for agreement to such an order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it
agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I should like permission of the House to withdraw the amendment which I moved several days ago. I do so because of the arrangements that have been made in which the government has agreed to send the problem of the financing of the debt of Canadian National Railways committee for the explicit purpose of doing something about the debt. There will also be consideration of the Canadian National pension fund, a very contentious matter. For these reasons I am prepared to withdraw my motion. I would caution the government, however, that this refinancing occurs every year, and if there is not co-operation in order to get rid of the debt structure and to restructure Canadian National Railways along the lines of normal business procedure, it can count on this being a very serious problem at a later date. With the consent of the seconder, I therefore ask for unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, to withdraw the amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Does
the House give unanimous consent to the hon. member to withdraw his amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Peters) withdrawn.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Bechard in the chair.
On clause 2-Definitions.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, as the Minister without Portfolio indicated a moment ago, there is an understanding that in view of the motion made by the government House leader earlier today there is no reason why this bill cannot go through all its remaining stages before six o'clock, so I shall take only a minute or two. Earlier today I wanted to ask a question of the Minister of Transport but time ran out in
DEBATES	1839
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada the oral question period. I see he is back, looking as comfortable as ever, so perhaps I may put my question to him now.
Although this is a finance bill, a good deal has been said during the debate about the cut-back on services proposed by Canadian National Railways. I wonder if the Minister of Transport would consider using his good offices to ask Canadian National Railways to desist from pressing its application to discontinue trains Nos. 5 and 6, the "Panorama", between Winnipeg and Vancouver. I am not now asking him to go to the Canadian Transport Commission to make representations but, after all, he is the minister who responds to this House for Canadian National Railways. There is a great deal of concern about this proposed action at Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Edmonton and Vancouver and all points in between by both the communities served and the employees of the railway. I wonder if the minister would be prepared to make that kind of personal representation to Canadian National Railways.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Chairman, before the minister replies I wonder if I could add a word to what has been said by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and support the proposal that he has placed before the minister. It seems to me that serious consideration should be given to maintaining the "Panorama" train in operation, or trains 5 and 6 as they are known. Surely the level of business could be increased by ensuring that there is an adequate service to the local communities between Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Edmonton and onwards. During the winter months particularly, when it is more difficult to travel by road and alternate means of transport are not as good, this would be a very useful service and would also be of value to the railways.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Chairman, I did not of
course anticipate that I would be getting questions in this form and thus have not been able to make any special preparation for reply. I can say, however, that the whole question of the application of the railways is one, as I am sure all hon. members will understand, that has occupied my attention over a considerable period of time and particularly since the announcement of the application.
With regard to the specific requests that have been made today, I fear that the same kind of representation might come from all hon. members whose constituencies will be affected in one way or another by the applications, whatever the decision of the
1840	COMMONS
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada CTC. These two requests are tantamount to a general request to the railways to cease and desist on virtually all the proposals now placed before the CTC. There are a number of such reasons which ought to commend themselves to hon. members as to why this would not be an appropriate step for me to take.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


John Stratford Burton: On a point of clarification, as I understand it the applications for discontinuance of passenger service which have received a great deal of publicity must be dealt with by the CTC, but the discontinuance of trains such as the "Panorama" does not require an application to be made to that body; it can be decided by the railway itself. The same would apply to the discontinuance of the rail liner service between Regina, Saskatoon and Prince Albert.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: My hon. friend is correct in his assessment of the situation. I am assuming that the rail liner to which the hon. gentleman refers is in an area where the railways have a degree of freedom or autonomy with regard to the abandonment of service so long as there is a so-called satisfactory service available. But it does not detract from the basic premise of what I am saying, that there are areas throughout the country where the same situation prevails.
It would not be proper for me to make representation to the CNR that it should not alter any existing levels of passenger service. That would be an inappropriate course for me to take. In the first instance, while it may be that I would have some influence with regard to Canadian National Railways, it must be remembered that many of these services are also provided by the CPR, in which case it would be only a matter of moral suasion, and indeed this is so even in the case of the CNR.
It is true to say that by long tradition hon. members are agreed that in fairness to managerial decision, and indeed to the best interests of the railway and the country, the minister should not issue an order.
Therefore, while I shall be more than pleased to pass along the representations of individual members, I believe I would be exceeding my authority and responsibility were I to do more than that and attempt to order the CNR to change its plans.
But I think there is something more basic than that involved in the present exercise. It is something that apparently is not widely

DEBATES	December 10, 1969
understood. It is that applications for abandonment are not in themselves an assurance that the lines in question are going to be abandoned. It is purely a matter of seeking now to rationalize the National Transportation Act by putting these applications forward with respect to lines where moneys are being lost. Then the CTC will make the appropriate decision as to whether the public need requires that they be continued and, if that is so, the Canadian government through the appropriate votes will make the necessary subsidies available. So, I repeat that I believe the public interest in these cases, as distinct from the trains to which my hon. friend refers, is taken care of.
In the case where railways have the authority to abandon and they appear to be exercising that authority, may I say that I would be delighted to arrange for members of the House to meet with officials of the CNR to make their representations directly to them, if this appears to hon. members to be a convenient way of doing it; but I would hesitate to go beyond transmitting their representations to the CNR or arranging such a meeting. I understand this is not a wholly satisfactory answer but, as I have said, I doubt very much whether my responsibilities would permit me to go further at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: accept the minister's view that it is not his right to order Canadian National Railways to cease and desist, but I do hope he will go a little further than just passing on what he has heard us say today. He referred to moral suasion as only moral suasion. I think in his case it could be pretty effective, and so I urge him to stay this side of an order but to go beyond being merely a post office. If the minister will arrange for a session when we can meet with officials of the CNR, all of us who represent areas that are affected would be happy to attend and to add to the minister's moral suasion.


John Stratford Burton: Over the past number of years the railway has made a heavy investment in facilities and services for the potash industry, but some of this has now gone down the drain because some potash companies are transporting their product by highway across the U.S. border to American railway lines. I could spend a considerable time discussing this matter, but since the hour is getting late I wish to ask the minister one question with respect to his announcement this afternoon. The minister stated that the railways have agreed to postpone implementing their
December 10. 1969

increase in potash freight rates from points in Saskatchewan to the west coast. Is this an indefinite postponement or is it limited to a certain period of time?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I do not have the details in front of me right at the moment. I understand it is for a period of time. I hope I am correct in this and I hope the hon. member will appreciate that to a degree it is hearsay, so that I will not be held to it if it turns out to be incorrect. My understanding is that the Saskatchewan people who discussed this matter with the railways asked for a deferral in order to re-assess the various effects of such an increase. I believe they asked for a period of grace, and it was this which the railways have granted. I do not know the length of time at the moment, but I will be happy to inquire and let the hon. member know.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Chairman, may we have a brief explanation of the estimated capital expenditures of $107 million for the 1969 calendar year for road property, and of $4 million for hotels?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, this is detailed in the capital budget of the CNR that has already been approved by Order in Council and, if I am not mistaken, was made public some months ago. On page 1 of the capital budget for 1969, under the heading "Road Property", we see an amount of $49,938,000 for roadway improvements, $5,785,000 for large terminals, $4,130,000 for yard tracks and sidings, $3,603,000 for buildings, $13,335,000 for signals, $5,965,000 for roadway and shop machinery and $24,689,000 for general expenditures, making a total of $107,700,000 as referred to by my hon. friend.
Under the heading of "Hotels" at page 6 we see expenditures as follows: Hotel Newfoundland $101,400, Hotel Nova Scotian $86,000, Chateau Laurier $939,000, Fort Garry $1,584,000, Bessborough $135,300, Hotel Macdonald $583,000, Jasper Park Lodge $126,000, and Hotel Vancouver $587,800, with $1,315,800 for sundry small projects, making a total of $5,458,300.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Clause 3 to 6 inclusive, agreed to.
On clause 7-Loans to Air Canada out of CRF.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The other day I raised the question of a foreign carrier
21545-46*
DEBATES	1841
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada obtaining the contract for the carriage of nickel or concentrates from Canada to Norway. I gather that Friday last this prompted some form of statement, a very incomplete one, about which I saw a small blurb in the press. I wonder whether the minister could arrange to have a statement from Air Canada, since Air Canada identified itself as a carrier who was interested but whose pencil was not sharp enough to compete against KLM for the $1 million contract to carry Canadian ore to a refinery. Something has gone wrong.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I know something of this, but rather than attempt to give an incomplete answer at the moment I will be glad to look into it and provide the hon. member with the full story. I think there are qualifications to it in terms of the statement which he made. As I say, I prefer not to answer fully until I have the details.


Mr. Bell:: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the minister a question I asked previously. Is this section on Air Canada financing the same as in other years, or are there new provisions that give this company a greater freedom in its financing efforts? Will Air Canada be having more independence in the financial world? I would also ask if they will be able to borrow more money or increase their financing in view of the jumbo jets? Will there be greater financing this year because of the jumbo jets?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The provision is basically the same. It will permit Air Canada to go directly to the market to borrow if it so decides or it can borrow from the government. I believe there is a difference in the sense that under this provision it will not be able to borrow from the CNR, but basically the purpose of giving greater flexibility to Air Canada in seeking capital by way of borrowing is the same.
Clauses 7 to 15 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: that the bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time? Now, by leave?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
December 10, 1969

Alleged Tax Reform Propaganda


Mr. Speaker:: By unanimous consent, now.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, just to confirm the menu for tomorrow, we will start off with the third reading of the Excise Tax Act, followed by the final budget bill, the Income Tax Act.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Speaker:: Earlier in this sitting, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) raised a question of privilege dealing with a letter from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) dated December 9, 1969, which had been considered by his party's caucus this morning and which referred to the availability of certain material paid for out of public funds which the members of the caucus had been invited to use without their having been consulted on the production of such material.
In the brief period at my disposal I have endeavoured to find a precedent or other authority to sustain the hon. member's contention that his submission raised a prima facie question of the breach of the privileges of this House. It might be of interest to hon. members were I to refer to an incident that is reported at page 3825 of Hansard for April 20, 1961. On that occasion it was suggested that a pamphlet, produced and circulated by the Department of Agriculture, in relation to the operation of the provisions of a bill then before the House, had violated the rights of Parliament in that the minister had assumed powers beyond those authorized for him by substituting the powers of his department for the legislative powers of this Parliament.
Unfortunately this precedent, which is the only one we have been able to find, is not too helpful since after a long discussion and debate on the point of privilege no motion was tendered by the hon. member who raised the matter as a question of privilege and as a consequence the Speaker was not called upon to make a ruling. I must also add that neither the Standing Orders of the House nor other recognized authorities are of much assistance to the Chair in making a decision at this time.
As a final recourse, I must refer to what is commonly called a general definition of acts or conduct which constitute a breach of privilege. That definition is recorded at page 109 of May's 17th edition as follows:
It would be vain to attempt an enumeration of every act which might be construed into a contempt, the power to punish for contempt being in its nature discretionary. Certain principles may, however, be collected from the Journals which will serve as general declarations of the law of Parliament. It may be stated generally that any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence.
The Chair has been unable to conclude that the conduct of the Minister of Finance, as related by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, was an effort to obstruct or impede any member of this House in the discharge of his duty, or that such action had the tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results.
Whether or not it was proper to prepare and circulate what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre described as "propaganda material" is, in the opinion of the Chair, a matter of administration which can be debated by hon. members in a variety of ways. In fact, a number of questions have already been asked by hon. members in relation to this matter. I have to conclude that although there may be a grievance against the government, a prima facie case of breach of parliamentary privilege has not been established.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Thursday, December 11, 1969