1969-04-14

Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) who would normally report to the house on the spring NATO ministerial session, and because there has been a great deal of interest regarding this particular session, I have undertaken on his behalf to make the following report to hon. members of this house.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to table copies in English and French of the communique which was issued at the conclusion of the regular spring meeting of ministers which I attended in Washington last Thursday and Friday with the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Part of the Washington meeting was devoted to commemorating NATO's twentieth anniversary but the ministers showed little inclination to dwell on the past accomplishments of the alliance. Their attention was focused instead on problems of the future, both immediate and long term.
The immediate issue was to decide how to get on with the resolution of east-west problems. Soviet intervention in Czechoslovakia had set back hopes for improving east-west relations, but there was agreement in Washington that a continuing dialogue between members of NATO and the Warsaw Pact was the only rational course. NATO's 15 member governments therefore agreed on a policy of gradually renewing contacts with the Warsaw Pact countries and of exploring all possibilities for negotiations that might help resolve their outstanding differences with the east.
The ministers discussed at some length the proposal for a European security conference contained in the communique issued by the Warsaw Pact in Budapest on March 17. The
conclusion was that a European security conference as conceived in the Budapest declaration posed serious difficulties, because the proposed terms of reference called for recognizing the continued division of Germany and existing borders in central Europe. To accept in advance the Communist position on these issues would clearly pre-judge the outcome of the conference. A number of the delegations in Washington, including that of Canada, considered that if the east was now seriously interested in the possibility of holding a European security conference, they might be prepared to accept realistic terms of reference. The NATO ministers agreed steps should be taken to test thoroughly the intentions of the eastern European countries, particularly on issues which might be negotiable. There was general agreement that if a conference were held it should include both the United States and Canada.

At the Washington meeting a significant new dimension was added to the ministers' discussions. It was the question of what the members of the alliance might do collectively to assist in the search for solutions of the social problems facing modern societies and in the attempt to close the gap between the properous developed countries and those of the developing world. It was acknowledged that many aspects of these questions were already being considered in other international bodies but there was a general disposition to see if NATO could help to find new and better ways of sharing views and experiences on them.
The Canadian delegation's principal aim was to ensure that NATO would use to the full its capacity to contribute to the early improvement of east-west relations. The paper on east-west relations which the ministers had before them was based on a Canadian draft and its conclusions were largely reflected in the results of the meeting.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)

In the main Canadian statement which was delivered by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, emphasis was placed not only on

April 14, 1969
NATO Report
east-west relations generally, but on the importance we attach to the early initiation of talks between the United States and the Soviet Union on the limitation of offensive and defensive strategic nuclear weapons. The Secretary of Staite for External Affairs also expressed our hope that, once begun, these talks would be pursued, despite any temporary setbacks on other fronts. He joined other spokesmen in welcoming the United States government's willingness to enter into bilateral negotiations with the Soviet Union on a number of world problems, including the limitation of nuclear arms, and the United States pledge to consult its partners as these negotiations progress.

The Secretary of State for External Affairs underlined the importance which Canada attaches to including China in any attempts to settle major world problems. He informed the meeting of the steps taken thus far toward establishing diplomatic relations with the Peking government and that we have now had a response from the Chinese, indicating their willingness to enter into substantive discussions. These will be taking place in Stockholm through the two embassies with our embassy reinforced as necessary by sending officials from Ottawa. The expectation is that these discussions will get underway in about a month's time. There is no indication of how long this will take. We are anxious for them to succeed, but they will be essentially confidential and are not likely to be helped if carried out under the glare of constant publicity.

The Secretary of State for External Affairs and I used the occasion of the meeting to explain to our allies the outcome of our defence policy review as it will affect our approach to NATO in the future. We confirmed Canada's intention to remain in the alliance and informed the members of the decision to embark on a planned and phased reduction of the size of the Canadian forces now stationed in Europe. We explained that in carrying out this decision, the government intended to consult closely with Canada's allies. The purpose of consultation would be to enable us to take account of the views of our allies as plans are made regarding the nature and the timing of the reduction of our forces in Europe and the extent and location of Canada's continuing military contribution to NATO. The Secretary of State for External

Affairs stated that account would also be taken of any international developments which might have a bearing on the balance of security in Europe and elsewhere.
A number of the ministers referred specifically to Canada's recent decision. While they welcomed our intention to remain in the alliance, they expressed the hope that the decision to reduce our forces in Europe would not be carried out in such a way as to jeopardize the security of the alliance or the prospects for east-west negotiations. With these considerations in mind, they welcomed our undertaking to consult them on our plans.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is rather a pity that this is the first opportunity we have had in parliament to discuss this new policy of the government-whatever it may be-which was announced the day after the house recessed. Quite apart from any personal opinion I might hold in this regard, I think it would be rather difficult for the government to persuade the people of this country that the step taken, as announced on the day after the house recessed, did not demonstrate considerable contempt for this ancient institution.
I really feel for the minister who has just spoken because it must have been rather difficult for him to carry this message to Washington and to attempt to explain to our NATO allies the Prime Minister's policy in respect of defence-whatever that policy might be. We cannot help but feel this way on the twentieth anniversary of the establishment of NATO, a time that reminds us of the part Canada played in the establishment, the foundation and the development of this alliance.
I agree of course that the immediate issue was to decide how to get on with the resolution of east-west problems. I agree with that wholeheartedly. I agree of course that the ministers were wise to explore to the full the possibility of the countries of the east being serious with regard to the detente. The fact that this should be the theme of this meeting of NATO ministers emphasizes to all of us how inappropriate was the decision of the government of Canada to announce on the eve of that meeting its decision to reduce its support of the NATO alliance, and thereby to that extent-which is to a considerable extent-reduce and weaken the position from which the NATO countries would be conducting any such negotiation with the countries of the east.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
April 14, 1969


Robert Lorne Stanfield: 
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I understand from the statement of the minister that he and his colleagues explained to the representatives of our allies in Washington precisely what was meant by the proposed planned and phased reduction of the size of our Canadian forces in Europe. I wonder if he left them as much in the dark as we have been left on this subject. I do not believe any member of the opposition at least has the haziest notion of what planned and phased reduction is in process. We do not know whether the words used by the Prime Minister are words of political compromise or whether they cover up a serious intention and plan to change the role of Canada, as we in this party have made clear from time to time we believe it should be changed.
I suggest to the government that it is time not just to talk about a phase two, but to let the country into its confidence as to precisely what it has in mind and to consult parliament about this. The Prime Minister has made a statement which has been heralded as a

April 14. 1969
NATO Report
highly important and deep seated review of a crucial phase of our foreign and external policy. This was done the day after parliament adjourned. Here we are back again today and the Minister of National Defence makes a statement in which he says that he informed our allies, but he did nothing to inform this house about the crucial details. I was pleased, as I am sure other members of the house were, to find that in the consultations at NATO there seems to have been a new emphasis on the manner of organizing a detente. We in this party warmly welcome that because we want to make it perfectly clear that in our view NATO cannot continue to have the loyalty and credibility of its member nations unless it ceases to be merely a bureaucratic military alliance continuing policies that were appropriate in the past and that are no longer appropriate at the present time.
I am inclined to regret that the proposal for a European security conference seems to have been pushed aside, although perhaps that is wrong and it is really to be explored. May I say that we in this party will give our warmest support to anything that this government does while it is a member within NATO to see that NATO is used for the purpose of organizing and arranging a new security system in Europe.
To end these remarks, may I express the hope that the minister's announcement is only a brief prelude to a full discussion both in this house and in the defence committee of the urgent defence and external affairs policies which call for decision at the present time.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abilibi):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks concerning the statement made by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) will be rather brief.
I wish to thank the minister for sending me a little in advance a copy of this statement, but I would like to point out to him, however, that it was drafted only in English. Nevertheless he did take the trouble to give us a few extracts in French and the interpreters did the rest.
I am happy, as everyone is, to find out that following this conference commemorating NATO's twentieth anniversary, steps have been taken to continue or intensify negotiations in order to improve, if possible, through NATO, the security of Europe.

As far as am concerned', I believe that as long as there are negotiations, as long as there is a dialogue, one can hope for improvements in the existing differences. However, I still have a doubt, because if we consider the billions of dollars the existing powers are spending year after year for armaments, we can but ask ourselves whether this is serious. For instance if we look at the statistics for the year 1967, we shall see that in the countries we know approximately $6 billions have been spent on depelopment work and $150 billions on armaments. And when one spends 25 times more on armaments than on development, one must ask oneself if this is logical and what one is after, on the Warsaw Pact side as on the NATO side.
Mr. Speaker, the minister tells us that other matters were discussed, such as the external aid the member countries of NATO can provide.
I believe that we could do a lot more by reducing arms expenditures, by increasing our assistance to the developing countries, and by helping the European countries to pursue their development and to meet their own needs.
And that is why, Mr. Speaker, I agree that Canada should continue her contribution to NATO, but recall her troops home as soon as possible. If necessary, she can, at a given time, contribute to the defence of Europe.
I conclude my remarks by saying, as did the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) at the beginning of his observations, that the brief statement made this afternoon is far from completing the one made after the adjournment for Easter. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that we will get the chance, very soon, to discuss and study in detail our participation to the defence of Europe, to NORAD and to the defence of the free world in general.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)



NATIONAL RESOURCES AND PUBLIC WORKS


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew North) moved: that the third report of the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, presented to the house on Tuesday, April 1, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
April 14, 1969


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege affecting this chamber. Your Honour will recall that on April 2, the day on which we adjourned for the Easter recess, I rose to protest the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) did not then present the decision of the government regarding its review of defence policy, a decision that we were told had to be made public by April 10. Within 24 hours of the adjournment the Prime Minister did make such a statement outside the House of Commons.
There is no sense threshing over past affairs, but I rise now to protest just as vigorously the fact that the Prime Minister did not even find it necessary to rise in his place today and table the document which he presented to the press outside this chamber on Thursday, April 3. It seems to me that at least he should have had concern enough for the work of this parliament to want to make a very important document, one perhaps even more important in his mind than in the minds of some of us, part of our parliamentary work, part of Hansard, Votes and Proceedings or what not.
This is another example of-as I called it on April 2-the cavalier treatment of this house by the Prime Minister who, I repeat did not find it necessary at least to do what is demanded of a Prime Minister-that an important document given to the press be placed before this House of Commons with some explanation as to what it meant, so that there could be a minimum of discussion of what the government presented on Thursday, April 3 after parliament adjourned. I can find no words strong enough to condemn that kind of treatment of the House of Commons by the Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps if it is the wish of the house the Prime Minister may be allowed to reply. But at the same time, in my view, the hon. member for York South has raised a grievance rather than a question of privilege. In any event, his point was not followed by a motion and I do not think the matter should now be the subject of a debate. In view of this I would think it might be inadvisable to have a debate of any nature, even by way of a statement by the Prime Minister.
Questions
I hope hon. members will agree with my suggestion that in view of the fact that there is not, in my opinion, a question of privilege here, and particularly since the point raised by the hon. member for York South has not been followed by a motion, there is no question before the house and there should not be a debate at this time.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Does the government intend to set up a program of English or French courses for employees in federal departments and, if so, when will these courses begin?
2.	If not, does the government intend to make a study on the subject?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of Stale):: am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: 1. The government, in 1963, authorized language training courses in the French and English languages (as second languages) for employees in the Public Service. These courses began early in 1964 and the number of such courses has been systematically increased as teaching resources became available in Ottawa and other major centres across Canada where the need for second language skills has been identified. These courses are operated under the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission and are available to selected employees in all government departments and agencies and in a number of Crown corporations.
2. See 1 above.


THE EXPO EXPRESS
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	What was the cost of the Expo-Express to
(a)	the City of Montreal (b) the Government of the Province of Quebec (c) the federal government?
2.	Has the Expo-Express been sold and, if so, to whom was it sold and for what amount?
3.	Were there conditions involved in the sale and, if so, what were these conditions?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: The Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition reports

April 14, 1969
Questions
that: 1. The Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition, and not the three governments, met the cost of the Expo Express. The cost of any single item purchased by the Corporation has never been allocated among the three governments. The total cost of the equipment, design and installation of the mass transit system (Expo Express) as reported in the fifth annual report, page 48, schedule 5, was $13,418,848.
2.	Yes. The Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition sold the Expo Express to the Society Urbaine des Transports Rapides Inc. (SUTRI) for $1,880,000. In turn, Sutri sold the Expo Express to the City of Montreal for their acquisition price i.e. $1,880,000.
3.	No.


FARM PRODUCTS PRICE INDEX
Mr. Douglas (Assiniboia): 1.	For what reason is the Dominion Bureau of Statistics still using the 1935-39 base for computing the index for farm product prices, when the base year has been revised more than once for most other price index reports?
2.	Is consideration being given to up-dating the farm price index to make it comparable with other price reports?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports that: 1 and 2. The main reason for the index of farm products still being on the 1935-39 base was the priority assigned to the revision of the index of farm production. The revision of the index of farm product prices is now under way and it is expected that a series based on 1961 = 100 will be published by September of this year.


TRAVEL IN ATLANTIC PROVINCES
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	Is the Canadian Government Travel Bureau planning an advertising campaign in the United States designed to promote increased travel to the Atlantic Provinces?
2.	If so, what is the name of the Canadian advertising agency entrusted with the responsibility of directing this campaign?
3.	What amount has been paid, or is to be paid, to the agency for the purpose of buying television time in the United States?
4.	Has said agency sub-contracted to any other advertising agency in the United States or Canada the job of buying such television time?

5.	If so, what is the name of such Canadian or American agency, and on what basis was selection for sub-contracting made?


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1. Yes.
2.	Stanfield, Johnson and Hill Limited.
3.	To be paid in 1969, $168,000.
4.	No. But Stanfield, Johnson and Hill Limited has bought the TV time concerned through a media buying service in New York City (not an advertising agency). No extra costs were involved in using this service, either to Stanfield, Johnson and Hill Limited or to the Canadian Government Travel Bureau. (The media buying service receives its compensation by purchasing block time at preferential rates and selling (portions of it) it for use by advertisers at rates sufficiently higher to realize a profit on operations.)
5.	RDR Associates, N.Y. City. The selection was based on advice from Lennen & Newell Inc. (The United States associate of Stanfield, Johnson and Hill Limited.) and as a result of a study by Stanfield, Johnson & Hill Ltd. on methods of buying TV spot time. This study which examined alternative firms and methods, including test comparisons of comparable buys, showed that the most efficient method of buying time required for the campaign was by utilizing a media buying service.


PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND UNIVERSITY GRANTS
Mr. MacLean: 1.	What amount was spent by the federal government for university grants in Prince Edward Island for each of the fiscal years from 1964-65 to 1968-69 inclusive?
2.	What amount is estimated to be spent for university grants in Prince Edward Island in the fiscal year 1969-70 and is this amount included in the amounts proposed to be spent under the Comprehensive Development Plan?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: I am informed by the Departments of the Secretary of State and Regional Economic Expansion as follows:
1.	and 2. From 1964-65 to 1966-67 federal University Grants were paid on a per capita basis ($2 per capita of provincial population in 1964-65 and 1965-66, and a national average of $5 per capita of population in 1966-67), through the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, to the two eligible institutions in Prince Edward Island.
April 14, 1969

Payments of University Grants were: 196465, $214,000; 1965-66, $216,000; 1966-67, $557,000.
The University Grants program was terminated March 31, 1967. Therefore, since that date there has been no federal program for direct support of universities. However, under Part II of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act 1967, which came into force April 1, 1967, Canada transfers fiscal resources to the provincial governments to assist them in meeting the rising costs of post-secondary (including university) education generally. The extent to which these transferred resources are used by the provinces for the support of universities is, of course, a matter for provincial authorities to decide. The value of these transfers under Part II of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, 1967 (consisting of tax abatements of 4 percent of individual income tax and 1 percent of corporation taxable income, and cash adjustment payments) to the government of the Province of Prince Edward Island is estimated at $1,635,000 for 1967-68 and $2,049,000 for 1968-69. For 1969-70 it is forecast that this figure will further increase to about $2.56 million. These estimated and forecast amounts are, of course, subject to adjustment when final audited data are available on postsecondary education operating costs, and final values of tax abatements are calculated. These amounts are not included under the Comprehension Development Plan.
Questions


SASKATCHEWAN-INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY GRANTS
Mr. Burton: For the fiscal year 1967-68, how many grants were made to plants In Saskatchewan under the Program for the Advancement of Industrial Technology (a) what is the name of each plant receiving a grant (b) what amount of grant was received by each plant?


Jean-Luc Pepin: In fiscal year 1967-68, payments were made by the Department of Industry under the program for the Advancement of Industrial Technology to one company in the Province of Saskatchewan, (a) Interprovincial Steel and Pipe Corporation Ltd., Regina, Sask.; (b) $61,584.


POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS
Mr. Laiulippe: What was the population of Canada and the number of Canadian Government employees in (a) 1934 (b) 1939 (c) 1944 (d) 1949 (e) 1954 (f) 1959 (g) 1964 (h) 1969 (or 1968, if figures for 1969 are not available) ?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports that: The population of Canada and the number of Canadian Government employees for the years specified are as follows:
No. of Government Employees as at March 31st
Year	Estimated Population	In Crown Corporations	Under Civil Service Act	Total(a)	1934	10,741,000	1	40,469	1(b)	1939	11,267,000	1	46,106	1(c)	1944	11,946,000	1	112,6581 2	1(d)	1949	13,477,000	1	123,924	1(e)	1954	15,287,000	139,473	171,366	310,839(f)	1959	17,483,000	131,973s	197,909	288,420<g)	1964	19,290,000	130,760	201,900	332,660(h)	1968	20,744,000	133,862	235,492	369,354
1 Prior to 1952 there were no Crown Cor- In April 1952, a new statistical series was
porations. Up to and including 1951, statistics instituted and included the above-mentioned included only departmental employees and exclusions except the Armed Forces. At the only those employed under the Civil Service same time, the DBS publication "Federal Act. This excluded, in addition to the Armed Government Employment" (DBS catalogue Forces, members of the R.C.M.P. and most number 72-004) included Crown Corporation of the prevailing rate and casual employees, statistics.

April 14. 1969
Questions
2	World War II caused the expansion between 1939 and 1944, mainly in the following departments and boards: National Defence; Munitions and Supplies; National War Services; Wartime Information Services and the Wartime Prices and Trade Board.
3	At this period, there were more than 3,000 employees of C.B.C. and Polymer Corporation out on strike.


FEDERAL EMPLOYEES IN $12,000 TO $18,000 BRACKET
Mr. Malle: How many federal government employees earn a minimum of (a) $12,000 (b) $18,000 per year?


Jean-Luc Pepin: As at March 31, 1968, the number of federal government employees under the Public Service Employment Act (excluding agencies) earning: (a) $12,000 and over, 7,051; (b) $18,000 and over, 1,291.


OVERTIME PAYMENTS TO LETTER CARRIERS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	(a) In January and February of 1969, how much has been paid in overtime to letter carriers in Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Hamilton, Windsor, Winnipeg, Regina, Saskatoon, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver (b) how much was paid in overtime to letter carriers in these cities for the same period in 1968?
2.	(a) How much money was paid in the form of salaries to casual employees in the Post Offices in Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Hamilton, Windsor, Winnipeg, Regina, Saskatoon, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver, for the months of January and February, 1969 (b) how much was paid to the same classification of employees in these cities in January and February of 1968?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Minister of Communications):: In so far as the Post Office Department is concerned: 1. (a) and (b) Over-t.me-Paid
Post Office
Jan.1968	Feb.1968	Jan.1969
Feb. 1969
Halifax	
Montreal	
Toronto	
Hamilton	
Windsor, Ontario
Winnipeg	
Regina	
Saskatoon	
Calgary	
Edmonton	
Vancouver	
807	$ 317	$ 2,995	$ 1,04215,632	2,948	13,612	2,45514,012	3,693	31,491	17,1664,338	2,676	5,589	5,909261	706	1,725	2,0255,239	1,335	14,707	13,3711,885	808	3,980	2,7381,323	1,263	3,098	1,5673,327	2,092	9,107	7,70513,757	4,862	8,400	9,22527,020	21,697	36,443	36,550
2. (a) and (b) Casual help-Paid
Post Office
Jan. 1968
Feb. 1968
Jan.1969
Feb. 1969
Halifax	
Montreal	
Toronto	
Hamilton	
Windsor, Ontario
Winnipeg	
Regina	
Saskatoon	
Calgary	
Edmonton	
Vancouver	 * (a) (b) (c) * (e) * (g)
6,523	$ 4,158	$ 16,954	$ 17,155119,975	77,314	100,150	62,41976,891	60,642	91,849	86,0003,769	3,918	6,776	17,7547,519	11,305	28,924	23,61325,312	24,035	31,251	26,6817,111	7,040	14,242	8,4405,164	5,637	3,979	4,24015,273	17,545	17,966	13,7957,881	7,275	24,991	23,0689,794	2,112	41,794	15,971
Note: The increase in the cost of overtime and casuals for the months of January and February 1969 in comparison to the same months in 1968 is due mainly to the following:
(a)	Salary revision for letter carriers averaging 18.7%.	_	_
(b)	Freezing of vacant positions effective October 2nd, 1968 to accommodate letter carrier personnel displaced by the introduction of the five-day delivery week commencing 17th February 1969.
(c)	Abnormal increase in illness throughout the country due to some form of influenza.
id) Voluntary overtime by personnel on their days of rest to cover sick leave absences.
(e) To help clear city mails in those offices where letter carrier walks were changed under the new walk evaluation programme and five-day delivery while regular sorters were learning new distribution schemes.
(/) To clear odd days of vacation leave remaining to the credit of regular employees prior to the end of the fisc* year.	,
(g) To provide assistance in laying out revised letter carrier walks.
[Mr. Pepin.l
April 14, 1969


FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT
Mr. Skoberg: I. What was the total amount of financial assistance provided to Douglas Aircraft of Canada Ltd., insofar as the Department of Industry is concerned for each of the following years: 1965, 1966 1967 and 1968?
2. What were the terms and conditions under which financial assistance was provided to Douglas Aircraft of Canada Ltd. for each of the following years: 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968?


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1. The Department of Industry has entered into shared cost projects with Douglas Aircraft of Canada Limited as follows: 1967: Maximum Crown commitment amounted to $2,086,862. Payments m 1967 were $626,314, and in 1968 were $783,848. 1968: Maximum Crown commitment amounted to $20 million. As of December 31 1968, no payments have been made.
No financial assistance was given to the company in 1965 or 1966.
2.	Commitments, payments and advances m the form of cost shared contracts under the terms and conditions governing the Defence Industry Productivity Program.


MOOSONEE EDUCATION CENTRE
Mr. Roy (Timmins): 1.	What was the cost or charge per day, per student, to the Manpower Retraining Program for each course given at the Moosonee Education Centre during the months of September, October November and December 1968?
2.	What was the cost or charge for similar courses given at ^ Timmins or the location nearest Moosonee where similar courses were given for the same months?
3.	Have these costs or charges been paid or are some payments being held pending investigation and approval?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. Interim costs per day, per student, to the Department of Manpower and Immigration for courses given at the Moosonee Education Centre during the months of September, October, November and December 1968 were as follows: Construction labourers' course, $8.00; Heavy equipment operators' course, $15.00; Hotel and hospital services course, $6.00. Final costs will not be determined until after the close of the fiscal year 1968/69.
2. Interim costs for similar courses given at Timmins or the location nearest Moosonee where similar courses were given for the
Questions
same months were identical to the costs provided under (1).
3. The interim costs have been paid to the Province of Ontario, but these payments will be subject to any adjustment which final accounting may require.


BUTTER IMPORTS
Mr. Ricard: Was any butter imported by Canada between April 1, 1967 and March 31, 1968 and, if so (a) from what country (b) how many pounds (c) at what price?


Hon. Olio E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, the Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports that imports of butter into Canada between April 1, 1967 and March 31, 1968 were as follows:
Country
Belgium-Luxembourg
France
Netherlands
Germany East
Poland
New Zealand
Totals


FEDERAL ELECTION
[Stage Direction]
Quantity	Value
Cwt.	$'000
11,685	265
330	11
6,670	136
4,409	98
3,307	67
100	5
26,501	582

Mr. Caouette: 1.	How many employees did the government hire for the last federal election?
With regard to the said election, what were the expenses under (a) salaries (b) rentals (c) stationery (d) publicity and sundries?
3.	What was the total amount spent by the government on the last election?
Hon. Gerard Pelleiier (Secretary of Stale)-
I am informed by the Chief Electoral Officer as follows: 1. 191,254.
2; ,(a) ^8,133,821.94; (b) $1,525,336.84; (c) $503,135.89; (d) $2,026.42 (publicity), $3,677 -162.99 (sundries).	'
3. $13,841,484.08.


RAILWAY COMMUNICATIONS WITH RETURNING OFFICERS
Mr. Caouette: 1.	What was the total amount paid by the government to the CNR and the CPR for communications with Returning Officers during the last election?
2.	What is the present debt of Canadian National Railways?

April 14, 1969
Questions
Mr. Yves Fores! (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council): I am informed by the Chief Electoral Officer and the Canadian National Railways as follows: 1. C.N.R., $16,144.61; C.P.R., $6,011.96.
2. $1,919,560,709.


EXEMPTIONS FROM POSTAGE
Mr. Cyr: Is it government policy to require the Post Office Department to cover its costs and, if so, does the government intend to amend Section 17 of the Post Office Act so that the Governor General, the House of Commons, the Senate and departments of government are no longer exempt from postage?


Eric William Kierans: In so far as the Post Office Department is concerned: Ultimately, it is the intention to place the Post Office Department on a balanced budget. While there are no immediate plans for amending Section 17
of the Post Office Act, the value of the free postage privileges afforded under this section is regarded as postal revenue in the Department's annual statement of revenues and expenditures as shown in the Postmaster General's Report.


TRANSFER OF UTILITY COMPANIES TAXES
Mr. Fortin: Since 1947, what amount was paid each year by the federal government to each of the provinces in connection with the transfer of the income tax of public utility companies (electricity, gas and steam) and in this regard have the provinces requested the inclusion of telephone companies?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: The amount paid by year and province is shown in the attached table. The provinces have not requested the inclusion of telephone companies under the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act.
[Mr. Caouette.l
xSif'-08I6S


TRANSFER OF INCOME TAX ON PUBLIC UTILITIES (ELECTRICITY, GAS AND STEAM)
[Stage Direction]
Amounts Paid by the Federal Government^1) to each of the Provinces
Nfld.
1947-	481
1948-	49/

[Stage Direction]
Que.
Ont.
Man.
No Transfer Payments
Sask.
Alta.
[Stage Direction]
Total
1949-	50.
1950-	51.
1963-64.
(1) Public Accounts of Canada,
400	125,000	25,000	-	-	225,000	25,000	425,000	550,000	1,375,40013,331	199,879	263,963	1,247,319	815,129	224,999	43,001	767,217	990,717	4,565 55519,109	138,107	163,902	558,564	629,671	330,966	32,952	792,660	1,004,513	3,732 28822,738	173,482	186,895	910,009	474,195	382,577	30,963	991,439	1,099,003	4 369 51829,854	279,306	283,422	2,120,262	1,096,520	569,161	43,336	1,395,600	852,670	6,831 15643,037	299,969	215,685	1,661,295	1,342,398	27,541	43,700	1,658,379	1,811,718	7,294 01652,081	355,698	207,512	1,009,105	1,574,188	113,925	47,000	1,958,242	2,421,955	7 947 97136,098	237,672	227,883	1,186,280	1,428,408	50,636	50,181	1,767,348	1,415,270	6,613 83852,110	400,936	219,883	1,675,230	1,333,166	61,254	66,420	1,980,380	1,325,456	7,362,21748,826	459,743	201,716	2,281,326	1,589,708	46,454	96,210	2,216,315	1,456,449	8,682 72935,908	232,911	100,512	1,504,196	1,042,652	20,233	50,938	1,239,000	349,573	4 753 15241,604	346,097	115,431	1,220,908	577,914	26,575	58,385	1,448,937	259,833	4,226 15154,377	474,799	92,629	2,063,623	651,465	52,709	59,356	1,870,487	927,888	6,396 55951,869	478,557	39,808	4,481,500	967,307	46,705	26,452	2,646,874	1,090,378	10,000 00054,374	638,118	40,318	4,622,537	1,018,591	46,226	9,145	2,741,814	501,351	9,868 20860,044	738,309	55,370	4,264,594	1,064,271	49,673	12,920	2,906,336	284,215	9,679 07756,607	683,258	23,943	979,504	1,321,361	43,932	9,729	2,569,284	436,793	6 386 92864,069	616,119	32,131	595,555	1,050,879	88,889	12,046	2,932,417	248,128	5 952 08666,446	633,730	34,244	672,568	1,576,385	276,170	10,585	2,886,061	168,992	6 700 OO0232,576	1,911,898	122,512	2,875,297	5,462,996	923,532	34,960	7,430,739	560,999	20,778,061April 14, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES
Questions
[Stage Direction]
April 14, 1969
Questions

Mr. Fortin: 1.	How many of the publications of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics are available (a) in French only (b) in English only (c) in both languages?
2.	Of the members of the staff of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics receiving an annual salary of $17,000 or more (a) how many have French as their mother tongue (b) how many have English as their mother tongue (c) how many are bilingual?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports: 1. There are 85 DBS publications available in either French or English; 733 DBS publications are available in English only; and 707 DBS publications are available in bilingual form.
2. There are 41 public servants earning $17,000 and more in the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, 8 of whom are bilingual. The breakdown by mother tongue is: those whose mother tongue is French, 3; those whose mother tongue is English, 29; those whose mother tongue is other than French or English, 9.


REPORTS TO C.R.T.C. OF POLITICAL BROADCASTS
Mr. Fortin: 1.	Have all broadcasting stations submitted reports to the Canadian Radio-Television Commission of all political broadcasts during the last federal general election and, if not, what stations have not yet submitted such reports?
2.	What conclusions have been reached in respect of the reports submitted pursuant to Section 10 of circular no. 149 dated May 16, 1968?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Canadian Radio-Television Commission as follows: 1. Yes.
2. The documentation will be used by the Commission when it considers the need for regulations in this area, as it is empowered to do, by section 16, paragraph 1 (b) (iii) and (iv) of the Broadcasting Act.


BANK OF CANADA ASSETS
Mr. Robinson: 1.	What are the total assets of the Bank of Canada?
2.	How much of the deposits of the Bank of Canada are in specie (a) gold (b) silver (c) paper
(d)	other?
3.	Where are these assets deposited and, if in various provinces, how long has it been the policy of the Bank of Canada to deposit these assets in different provinces?
4.	What is the value of real assets, i.e., buildings, harbours, wharfs, plants and equipment of the federal government in each province and territory?


Yves Forest: 1, 2 and 3. In
accordance with Section 26 of the Bank of Canada Act the information regarding the Bank's assets which is published each Wednesday and each month end is as specified in Schedules B and C to the Act. A copy of each return can be obtained from the Bank of the day following the date of the return, and in accordance with the Act it is also published in the next succeeding issue of the Canada Gazette.
4.	Information is not now available to provide an accurate answer to this question and the necessary expert staff is not available to undertake the extensive work which would be required to gather the necessary information.


CITIZENSHIP QUALIFICATIONS OF C.B.C. EMPLOYEES
Mr. Corbin: 1.	Are there full-time or part-time employees of the C.B.C. who are not Canadian citizens?
2.	If so (a) how many are employed by the French network (b) how many are employed by the English network (c) in what branches do they work?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the C.B.C. as follows: 1. Yes.
2. Figures on the citizenship of C.B.C. employees are not available since this information is not kept on a continuing basis.


POLLUTION OF LOWER FRASER RIVER
Mr. Goode: 1.	Does the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources plan to study pollution conditions on the Lower Fraser River as they relate to (a) the effects of raw sewage on the pollution of the Fraser (b) the upward movement of effluent resulting from incoming tides (c) the effectiveness of primary treatment (d) the percentage of pollution caused by industrial wastes (e) the costs to private industry of eliminating industrial waste from the River?
2.	What other research into effects of primary treatment is now being carried out in Canada?
3.	Does the federal government now have an anti-pollution pilot project underway in British Columbia and, if so, where?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. Water pollution control and abatement is primarily a provincial responsibility. The federal government is directly involved where pollution affects international waters, transport, fisheries or wildlife; and it also undertakes and coordinates essential water quality and pollution abatement research. The Canada Centre
April 14, 1S69



for Inland Waters established by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources will be a focal point for such research.
Federal government activity in the study of specific pollution problems normally is in cooperation with the appropriate provincial government. The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources has no plans at this time for a study of pollution conditions on the lower Fraser River directly related to the five items, (a) to (e), mentioned in the Question. The Department now is operating eight permanent water quality monitoring stations on the Fraser River and its tributaries, and plans to place seven additional stations in operation in 1969; it also will extend its analysis procedures to include pollution parameters representative of sewage waste discharges in the Fraser River system.
2.	Virtually all studies of river pollution are directed to some extent to the evaluation of the effects of waste discharges, whether or not they are subject to treatment. Research into various elements of the effects of primary treatment of municipal and/or industrial waste discharges is being carried out by federal and provincial government agencies, universities, industries and consultants.
3.	The Department has no specific antipollution pilot project under way in British Columbia at present; but negotiations are in progress for a comprehensive federal-provincial study of the water needs of the Okanagan River basin, and this study will include examination of pollution abatement requirements which may well involve pilot projects.


NITINAT LAKE INDIAN FAMILIES
Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-: Cowichan-The Islands):
1.	On or about December 28, 1968, did the Indian Agent at Port Alberni arrange to have a doctor
Questions
and an Indian assistant call on the 14 Indian families at the new Indian Village at Nitinat Lake?
2.	If so (a) what was the purpose of these calls (b) how many house calls did the doctor make and over what period of time (e) how many sick people did the doctor find (d) what were their ailments (e) what medication and treatment, if any, did the doctor prescribe?
3.	What was the cost to the government for the visit of the doctor and his Indian assistant?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Yes.
2.	(a) To determine whether or not there was serious illness at Nitinat Lake; (b) every house on the Reserve was visited. 2J hours, (c) Five; (d) Influenza-like disease; (e) appropriate preparations as clinically indicated.
3.	Over and above salaries of government employees, $21.50.


EMPLOYMENT LOSS THROUGH POST OFFICE CLOSURES
Mr. Comeau: How many postmasters will lose employment as a result of the closing of post offices in each of the ten provinces?


Eric William Kierans: In so far as the Post Office Department is concerned: 532 Postmasters were released so far, as a result of the closing program. 304 cases were reviewed and the Postmasters retained. 243 others will be released shortly and 2,686 Post Offices still have to be surveyed to determine their usefulness.
Hereunder is a breakdown of the situation, by Postal District.
Postal District
St. John's..
Halifax...
Saint John.
Quebec_____
Montreal.. Ottawa.... Toronto...
London_____
North Bay Winnipeg.. Saskatoon.
Calgary

Edmonton. Vancouver.
Number of Postmasters Released	Number of Cases Reviewed and Postmasters Retained	Number of Postmasters To Be Released	Number of Cases to Be Reviewed. H	18	9	363. 67	3	61	268. 55	6	22	202. 32	53	39	154. 26	6	12	110. 39	29	15	180. 28	33	10	118. 21	19	6	80. 14	5	11	160. 61	36	11	322. 38	15	13	319. .54	12	19	73. 58	47	13	169. 28	24	2	168. 532	304	243	2,686
Total

April 14, 1969
Questions
Records are not maintained in such a way as to permit a reply being given by province, therefore, the above list is for the postal districts rather than for the provinces.
contributions "interest", what is the annual rate of interest required to pay the level of benefits currently provided for under the applicable regulations and what assumptions as to levels of final earnings are made to produce this rate?


AID TO SOUTH AMERICA
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton-: The Sydneys):
1.	What has been the total dollar value of aid from Canada to South America in 1963-64-65-66-6768?
2.	Of the total of Canadian aid to South American countries in 1968, what was the dollar value of foodstuffs and of that amount, what proportion included (a) cereals such as wheat (b) fish or fish meal?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. The total dollar value of Canadian aid allocations, all of which have been committed is as follows: 1964: $10 million; 1965: $10 million; 1966: $10 million; 1967: $10 million; 1968: $10 million.
2. No commodities or foodstuffs have been provided under the Canadian development assistance program to South American countries.


INTEREST RATE TO PRODUCE SUPERANNUATION BENEFITS
Edgar John Benson: the required credits to the Superannuation Account in addition to the contributions of public service employees and the statutory matching contribution by the Government were regarded as interest, the annual rate of interest in 1968-69 required would be approximately 8 percent.
If the statutory matching contribution by the Government were also regarded as "interest" the annual rate in 1968-69 would be approximately 10J percent.
The assumptions as to levels of final earnings are set out in Appendices 1 and 2 of the Report on Actuarial Examination of the Superannuation Account in the Consolidated Revenue Fund as at December 31, 1962.


POSTAL COSTS PER DELIVERY
Mr. Gleave: 1.	What is the annual cost per delivery on rural mail routes in (a) Saskatchewan (b) Alberta (c) Ontario?
2.	How many individual boxes are there in each Province?

Question No. 1,805-Mr. Kaplan:
Regarding all benefits paid out of the Superannuation Account of the Government of Canada either as amounts withheld from the pay of public servants "contributions" or as accretions to such


Eric William Kierans: In so far as the Post Office Department is concerned:
1.
		Per Annum Cost	2. Number of
Province	Postal District	Per Householder	Householders(a) Saskatchewan	Saskatoon	$28.69	4,908(b) Alberta	Calgary	25.20	7,996Edmonton	27.57	14,556(c) Ontario	Ottawa	19.72	77,023Toronto	16.61	87,012London	18.43	99,387North Bay	21.99	23,546
Note: Records are not maintained in such a way as to permit a reply being given by province, therefore the above figures are for the Postal Districts in the provinces mentioned.


COST OF GATHERING STATISTICS
Mr. Robinson: What is the annual cost to the federal government for gathering statistics?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Total expenditures of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics for the fiscal year 1967-68 were $22,474,762, and for the fiscal year 1968-69 are estimated at $24,900,000. This includes the cost of gathering, analysing, interpreting, tabulating and publishing the data collected. Accounts are not kept in a manner in which the gathering activity can be segregated.
April 14. 1969

Questions
MR. catellier-c.B.c. payment FOR would require at least three months to prointerview	ceed in the normal manner.


Mr. Matte: How much money did the CBC spend to obtain the exclusive interview with Mr. Catellier, an alleged member of the FLQ?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the C.B.C. as follows: No fee was paid to Mr. Catellier or anyone else in connection with this particular interview.


HOUSING FOR REFUGEES IN SAIGON
Mr. Godin: What interest rate does Canada intend to charge on the loan of $355,000 which it is granting for the construction of housing for Vietnamese refugees in Saigon?


Mitchell William Sharp: The Canadian contribution of $355,000 for the construction of housing for Vietnamese refugees in Saigon is a grant and therefore there will be no interest.


REPLACEMENT FOR ROD SERVICES
Mr. Maclnnis: 1.	Is it the intention of the Post Office Department to undertake within the Department itself the mail delivery services hitherto provided by Rod Services and, if not, in what way are such services to be carried on in view of the cancellation of the Rod Services contract?
2.	Why was the Rod Services contract cancelled?
3.	Is it the intention of the Department to award the contract held by Rod Services to another delivery firm?
4.	With what firms have negotiations been conducted to date?
5.	For what reason is this contract not being let out to tender in the normal way?


Eric William Kierans: In so far as the Post Office Department is concerned: 1. No. Arrangements have been made with another company to undertake these services.
2.	Due to a breakdown in labour relations the contractor could not meet contract requirements-contracts were terminated by mutual consent.
3.	Yes, for a period of one year.
4.	(1) H. Lapalme Transport Ltee; (2) Meldrum Cunningham and Wells Ltd.; (3) Autobus Y. Levis Ltee.
5.	Due to the size of the operation and
equipment involved, it is considered that it


PUBLICATIONS ACCEPTED AT SECOND CLASS RATES
Mr. Chappell: What publications have been accepted to date, at second class rates, under Sections 11 (1) b and 11 (1) c of the Post Office Act as amended.


Eric William Kierans: In so far as the Post Office Department is concerned: Up to March 24th, 1,800 publications had been registered as second class mail.
Our records are not now maintained in such a manner that we can determine readily the Section of the Act under which each publication falls. It would, therefore, be necessary to review the records of the 1,800 publications in question.
Consequently the compilation of the information requested would necessitate a review of a substantial number of records, which would be very time consuming and require undue labour and expense.


&quot;THE BEST DAMN FIDDLER FROM CALABOGIE TO KALADAR&quot;
Mr. McBride: 1.	What was the total cost to the National Film Board of producing the film entitled "The Best Damn Fiddler from Calabogie to Kaladar"?
2.	What was the cost to the CBC of the showing of this film on March 19, 1969?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the National Film Board as follows: 1. $83,287.
I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 2. $20,000.


MONITORING OF AIR POLLUTION
Mr. Haidasz: 1.	On what date were stations established to monitor air pollutants in Canada?
2.	Which air pollutants have been studied in any national program at these stations?
3.	What results have been obtained from this program?


John Carr Munro: 1. Stations to measure air pollutants on a national scale were established on a co-operative federal-provincial basis during the late 1950's. Since then monitoring has been expanded continuously.

April 14, 1969
Questions
2.	The initial measurements in Canada were largely restricted to smoke haze or soiling index but during the 1960's other contaminants such as dust-fall, sulphur dioxide and suspended particulates have also been measured routinely in sample cities. At a small number of locations contaminants such as nitrogen oxides, oxidants and carbon monoxide have been measured on a nonroutine basis.
3.	During recent years more than 10,000 pollution readings per month have been received into the central recording section of the Department of National Health and Welfare. These are available for perusal but have not been reduced for convenient publication as yet. Generally, pollution levels in Canadian cities are equivalent to their counterparts in the United States.


POLLUTION-NATIONAL POLICY
Mr. Haidasz: Does the federal government Intend to announce during the present Session of Parliament a national policy to control environmental pollution?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the government is
actively studying the entire question of environmental pollution control with a view to developing more effective national policies and programs to deal with water, air and soil pollution and their various interrelationships. These matters are being examined interdepartmentally and, although the government does not expect to be in a position to make a statement during the present session of parliament, it will do so as soon as possible. The government does expect to introduce the Canada water bill during the present session.


NEW PASSPORT OFFICES
Mr. Rodrigue: Does the Secretary of State for External Affairs plan to open new passport offices in 1969?


Mitchell William Sharp: On January 22, 1969, the Secretary of State for External Affairs tabled a departmental press release announcing changes in passport requirements which stated, in part, that it is hoped that branch passport offices will be establish in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver in approximately twelve months time as soon as staff resources permit. It is planned that a small office will be opened in the Maritimes at a later date.

To date there has been no change in the departmental time-table for the opening of the branch offices.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	How many representations have been made to Box 99 since its inception?
2.	How many of these representations have been dealt with satisfactorily?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minisier of Consumer and Corporaie Affairs):: 1. 6,085 representations to Box 99 to March 31, 1969. (Complaints and Enquiries).
2. 52 per cent.


TENDERS FOR INDIAN HEALTH STUDY
Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1.	Was there a competitive tender for a consultant study on Indian health services announced earlier this year by the Department of National Health and Welfare and, if not, for what reason?
2.	What is the total estimated cost of this study?
3.	When are the results of this study expected to be completed?
4.	Will the study be tabled in the House of Commons?


John Carr Munro: 1. Yes, from four firms.
2.	$185,000.
3.	The consultant's report is to be completed by August 31/69.
4.	No.


ST. LAWRENCE RIVER WATER SAMPLES
Mr. Godin: 1.	Did the Department of National Health and Welfare take water samples from the St. Lawrence River in the summers of 1967 and 1968?
2.	If so, did the analysis of this water reveal that there was a danger for bathers in (a) Tadous-sac (b) Quebec City (c) Trois-Rivieres (d) Montreal?


John Carr Munro: 1. The Department of National Health and Welfare has carried out water quality studies on the international section of the St. Lawrence River (from Kingston, Ontario, to Cornwall, Ontario), each summer since 1965. These studies were conducted under the aegis of a current reference to the International Joint Commission on Lake Erie, Lake Ontario and the International Section of the St. Lawrence River.
April 14, 1969


COMMISSION TO STUDY QUEBEC SEPARATION
Mr. Coates: 1.	Has the government established a special committee to study the effect upon Canada of the separation from Canada of the Province of Quebec and, if so (a) when will the interim report be available and will it be tabled in the House of Commons (b) when will the final report be available and will that report be made available?
2.	What industries are under examination of this committee in order to form a basis for a suitably accurate measure of regional interdependence?
3.	Have the studies of inter-regional labour mobility been completed as yet and, if not, when will they be completed and will this information be made available to the public?
4.	Will an estimate in dollars be available as to the loss in revenue presently available to the Government of Quebec if separation occurs as well as an estimate in dollars as to the loss by the federal government in taxes presently available from the Province of Quebec?


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: 1. No.
2, 3 and 4. Not applicable in view of the answer to part 1.


CONSIDERATION OF QUEBEC SECESSION
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Has the federal government received a copy of the Speech from the Throne delivered in February, 1969 in the National Assembly of Quebec from the Lieutenant Governor of Quebec or the Government of Quebec?
2.	Has the federal government considered the possibility of Quebec seceding from Confederation?
3.	Has the federal government considered (a) the economic (b) social (c) cultural (d) linguistic effect on separation from Canada of the Province of Quebec?


James Edgar Walker: 1. Yes.
2 and 3. No.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Caouette: 1. In each of the government departments, who is responsible for collecting information on language proficiency of the staff and what position does each hold at the present time?


DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY-LOAN PROGRAMS
Mr. Saltsman: 1.	How many loan programs are there in the Department of Industry in order to provide financial assistance to industry in Canada and what are annual absolute expenditures since the inception of these programs?
2.	What are the objectives of these loan programs and their conditions of financing?
Return tabled.


GRANTS OR LOANS TO DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT
Mr. MacLean: 1 Has the Department of Industry, the Department of National Defence, or any other department granted or loaned funds to Douglas Aircraft of Canada in any year over the past three years?
2.	If so (a) what amounts (b) were they loans or grants (c) under what program (d) how did the company qualify, and (e) if a loan, what is the interest rate and repayment term?
3.	What was the money loaned or granted to be used for?
Return tabled.


LEASES BY GOVERNMENT
Mr. Coates: 1.	How many leases does the federal government have with firms or individuals that are for a period of one year or more where the rental in question exceeds $50,000 annually?
2.	In each instance, what is the name of the firm or individual, what is the term of the lease, where is the space located, what is the annual amount of the rental and on what date does the lease expire?
Return tabled.


EXPENDITURES ON HEALTH SCIENCES TEACHING FACILITIES
Mr. Orlikow: In each of the last ten years, what have been the federal expenditures on the planning, building, and equipping of health sciences teaching facilities from each of the following (a) Hospital Construction Grants (b) National Health Grants (c) General Public Health Grants (d) National Research Council (e) Medical Research Council (f) Health Resources Fund (g) and other?
Return tabled.

April 14, 1969
Canadian NATO Policy



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 NATIONAL DEFENCE REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF CANADIAN POLICY-MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER STANDING ORDER 26

Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), 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 urgent need for clarification of Canada's defence policy as a result of the statement on this subject made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) while parliament was in recess.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Malpeque has given the Chair the usual notices required by the standing orders. I have considered the proposed motion moved by the hon. member and the Chair would like to remind him of the provisions of Standing Order 26, and in particular subsection (5) thereof, to this effect:
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
In determining whether a matter should have urgent consideration, Mr. Speaker shall have regard... to the probability of the matter being brought before the house within reasonable time by other means.
After having given the matter some thought I have reached the conclusion that in my view there ought to be and probably will be within the next few days an opportunity for the house to consider the matter proposed to be raised by the hon. member for Malpeque.

It seems to me we have already had this afternoon a debate of a kind during which it was indicated that hon. members wish to have an early opportunity to discuss the matter.
It seems to me the request could be considered more favourably if the minister more directly concerned was in the house. Under those circumstances, I do not feel that it is advisable, under the standing orders, to put the motion proposed by the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean) before the house.
[Mr. Orlikow.l



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister? In view of his statement that the timing and extent of withdrawal of Canadian troops from Europe will be discussed at the meeting of the Defence Planning Committee of NATO in May, can he say whether he or a responsible minister will announce to the house the proposals of the government with respect to the timing and the extent of withdrawal of Canadian troops, as well as the proposal the government intends to make to this NATO committee before it meets in May, so that this house will have the opportunity to discuss something specific with regard to our foreign policy? I ask this question, Mr. Speaker, realizing of course that any statement the Prime Minister might make to the house as to the intentions of the government would be subject to negotiations with responsible NATO authorities.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the government house leader has been discussing or will be discussing this afternoon with house leaders of the other parties the question of setting aside two days for this subject to be debated as soon as the Secretary of State for External Affairs returns next week. If there is such agreement we will be discussing the declaration of principle we made on the Thursday before Easter. I refer to the decision in principle of remaining within NATO and reducing our forces for the European commitment to NATO in a planned way. The next stage is one we are working on now. We shall be very happy during the forthcoming debate to hear from hon. members of the opposition their views as to the way in which this reduction ought to be carried out.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Since when did the government listen to the opposition?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I have already expressed my views on this subject. Am I to take it from the Prime Minister's statement that it is not the intention of the government to tell the house before the May meeting the proposals it intends to lay before the NATO council?
April 14, 1969


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I did not say that, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Prime Minister tell the house what role in continental defence it is intended that Canadian troops withdrawn from Europe will take over?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we have
already declared that we will have a white paper on our foreign policy. When this white paper is ready we will lay it before the house. We feel of necessity that defence policy must flow from foreign policy, and not the contrary. That is why we want to have the white paper on our foreign policy debated by this house and submitted to the country before we make any final commitments with regard to any military or defence policy and before spelling out the exact implications of that foreign policy.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. How does the Prime Minister expect us to debate or discuss this policy if he is not prepared to give us some indication as to the role it is intended Canadian troops will play in continental defence after they are brought home?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as asked was argumentative.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a related or supplementary question. I ask the Prime Minister to clarify to the house what appears to be, but may not be, a contradiction between his statement of April 3 and a statement he made in his address in Calgary last Saturday night. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, may I remind the right hon. gentleman of his statement of April 3? He said that the reduction of Canadian forces and the nature of that reduction would be discussed with our allies at the NATO defence meeting in May. In his speech in Calgary the right hon. gentleman stated, as he did today, that foreign policy should precede defence policy and that therefore no decision as to a reduction will be made until the white paper on foreign policy has been represented and debated in parliament.
In view of these apparently contradictory statements may I ask the right hon. gentleman whether it is the intention of the government to present a white paper on foreign and
29180-473J
Inquiries of the Ministry defence policy or on the foreign policy alone prior to May, or prior to the meeting of the defence ministers of NATO in May?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, what I said in Calgary and what I will repeat to this house is that we feel that in the past several years there has been a tendency for our foreign policy to be swallowed by our defence policy which, in turn, was swallowed by our NATO policy. We are trying to put this pyramid on its base and inform the country first of our foreign policy. This is our first step. After this foreign policy has been established within the new direction we are giving it, we will decide what defence policy ought to flow from that. Having decided what our defence policy will be in future years, we will decide what participation NATO will have in that defence policy. This is our way of proceeding.
There have been certain exaggerated efforts relating to the April meeting and the proposed meeting for May which have had the effect of trying to commit us in a final way to a NATO policy before our foreign policy review has been completed in a white paper and submitted to this house. We are resisting this development and making sure we are not once again committed to a NATO policy before our over-all foreign policy has been established.


David Lewis: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. That is precisely what I was trying to discover from the right hon. gentleman. I happen to agree with the statement he made in Calgary, and repeated in this house, that foreign policy ought to precede defence policy. Does that mean that the statement of April 3 to the effect that the reduction of Canadian forces will be discussed with and that a plan will be presented to the defence ministers of NATO in May with regard to reduction of forces is not valid, and that that will not happen?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. There are various ways in which we can proceed on the matter. We can submit to our friends in NATO different sets of proposals with regard to the reduction of forces and listen to their reactions to those proposals. We can use this input, if one may call it that, in the final stage of our defence and foreign policy. The final decision as to what will happen after January of next year will only be made when the ministers meet in August. That will give us another few months to review this subject.
I hope by then that our foreign policy in the

April 14, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry form of a white paper will have been debated in this house.


David Lewis: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Considering the Prime Minister's statement, can the house expect that a white paper on foreign policy will be presented to parliament before the summer recess in sufficient time for parliament to discuss it? Further, would the Prime Minister give a little consideration to the protest I made earlier, and rise tomorrow and table the statement which he made on April 3?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Regarding the final part, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member of the New Democratic Party raised a point of privilege which he knew perfectly well to be out of order in its form-


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and he was accusing me of disregard for parliament when he himself was raising a point of privilege which he knew was out of order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member for York South rising on a point of order or a question of privilege?


David Lewis: I rise on a point of order. I do not think it is up to the Prime Minister any more than it is up to any other member of the house to impute motives to another hon. member. I was astonished at the failure of the Prime Minister to table the statement, and I was perfectly in order to raise the point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Abitibi wish to put a supplementary question?


Gérard Laprise: No, Mr. Speaker; it is really a related question.


John Angus MacLean: I wish to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Arising from, the Prime Minister's statement on defence policy, in which he said that the highest priority was the defence of Canadian sovereignty would he explain the difference, if any, between this and the policy stated in the 1964 paper, except that he used the phrase "protection of our sovereignty" rather than "protection of our territory"? Is there any special significance to this slight change in terminology?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I understand this is the kind of question we will be debating in the house when the days are allotted for debate.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a further quick supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Was the chairman of the committee on External Affairs and Defence revealing the outcome of phase II of the government study when he predicted that Canadian defence forces might be cut by 50 per cent?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that the question as asked is not in order.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to get any answers with respect to this Janus faced policy, if it be a policy, but I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether the ministers representing the Canadian government in Washington had authority to suggest that in the phasing out only a token force of Canadian infantry would be left in Europe, and in so far as the air corps is concerned it would be restricted to reconnaissance and would have no nuclear attributes?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not believe any such statement was made by the ministers in Washington, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not the question I asked. The Prime Minister seems to have a lot of difficulty understanding a simple question. Did the ministers, or any minister, have the authority to make that statement? That is how simple it is.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Vancouver East.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the right hon. gentleman rising on a point of order?


John George Diefenbaker: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, are we in this house to be treated like children by the government on a matter that concerns the survival of the country, with the government playing with the people of Canada, and no answers forthcoming from it?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Vancouver East.
April 14, 1969


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister with regard to his NATO statement, which amounts to a planned withdrawal of our NATO forces from Europe, presumably to take place at the end of 1969. Is it the Prime Minister's intention to pursue the course followed by France and maintain membership only in the political arm of NATO?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I just want to correct the question. We never talked about a planned withdrawal; we talked about a planned reduction.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Could I now have an answer to my question? I thank the Prime Minister for his correction.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address an important domestic question to the Postmaster General. What action is being taken by his department to correct the situation whereby many employees ini Vancouver and other post offices are not receiving their proper cheques, with some reported to be behind in salary payments to the extent of hundreds of dollars? I ask this question in view of the impact of this situation on the morale of our post office employees.


Eric William Kierans: As is known, Mr. Speaker, the government has recently changed its system of salary payments from twice a month to once every two weeks. This has occasioned some difficulty to some employees of the government, because though now they receive more cheques they find that each individual cheque is somewhat smaller in amount, and there have been some cases, mainly in Vancouver, where the cheques have been delayed. I can assure hon. members however that this is being looked after, and that it is of immediate concern to all of us.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence but, as he has just left the house, I shall wait until he comes back.
Inquiries of the Ministry



REQUESTS FOR ASSISTANCE FROM PROVINCIAL AUTHORITIES

Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. In connection with the continuing flood threat in western Canada has the Prime Minister received any requests for assistance from the provincial authorities and, if so, what is the nature of the assistance provided by Ottawa?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I know of no such requests, Mr. Speaker, but I will ask my office if any have been made.



CALGARY, ALTA-DISCUSSIONS ON CONTINENTAL POLICY

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome the Prime Minister back from sunny Alberta and trust he enjoyed his skiing on the slopes. I would like to put this question to him in reference to petroleum-


Mr. Douglas Stewart (Okanagan-Koolenay):: On a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the hon. member that it was on the slopes of Okanagan-Kootenay, on the Bugaboos Mountain.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get into an argument with my good friends from British Columbia, but I did understand that the Prime Minister did a little skiing on his way back in those places that count in Alberta, and I would like to put this question to him in reference to the petroleum industry.
Did the Prime Minister in Calgary meet privately with representatives of the petroleum industry to discuss the consequences of his talks with President Nixon or to receive formally the views of the representatives of the petroleum industry about a new national and North American continental oil and natural gas policy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did meet privately with some of the representatives of the oil industry of western Canada, and we had general talks about the industry and its future.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In reference to the dialogue which he had with the President of the United

April 14, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry
States in reference to Canadian oil markets, that Canada would not become involved in when can we expect a statement from the participation in the deployment of an antiPrime Minister, preferably on motions, on ballistic missile system without the fullest Canada's position and what arrangements opportunity for examination and discussion of were made with the United States for a new the matter being given in this' house and its policy to continue our markets?	committees?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I can only repeat what I said when I came back from Washington, that the President and I had agreed to have continuing meetings of officials on this subject. These meetings did take place on April 2 and then again on April 8. They have not reached any final decision on which we are in a position to answer. In due course I am sure the minister responsible, the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatchewan (Mr. Lang), will be making some statement on this matter.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: As a supplementary question, is the Prime Minister prepared, on motions, to set out the Canadian position? There is nothing secretive about that. The house, the country, the petroleum industry and other industries would like to hear it.


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Calgary South):: Further to the comments the Prime Minister made in Calgary on Saturday evening, I would like to ask him if the discussions between officials of the Canadian and United States governments in Washington are not restricted to oil and gas policies, but are in fact covering the entire continental energy policy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is correct, Mr. Speaker. There have been other aspects of the energy field discussed at these meetings. Oil and gas were one, but uranium and coal were also discussed.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask the Prime Minister whether the hon. member for Calgary South was revealing government policy when he said on Saturday that while the oil policy had not been revealed in Calgary it could be expected to be revealed by the Prime Minister when in the Maritimes?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Would he consider repeating the assurance given by the government which preceded his,

Right Plon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):
Yes, of course, Mr. Speaker. I would expect this question would be discussed in the house when we have our debate on foreign policy.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Could the minister indicate now, in answer to the question I asked on April 2, whether the government would consider referring to the Public Accounts Committee the 1968 report of the Auditor General so that members of that committee couldi continue their fascinating and engrossing study which they launched recently?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: I would be glad to consider this and discuss it later this day.



TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. Ed Schreyer (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the house leader whether he intends to proceed by way of notice of motion to refer the reports of Air Canada and Canadian National Railways to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It was not my intention to do so. As the hon. member will recall, we sought to have them referred by consent of the house but consent was refused. With the legislative timetable we have I do not see how we could set aside a day for that purpose.



CANADIAN CULTURE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de
Grace): Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Will he tell the house whether he has agreed to a meeting with the Quebec minister of cultural affairs
April 14, 1969
[Stage Direction]
on April 20 to discuss the transfer of federal cultural programs to the provincial government?
Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I agreed to meet the Quebec Minister of Cultural Affairs, at his request. Afterwards, he sent me a letter to make it clear which subjects he wanted to discuss and there was not the slightest mention made of the transfer of the funds for the cultural activities of the federal government.


Mr. Allmand:: Could the minister tell us what is on the agenda for that meeting with the Quebec minister?


Gérard Pelletier: As we have not agreed on any agenda, I am only able to reveal the suggestions made to me by the Minister of Cultural Affairs of Quebec, in a letter of a confidential nature. And as we did not have the opportunity to discuss the matter together, I could not reveal its contents.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the critical cash shortage among prairie grain growers, would the minister consider allowing them to pay their income tax with surplus grain?



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister tell the house where the United States armed forces are now located which are to be replaced by Canadian armed forces? I refer of course to the Prime Minister's reply to questions by members of the press on April 3 last.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Secretary of State. Has his attention been
Inquiries of the Ministry drawn to the widespread confusion and discontent over the new regulations concerning proof of Canadian citizenship for passport purposes? If so, is he considering changes in those regulations?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, it is true that I have received representations during a trip in the West, about the procedures now applicable to the insuance of a passport to a Canadian citizen. However, the issuance of passports is not the responsibility of my department, but rather that of the Department of External Affairs, and it is up to that department to decide the kind of proof of identity it may demand before issuing a passport to a Canadian citizen.


Max Saltsman: Has the Secretary of State not examined the regulations concerning proof of Canadian citizenship, which I believe originated in his department?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister and his colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs could streamline their procedure in order to eliminate the great delay brought about because of the delays in the postal service, which make handling of passports almost impossible? Most members spent their Easter holidays as passport expediters.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS REQUEST BY NEW BRUNSWICK FOR CONFERENCE ON FINANCE
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasler):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister concerning the communication from Premier Robichaud before Easter with regard to the dire financial situation in New Brunswick, and any further communications. Would the Prime Minister state the nature of his reply to any correspondence, telephone inquiries of other communications from the Premier of New Brunswick? Does the Prime Minister realize that by his silence he is destroying whatever credibility there is left in the statement by Premier Robichaud? The Prime Minister is the fourth person to call him a liar by remaining silent.

April 14, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry VETERANS AFFAIRS


WOODS REPORT-REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION BY STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the desire on the part of veterans organizations to appear before the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs to present their views with regard to the Woods report, can the minister say whether the government has yet prepared its white paper on the Woods report, so that the work of this committee may proceed?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker, the white paper is not yet completed. I hope it will be completed as soon as possible. The white paper, along with the Woods committee report will be referred to the proper standing committee. I trust that the interested veterans organizations will be invited to appear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May
we hope that this can be done during the month of April?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: I do not know, Mr. Speaker.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like
to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, in his capacity as a great fighter against inflation, the following question. I do so because of the recent substantial rise in the cost of living index and in view of the fact that the study group-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. gentleman ask his question?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Following six months of study I should like to ask when we may expect the appointment of the study group which was forecast in September and promised for the month of March?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate that the Leader of the Opposition recognizes my true place in this government. I also welcome the hon. gentleman's support for the policy I announced in September. I am sure he will agree that I should seek out

the best possible men available for appointments to the prices and incomes commission, which is what I am doing. Unfortunately those people, being able, are busy and have difficulty disentangling themselves from present commitments. I expect to make an announcement in this regard very shortly.


Mr. James A. McGrath (Si. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a related question. Can the minister in his usual succinct manner report on the federal-provincial conference on consumer affairs last week, and while he is on his feet will he indicate whether or not the subject of a federal securities commission was discussed at that conference?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the last part of the question is no; it was not the proper kind of conference at which to discuss that subject. In answer to the first part of the question I should like to report that we had a very successful two day federal-provincial conference at which all provinces were represented. The conference issued a communique. If the hon. member would like me to do so I will table it, though it was distributed to members. At the conference we discussed a number of matters including consumer credit, packaging and labelling, misleading advertising, hazardous products, etc. I think the real significance of the conference is that it was the first conference of consumer affairs ministers or those ministers responsible for this subject. A new degree of co-operation and good will now exists among federal and provincial ministers.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, when may the house expect some federal initiative in respect of a federal securities commission in view of the fact that without such a commission some provinces are left in a rather ambiguous position?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am sorry 1 did not catch the last part of the question. Let me answer by saying we have been studying this matter very carefully. My officials have been meeting with certain provincial officials and we are in the course of drafting the federal position on this matter. I expect some initiative to be taken very shortly.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question
April 14, 1969

for the Prime Minister. He indicated on April 1 that he would consider the matter and give an answer as quickly as possible. I asked him then whether the government endorsed the compulsory retirement at age 60 of Devco employees.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe I said at that time that this question should be referred to the appropriate minister.


Donald MacInnis: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The question was put to the Prime Minister and as he has indicated he referred it to the appropriate minister. That minister was not here on the previous day, March 31, when he was supposed to be in the house. He was supposed to be here the following day when I asked this question. This plan is supposed to be put into effect on April 25, so the element of time is involved. Surely the Prime Minister as the head of the government must be aware of the attitude and the policy of the government in respect of the early retirement at age 60 of Crown corporation employees. As leader of the government surely he can give an answer without the assistance of the absent minister.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I intended to address my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare who, according to the attendance roster, is supposed to be here today. In his absence perhaps I might address it to whoever is acting on his behalf. Is an investigation under way by the department in respect of the use by provinces of federal funds for medicare for general purposes? If so, is it contemplated by the minister or the government that legislation will be introduced to guarantee that federal assistance for medicare will be passed on to the general public through reduced provincial premiums?


Mr. Rosaire Gendron (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice and refer it to the minister.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps I will have time to accommodate the hon. member, but the question period is almost concluded, there being just four minutes left. There are four or five other hon. members around the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond who want to ask questions. Perhaps the hon. member might refer to this question again tomorrow.


THE MINISTRY
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is in Japan, and I understand will be away for two or three weeks, I should like to ask the Prime Minister who will be the acting minister of that department so we will know which minister will answer our questions?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The acting minister is the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatchewan, Mr. Speaker.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development was stating government policy when he said recently in Whitehorse that there was no case at the present time for establishing a greater degree of selfgovernment in the north?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if "at the present time" is interpreted in the strict sense he was stating government policy.


Robert Simpson: Was the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development stating government policy when he also stated in Whitehorse that the conflict between public and private power should be resolved in Canada in favour of public ownership? On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it has occurred to me that the Prime Minister did not hear the question correctly, as he appeared to want to answer.


Mr. Speaker:: That was not my impression.

April 14, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


CANADA AS SITE FOR SUMMIT MEETING
Mr. J. M. Forreslall (Darlmoulh-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he can indicate that during his discussions with President Nixon he raised the possibility of Canada providing the site for a summit meeting of the two great powers, and whether or not such a possibility was discussed between the Secretary of State for External Affairs and himself?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the question was not discussed with President Nixon but I will ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to take note of it.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether he will use his good offices to prevent the pending demise of the Don Messer show now enjoyed by millions on national television? As a supplementary, perhaps I might suggest that this matter could be debated at ten o'clock.


WATER RESOURCES
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries or his Parliamentary Secretary to indicate the results of a recent investigation in respect of water pollution in the Atlantic coastal region and its adverse effect in the general coastal area, and particularly on Atlantic sealers?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the hon. member is asking for a very general statement which normally should be made during motions.


John Howard Lundrigan: May I ask whoever the hon. gentleman may be when we may expect a statement in respect of this investigation into a matter which is causing considerable concern?


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: As
soon as the investigation is completed, Mr. Speaker.


HOUSING
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can I rely on the roster system and hope that the Minister of Transport, who is responsible for housing, will be here tomorrow? Also, while the Prime Minister is on his feet will he advise the house whether the minister in fact made the junket he was supposed to make in the week after Easter with regard to urban renewal? I ask this question because it would appear that the Minister of Transport is sort of evading the member for Hamilton West.


TELEVISION
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. In view of the minister's statement in Edmonton that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation will soon be ready to make a decision on a French language television station in Edmonton, would the minister please indicate when he will make a decision on a more urgent problem, namely, the request by META?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I must say that the words credited to me are not mine. I merely said that I would make every effort to convince the C.B.C. of the urgency of developing its French television services in western Canada.
With regard to the organization mentioned by the hon. member and which is engaged in educational television, it is already having relations and discussions with the task force created within the Secretary of State, and its requests are being carefully considered. Furthermore, I think that the people responsible for META are satisfied with the results up to now.


Mr. Speaker:: There are only about 30 seconds left before the end of the question period, so I will recognize the right hon. member for Prince Albert.
April 14, 1969


REQUEST FOR ACTION TO MEET CONDITIONS IN SOUTHWESTERN SASKATCHEWAN
John George Diefenbaker: This is a very urgent question, Mr. Speaker. I do not know who is the Acting Minister of Agriculture, so without that knowledge I direct my question to the Prime Minister. It has to do with the very serious floods which have occurred in southwestern Saskatchewan. I see the Prime Minister motioning to one of his cabinet members and therefore I now have the designation. I ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, who I gather is Acting Minister of Agriculture in view of his designation by the Prime Minister, what action is being taken to meet the very serious flood conditions in southwestern Saskatchewan? According to the old-timers they are the worst in history. Further, are the facilities of P.F.R.A. being made available to municipalities and to the province of Saskatchewan in order to keep to a minimum the damage that would otherwise take place?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in this short-lived moment as Minister of Agriculture I would like to take the question as notice.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: You were just designated by the Prime Minister.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Privy Council as house leader. Now that members of the house have returned from the recess, could he reveal to hon. members what the business of the house will be for the rest of this week so that they can get themselves in a proper state of preparation and of grace also?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The first item for today would be No. 63, the bill to establish the Export Development Corporation. This would be followed, we would hope later today, by item No. 64, the bill to establish a Canadian corporation for telecommunication by satellite. Tomorrow, after those two items have been completed, we would call item No. 66, second reading of Bill
Business of the House
S-29, respecting the production and conservation of oil and gas in the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories. That would be followed by item No. 65, second reading of Bill S-23, to amend the Canada Shipping Act.
There will be a meeting of house leaders this afternoon at which time we will discuss the possibility of also dealing tomorrow with item No. 17, the report stage of Bill C-153, to amend the Historic Sites and Monuments Act. On Wednesday in any event we would call the report stage of Bill C-150, the omnibus Criminal Code bill. It would be our intention to remain on it for the balance of the week until its conclusion.
We will also be discussing with the house leaders the possibility of arranging a special debate, very likely on Wednesday and Thursday of next week, when the Secretary of State for External Affairs has returned, for the purpose of discussing the statements with regard to NATO. I will be making a further announcement in that regard.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Otto Emil Lang: that Bill C-183, to establish the Export Development Corporation and to facilitate and develop export trade by the provision of insurance, guarantees, loans and other financial facilities, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today to establish an Export Development Corporation in succession to the Export Credits Insurance Corporation, which my colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) presented to the house for first reading a few weeks ago, concerns improvement and expansion of certain specialized services to facilitate and encourage export and related international activities of Canadian business.
During the recent debate on the restructuring of the federal administration it was emphasized to hon. members in connection with the proposal to bring together the Department of Industry and the Department of
April 14. 1969

Export Development Corporation Trade and Commerce that there is an essential relationship between industrial development and export promotion, and that this relationship would be the basic principle of the new, merged department's organization. Establishment of an' Export Development Corporation is not directly related to the merger of the trade and industry departments but it is motivated by the same basic objective, namely, to ensure that the government's administrative structures reflect current and anticipated needs and problems. Any self-respecting institution periodically brings itself up to date and infuses new blood into its administration.
As was also brought out in the discussion of the administrative reorganization proposal, the government regards sustained and improved export performance as a basic element in maintaining and developing the sound growth in the Canadian economy which in turn is necessary if we are to have the capacity to develop our social programs, provincial or federal, to upgrade our educational, medical, welfare and cultural standards, to afford the investment required to narrow our regional disparities. Merger of the trade and industry departments and the strengthening and expanding of their combined services are intended to contribute to the attainment of our national goals; so too in the specialized area of export credit and related activity is the establishment of the Export Development Corporation.
In addition to the customary support to our balance of payments and level of economic activity generally, exports are an essential key to our industrial development policies, providing as they do outlets beyond our limited domestic market. This broader market is necessary to permit specialization and economics of scale which in turn are necessary if, under conditions of freer trade, Canadian capital equipment and other manufacturing industries are to be able to compete effectively against imports in the domestic market. Since exports must meet the test of being internationally competitive, the odds are high that industries which are successful in export markets are efficient and have potential for future growth.
In the interest, then, of optimum growth of the economy and of employment opportunities, stimulation of exports, particularly of manufactured goods, should have high priority at this stage of our economic development. Giving a high priority to exports means that adequate and competitive financing facilities should be available and their use encouraged.

Unfortunately, limitations on the availability of financing to back export production and sales and the high cost of such financing have emerged as factors inhibiting the securing of optimum export performance from the Canadian economy.
*While these difficulties have had to be viewed against the background of the abnormal credit conditions which have prevailed recently, a study commissioned by the Department of Trade and Commerce revealed clear evidence of an underlying problem and suggested that the facilities available to support the export and other international activities of Canadian companies were less flexible and adequate than those in other countries. Accordingly, in light of the importance of improved export performance to the Canadian economy on the one hand and the increased use of credit in international trade and intensification of foreign competition on the other, we concluded that new and expanded facilities were required to ensure that on as economical a basis as possible, consistent with the over-all needs of the economy and resources available, Canadian firms were backed by adequate and competitive financing facilities.
The Export Development Corporation will be the focal point for the government's interest in the financing of exports and in the insurance of private investments abroad. In succession to the export Credits Insurance Corporation, it will administer new and expanded facilities for export credits, export credits insurance and guarantees, and will encourage and facilitate the provision of private financing for export. It will be charged with responsibility for the insurance of private Canadian investment in developing countries. This entirely new facility is being added in the belief that such investment can make a meaningful contribution to our international development effort and at the same time improve the competitive position of Canadian firms in world markets, and should therefore be facilitated.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Rather than once again amending the Export Credits Insurance Act to provide these new and expanded f acilities, it was considered preferable to draft a new statute which would conform to the current legislative practice and provide a valid framework for the future. The name, Export Development Corporation, was chosen as being descriptive of the basic purpose of the new entity and the broad range of functions to be
April 14, 1969

carried out by it. However, the Export Development Corporation will assume E.C.I.C.'s existing functions, assets and liabilities, and the bill before the house retains many features of the Export Credits Insurance Act. Provision is made for operations on a more comprehensive scale geared to anticipated growth of trade, and a number of technical changes will simplify administrative procedures and will make the new corporation more responsive to exporters' needs and to competitive situations.
At the same time, as hon. members well know, the government has many other claims to satisfy in respect of high priority programs, and bearing in mind the inflationary pressures which are of concern to all of us we have had to keep within reasonable limits the actual and contingent liability to the government arising out of the proposed legislation. Accordingly, in establishing legislative ceilings requirements have been projected over a relatively short period and can be reviewed in the years ahead. It is accepted that operation of the new corporation's facilities will be subject to regular budgetary planning and review and will be co-ordinated with other government programs.
Perhaps I might now turn to the bill itself and review briefly its salient features. The bill is in three parts: Establishment and organization, operations, and transitional and repeal. It should be noted that only Part I of the Export Credits Insurance Act is to be repealed. A number of government to government reconstruction loans made in the immediate post-world war II period under part II of the Export Credits Insurance Act remain outstanding. Although the authority to grant such loans was temporary, part II remains in force, and the Export Development Corporation may act as agent for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) in connection with outstanding loans.
General direction of the affairs of the corporation is to be vested in a board of directors which, in addition to senior officials, will include representatives of the private export and financial communities. It is considered that the direct infusion in management of business knowledge and experience will greatly enhance co-ordination of effort in export development between the public and private sectors. Delegation of authority and the creation of an executive committee of the board and provision for alternate directors will facilitate the prompt and efficient dispatch of business.
Export Development Corporation
The legal and corporate status of the Export Development Corporation will be similar to that of E.C.I.C. In addition, however, it is proposed that it be empowered to acquire, hold and dispose of real and personal property in connection with credits, insurance and guarantees provided by it or as required in its operations.
It is proposed that the corporation be empowered to employ such officers, employees and agents as may be necessary and to fix the terms and conditions of their employment. Notwithstanding, it will be expected to make full use of the expertise and resources available in other departments and agencies of government, and the bill contains a facilitating clause to that end.
To provide for the anticipated larger volume of business and the assumption of new functions, it is proposed that the authorized capital of the new corporation be established at $25 million, all of it to be subscribed, with an equivalent amount as capital surplus. This compares with $15 million plus capital surplus of $5 million for E.C.I.C., it being understood that the capital would be paid in only as required. The corporation would assume all assets and liabilities of E.C.I.C. The paid-up capital of $5 million and capital surplus of $5 million would become paid-in capital and capital surplus of the new corporation. The corporation will thus begin operations with the same capital as E.C.I.C., but capital could be added as required up to a limit of $50 million.
The corporation win meet most of its requirements for funds by borrowing, and it is proposed that the ceiling for this authority be set at 15 times the aggregate of the subscribed capital and capital surplus of the corporation. Initially, this would provide for borrowing of up to $450 million. The eventual limit, when the authorized and subscribed capital is all paid in and matched by equivalent contributions of capital surplus, would be $750 million. This compares with the E.C.I.C. statutory ceiling on borrowing of five times the aggregate of paid-up capital and surplus, or $100 million. The increased borrowing authority is due largely to the decision to have the corporation assume responsibility as principal for the bulk of long-term export financing now being provided as a direct charge on the consolidated revenue fund.
I should emphasize at this point that we have endeavoured, both in the legislation and in the complementary administrative action proposed to accompany it, to rationalize the whole range of financial relationships
April 14, 1969

Export Development Corporation between the consolidated revenue fund and the Export Development Corporation. The new procedures will facilitate sound and businesslike financial planning by government and, it is anticipated, will provide administrative savings and improved service to exporters.
Export credits insurance and guarantee powers of the new corporation to facilitate the provision of private financing for export are similar to those of E.C.I.C. but have been broadened and made more flexible, and capacities have been increased to accommodate anticipated expansion in export business.
It is proposed that the limit of outstanding liabilities under contracts of insurance and guarantees for account of the corporation be set at ten times the aggregate of subscribed capital and capital surplus as in section 14 of the Export Credits Insurance Act. Under the capital structure proposed for the new corporation, this ratio would provide for a liability ceiling of $300 million immediately, compared with E.C.I.C.'s limit of $200 million, and ultimately up to $500 million.
In addition, provision would be made, similar to section 21 of the Export Credits Act, for contracts of insurance and guarantees to be entered into at government risk, outside the corporation's liability limit, when these are deemed by the minister responsible to be in the national interest and are approved by the Governor in Council. It is proposed that the limit of outstanding liabilities at government risk be reduced to $500 million from the $600 million! specified in the present act since under the (new act resources will be to the corporation available to a greater extent enabling it to undertake more business on its own account.
It is proposed that the corporation's powers to enter into contracts of credit insurance and guarantees be made broad and flexible and generally that they provide for coverage of any sound and attractive undertaking which appears to the board of directors or, in the case of operations carried out at government risk, to the Governor in Council to be conducive to the development of trade between Canada and other countries. The generalized authority means ini practical terms that eligibility for assistance will be significantly extended under the present act. In particular, coverage of services and other invisible exports, which we expect to be an area of dynamic growth, is much extended. Leasing of goods for use abroad and the sale or licensing of patents, trade marks and copyright will

now be eligible. Export transactions involving barter will also now be eligible. The insured need not be a person carrying on business and need not be the exporter so long as he is the one entitled to receive payment. This and related provisions will make insurance cover available for confirming house, factoring or similar business, not yet common in Canada but well developed in some other countries, and other complicated payment situations in addition to direct transactions between exporter and buyer abroad.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
As Tinder the Export Credits Insurance Act, guarantees will be available to encourage the financing of export credit without recourse to the exporter. However, such guarantees will no longer be restricted by law to transactions on medium term credit aind will be available for institutions other than Canadian chartered banks. Guarantees will also be issuable in connection with the financing of uninsured transactions provided such transactions are insurable.
The changes, it is expected, will permit, for example:
1.	Extension of lines of credit to foreign borrowers to finance purchase of goods and services in Canada-so-called buyers' credits which are being increasingly used in international trade;
2.	Consolidation and rescheduling of debts owed to Canadian exporters as an alternative to the Corporation having to honour claims by exporters when the importers' country is in balance of payments difficulties;
3.	Financing of a reasonable portion of local costs of projects where this is necessary to the winning of contracts by Canadian exporters.
It is the intention to place the conduct of the export credits insurance and guarantees functions under extensive and continuing review to ensure that they remain responsive to changing circumstances and the needs of the export community. An active program will be undertaken immediately to simplify administrative procedures and to familiarize exporters and financial institutions with the services and facilities available. In this connection, a systematic and continuing program of liaison and co-operation with Canadian financial institutions is also to be undertaken. My colleagues, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), together with the
April 14, 1969

Governor of the Bank of Canada, the President of E.C.I.C. and other senior officials, have already met with representatives of the chartered banks to discuss the new legislation and the important role of the banks in connection with the whole range of financing and marketing activities associated with export development. We mean this to be a continuing and meaningful dialogue in the interest of achieving the closest possible co-ordination of effort.
To ensure that Canadian exporters of high-priority capital goods and services are not inhibited from pursuing major sales opportunities abroad requiring long term or, exceptionally, medium term financing, provision is made for acceptance of liability under direct loans to foreign buyers of up to $800 million. Such lending has been carried out since 1961 under the authority of Section 21A of the existing act. Signed loan agreements net of repayment presently stand in the neighbourhood of $325 million but outstanding commitments would, if taken up, bring the total current liability to well over $600 million. Of course not all will be taken up. A ceiling of $800 million would, it is anticipated, be sufficient to cover prospective business for some years to come.
Within the over-all ceiling, two authorities are to be established: for lending by the corporation for its own account on approval by the board of directors to a limit on outstanding liabilities to $600 million, and for lending for the account of the government to a limit of $200 million. The carrying out by the corporation of a major portion of new export lending as principal rather than as agent for the government on approval by the Governor in Council as at present will, together with new simplified funding and administrative procedures, facilitate meeting exporters' needs and competitive situations. The latter facility would be for very large export transactions such as the sale of nuclear power plants or to meet other special situations considered by the government to be in the national interest but which are of a term or in an amount excessive for the corporation. Long term and, exceptionally, medium term financing of major export transactions will in future be carried out as far as risk taking is concerned in a similar manner to export credits insurance operations.
In medium and long term financing, the corporation will have extended powers to make loans and to issue guarantees to private lenders in connection with major export

Export Development Corporation transactions. Security requirements for loans are to be made more flexible. The corporation will also be empowered to provide lines of credit to national development banks and similar financial institutions abroad to finance purchase of Canadian goods and services, to cover a proportion of local costs of projects abroad and to finance services supplied from Canada even when these are not directly associated with equipment supply. Financial institutions in Canada and abroad will be encouraged to participate with the corporation in its lending and guarantee operations. Interest and other charges by the corporation will generally reflect the cost of money to it, bearing in mind, however, the need to meet competition in particular cases, and will provide for the operating expenses of the medium and long term financing facility.
Under clause 33 of the bill the corporation would be empowered, when authorized by the Minister of Finance, to buy, sell, and lend on the security of, negotiable export paper. E.C.I.C. had this power in connection with operations under Section 21A when authorized by the Governor in Council. The new authority is broader and applies also to export paper in respect of transactions insured by the corporation. Rediscount of export paper in the hands of the banks is not presently contemplated.
Finally, an entirely new facility is to be established to insure Canadian investments in developing countries against loss due to war, insurrection or revolution, expropriation or confiscation and inability to transfer earnings or capital. These are standard risks covered lander investment insurance schemes of other countries. Insolvency or other commercial risk would not be covered. Coverage would be limited to new investments, including reinvested earnings, and would have to hold promise of some specific economic advantage to Canada, such as increased exports, or contribute to the economic development of the host country.
The plan is essentially bilateral; that is, the Canadian government will expect certain assurances from the host country before authorizing the corporation to issue an insurance policy on an investment in that country. We have not ruled out participation by Canada in a multilateral investment scheme such as that which has been discussed periodically under World Bank auspices during talks in which Canada has participated. We have kept open the option to consider integration of a Canadian investment insurance policy with a
April 14, 1969

Export Development Corporation viable international plan should such a plan be developed.
Total liability under contracts of investment insurance is limited under the bill to $50 million and it will be apparent from this that individual investments covered will likely be relatively modest. We intend to feel our way slowly and prudently into this new field.
Canadian firms by investing abroad may be able to preserve or expand their export markets, as well as to derive a return on their investment in terms of foreign income or capital appreciation. Changes in the terms of access to foreign markets, in patterns of production and consumption, and in tariffs and freight, may change the balance of considerations between serving a market from Canada and establishing a plant in a foreign country. Furthermore, in some cases an equity investment is a pre-condition to the sale of capital goods and related services. More broadly, investment abroad by a firm or industry could have the effect of increasing its competitiveness and by bringing it closer to the market allow it to react more positively to needs and opportunities. In addition, a full development of Canadian ideas and skills may require increased foreign investment by Canadians and greater use of such techniques as management agreements, licensing arrangements and sale of patent rights.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Foreign investment will stimulate the flow of private capital to developing countries. In doing so, it will enhance the effectiveness of the official aid program by providing capital linked to the technical and managerial knowhow which are essential conditions to economic progress in developing countries and which cannot always be easily associated with official aid.
Briefly summarized then, the salient features of the program, of which this bill is the central element, are as follows: First, continuity in availability of adequate official support for export financing, consistent with other high priority claims on the government's resources.
Second, incorporation of the Export Development Corporation as successor to the Export Credits Insurance Corporation, to be the focal point for the government's interest in export credits, credit insurance and guarantees and in insurance of foreign investments.

Third, co-ordination of export financing with other government programs, including industrial and trade development and assistance to developing countries, and periodic budgetary review.
Fourth, corporate status similar to former E.C.I.C. but administration to be strengthened, capitalization increased and more authority for day to day operations to be delegated to a board of directors and senior management. The board will include directors appointed from outside the public service, facilitating co-operation between public and private sectors in export development.
Fifth, facilities for export credits insurance and guarantees and for direct export financing to be broadened and made more flexible and capacities to be increased to accommodate expansion in export business. Operation of these facilities to be made more responsive to exporters' requirements and to international competitive situations.
Sixth, direct export financing of routine transactions eligible for this form of assistance to be carried out by the Export Development Corporation as principal instead of being for account of the government, requiring cabinet approval in each instance, as in the case of the Export Credits Insurance Corporation.
Seventh, the Export Development Corporation is to be empowered to buy, sell, and make advances on the security of export paper, but rediscount of paper held by banks not contemplated for the present.
Eighth, a systematic and continuing program of liaison and co-operation with Canadian financial institutions to be developed and steps taken to ensure wider familiarity with, and use of, the Export Development Corporation's services and facilities by both financial institutions and the export community.
Ninth, insurance of investments in developing countries to be offered to encourage participation by Canadian companies in business opportunities abroad where this will advance Canada's economic interests, especially, exports, and/or contribute to the recipient country's economic development.
We consider this bill an important step forward in adjusting our administrative structure to changing needs, and I commend it to the house. It is not, of course, the last step. As in the past, so in the future we will continue to have to keep the export environment under surveillance and be able to respond quickly and effectively as circumstances dictate.
April 14, 1969


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of making a few brief remarks before Bill C-183 is referred to committee for study of the provisions setting up an Export Development Corporation. The house appreciates the explanation that the minister has read into the record outlining the proposals in regard to this new corporation. I would have much preferred, as I am sure would other members of the house, if the minister had forgotten many of the flowery phrases and platitudes that he used and got to the nuts and bolts issues by giving the house some concrete examples of how the provisions of this new act are going to operate. For example, the minister could have mentioned the hydro-electric plant for the government of Ceylon, how it was financed, who the exporter was, the date of the contract, the amount of the contract, how the contract operates, what the government does, how the plant is covered in transit by insurance, how it is insured against non-payment and so on. He could have given the house one or two such examples in layman's language that all of us might have been able to follow a little better.
I should like to ask the minister why it was necessary to bring in this bill when the Export Credits Insurance Act has done a remarkably good job. I would not want to see the Export Credits Insurance Corporation passed over without paying tribute to it for the wonderful work it has done in providing export credit insurance and the help it has given many Canadian companies. Its profit and loss statements and its record of performance have been nothing but the best. Therefore I am at a loss to know why we need a new, fancy-named act. Why not amend the Export Credits Insurance Act by making the few changes to which the minister has referred? The changes are so few that I do not see the necessity for introducing a new act to be known as the Export Development Act. It seems to me that this government is prone to change for the sake of change. I do not think the minister has presented any really good argument for not amending the existing act. However, the government has seen fit to scrap the old act and to bring in a new one, and the bill is now before the house for a vote on whether it should be sent to committee for further study.
Since the bill is going to committee my remarks will be brief. Members of the committee will have the opportunity to ask many questions'. I hope the minister will be present
Export Development Corporation at all times in the committee or, if not the minister, his assistant, and also the officials of the Export Credits Insurance Corporation so that all questions members may wish to ask in regard to the proposed new Export Development Corporation may be answered fully and completely.
I do not think I need take the time of the house to deal with the necessity for legislation in this field. This subject was dealt with fully when the house set up the Export Credits Insurance Corporation. We all know the great value of exports to our country; indeed, they are vital. There are 21 million people in Canada with the ability to produce four or five times the production we require, whether of primary or secondary products. Therefore it is essential to export and export to the limit of our capabilities. It is good that this insurance has been made available to our exporters. I do not suppose that many hon. members, particularly those representing urban areas, have in their constituencies manufacturers who have not availed themselves of the credit facilities offered by the former corporation. Similar facilities will be made available under the new legislation.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I wish to direct a few questions to the minister in order that the committee may have the benefit of the answers. Before doing so may I say that the answers to these questions will not meet the problems faced by our exporters. One of their greatest problems is the non-tariff barriers, for want of a better term, of other countries. For instance, there is a non-tariff barrier in the United Kingdom with regard to electrical products. They will not allow a Canadian manufacturer of heavy electrical equipment to tender in their market; they do not accept tenders from offshore countries'. Canada allows United Kingdom electrical apparatus manufacturers to tender here. Their tenders are accepted from time to time and we purchase equipment from offshore countries that will not accept tenders from our manufacturers. This illustrates one problem facing our exporters which is not covered by the new bill.
Italian manufacturers paying low wages export their products to Canada and our local manufacturers have to compete against those products. The competition is severe, particularly in electrical appliances. The Department of National Revenue imposes corporation and income taxes on our manufacturers, taking up to 50 per cent of their income from them,
April 14, 1969

Export Development Corporation while Italian manufacturers pay taxes of only 5 per cent or 10 per cent and put the remainder of their money into research and development of their industries.
I mention also in passing the most favoured nation treaties and arrangements. I do so to illustrate the problems facing our exporters which are not covered by this legislation. Recently four or five countries wished to purchase equipment for satellite land stations similar to equipment installed in Nova Scotia. Canadian companies tendered for that equipment. Pakistan, Malaysia and other countries wanted these satellite land stations, but when Canadian manufacturers tendered they found that their tenders were not even accepted.
I now ask some questions about the bill that opposition members wish to hear answered. Will the new corporation, the successor to E.C.I.C., insure Canadian companies exporting to the United States market? I understand that the previous corporation did not look favourably on such insurance although in the last year or two consideration has been given to insuring Canadian companies exporting to the United States. Also, is the government going to branch out into the banking business? Is it entering the banking field and interfering with private enterprise with these new financial arrangements? Are we overstepping our commitments in the Berne union of which Canada, with other exporting countries, is a member? Are we fulfilling other obligations and commitments when we go into banking so deeply? I think these questions ought to be answered.
The bill calls for the setting up of an advisory council. This is always a very ticklish matter. I hope the advisory council will be composed of men best fitted to undertake these duties. I sincerely hope that partisan political considerations will not enter into the selection of council members.
Is the proposed Export Development Corporation to be a non-profit organization? It was intended originally that the Export Credits Insurance Corporation should be a nonprofit body. However, owing to its very able administration it was able to show a profit after several years. I have the exact figures in my hand. According to the 1967 annual report and financial statement the excess of operating income over policyholders' claims amounted to $4,540,226. Together with interest on investments the total surplus was over $12 million for the year ended December 31, 1967. I do not know whether it is intended to operate the new Export Development Corporation

on a non-profit basis, but I think it ought to be a non-profit organization. It should help our exporters to develop exports, create jobs and be of distinct advantage to Canada. It ought to break even but not make a great profit.
Of course we are all most anxious to see that corporations such as this one are not given too much latitude with respect to salaries and expenses. Clauses 9 and 10 of the bill give wide .powers to the corporation, as does clause 16. Hon. members of the opposition are always concerned about wide powers given to corporations when the house has no way of scrutinizing the exercise of those powers. Having read the bill I have not seen any provision that the corporation must table an annual report. The former corporation had to do so and I think this corporation should also be obliged to do so. Perhaps the requisite wording is in the bill. In any event, we ought to make sure that it is necessary for the corporation to table an annual report in the house.
Those are the observations I wish to make at this time. I am sure the committee will study the bill carefully and give it the consideration it deserves. I conclude by repeating what I said at the beginning. I am at a loss to know why a new bill had to be introduced when the Export Credits Insurance Act could have been amended. The changes proposed in this bill could have been brought in by way of amendments to that act and we could have been spared all these details regarding changes in administration, reorganization and all the rest of it. Again I say to the house we would be remiss if we did not give full credit to the Export Credits Insurance Corporation for the wonderful work it has done in this field by making it possible for our exporters to export to countries that they had mevei been able to export to previously.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
In closing I point out that the principal commodities insured in 1967 were in the following ratio: iron and products related thereto 27 per cent, wood and wood products 26 per cent, agricultural products 12 per cent, non-ferrous metal and related products 8 per cent, aircraft 7 per cent, chemicals and products related thereto 4 per cent. This shows the very wide scope of manufacturing in which the corporation has extended credit to exporters.


Max Saltsman: easily a Crown corporation can get approval in this house when it is to assist businessmen and how difficult it is to get a Crown corporation approved by the house when it is to help the consumers or when it is a housing corporation that is proposed. I do not object to this corporation being set up in this form; it is probably the best form in which to do it. But I hope that the members who are supporting this measure and who seem to have considerable enthusiasm for this form of public enterprise willl maintain that enthusiasm for other Crown corporation proposals that come before the house from time to time which are for the specific purpose of helping the people of this country who are not manufacturers and who perhaps do not have the same kind of leverage with the government that manufacturers have.
It is hard to assess the purpose of this corporation in comparison with that of its predecessor, and I would like to enter a reservation with regard to its merit. I very much fear that what we are seeing here is an attempt to enter into the 20th century scramble for investment, just as the nations in the 19th century scrambled for colonies, and it seems to me that Canada is now joining the new investment imperialism. I would ask assurance from the government that this is not its intention.
It is significant that the board is to be composed of public servants: and businessmen. We can understand why representatives of the public service who are familiar with this operation should be on the board. We can also understand why people directly engaged in export should be on the board to offer their advice and provide valuable information. But there is a need for someone to be on this board who is directly involved in government policy, a government representative, a political representative, to ensure that the board operates in the best interests: not only of Canada but of those other nations that it seeks to serve.
I was pleased to see that the intent to preserve the national interest of Canada is written into the bill, and also an expression of concern about the effect of investments upon other countries, but I am not prepared to believe that this kind of political decision can be carried out by people who are not involved in the policy-making process:. If there is a lack of clarity in the bill it seems to me that it arises from the government's unwillingness to recognize the political implications of a measure of this type.
Export Development Corporation
For instance, is this corporation going to view any proposition that comes before it only from the viewpoint of the profitability to the private investors? I would hope not, because the bill says that they will consider the national interest and the interest of foreign countries. Are the nominees as outlined by the bill in a position to determine those interests? We are talking about a political decision. Once you get out of the realm of business, out of the realm of private profitmaking, and start talking about the national interest and the interest of foreign countries you 'become involved in a political decision. Who is going to make the political decision? Who is going to oversee the making of that political decision? As the matter now stands it does not look like this board will be able to do that kind of thing.
It is quite obvious that the people of Canada, through the government, are taking all the risk in this venture but do not have much of a voice in regard to the policy of the board. The minister may say that we in this party are asking too much. Why should Canada ask for things that other countries are not asking for? After all, we are bringing in this measure. We are improving opportunities for our manufacturers in line with what other countries are doing. We are stimulating our investors to go into foreign countries. Why should Canada stay out of this race?
I can only reply that we are not in the position to determine the policy of other countries. That is for them to determine, but we can wish for our country something better than what is happening elsewhere. Canadians do not wish to be imperialists. We do not want to jom in the scramble for financial colonies. We do not need them. We have no interest in playing that kind of role in international affairs. I look forward to the minister explaining the government's position in this regard and to his assurance that this program will not develop along such lines.
Canadians should be very sensitive about bringing about the kind of difficulties that are created by foreign investment. We have been the major victims of this kind of economic imperialism, and we certainly would not wish to impose on others the kind of problems that have been imposed upon us. We are not in such desperate economic conditions that we have to milk some of the riches of other countries. We are a rich country whose future is not in doubt. If it can be demonstrated that in most cases investment will benefit foreign countries while giving them the freedom they
7482	COMMONS
Export Development Corporation require for their own development we in this party will be in complete agreement with that kind of approach, but only on those terms.
At the moment the government is going through a foreign policy. It is looking for a new role for Canadian foreign policy. Investment is part of a nation's foreign policy. We should be most careful to ensure that the investment policies we encourage are in harmony with the kind of foreign policy this country wants and thinks desirable for its future.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I find it very difficult to understand in what way the sending of investment dollars out of this country is really of any great assistance to Canada as a nation. The old imperialism was seldom of benefit and very often created problems with which a nation had to live for years and years afterwards, and there is a danger in investing outside our boundaries or encouraging investment outside our boundaries particularly when the argument is made that in Canada we are capital hungry. In effect we are suggesting by this bill that Canadians invest in other countries and that the vacuum in our country be filled by foreign investment.
The argument is heard repeatedly in the house that there is not enough investment for our own development. What then is the point in encouraging foreign investment under these circumstances? I have never accepted the argument that we really are capital short or capital hungry, but this is a point which is often made by other hon. members. So we are trading off Canadian capital. On the one hand, we are encouraging the outflow of our capital and, on the other hand, we are suggesting that the gap left be filled by foreign capital. We are already more dominated by foreign capital than any other country in the world.
What kind of sense does the policy this1 bill seeks to encourage make? I cannot see it. All of us are in favour of using some of our capital to help foreign countries. We can understand that argument. It will hurt Canada a little, but those countries need the investment far more than we need it here. We have an obligation as a part of the family of nations, and as human beings looking at the problems of other human beings, to assist and help. If that is the argument, then let it be stated in those terms and we can accept it in those terms. I find it difficult, however, to accept the argument that the export of capital

DEBATES	April 14, 1969
from this country will in the long run benefit the people of Canada. I think it may very well create far more harm than benefit.
There seems to be a prevailing myth in the minds of the members of the cabinet that we must export and that our life depends on exports. Throughout our history there has been an emphasis on getting rid of our raw materials as rapidly as we can and on getting rid now of our manufactured goods as fast as we can. I believe that exports and imports should flow naturally rather than be artificially stimulated as they frequently have been in this country. The more we export, the more we import. I am not sure what the answer is, but I have some doubt concerning the conventional wisdom which seems to be so sure about the answer. To what extent do we really benefit by putting this tremendous emphasis on export? It creates as many disadvantages as advantages, and it makes us enormously vulnerable to what goes on in other parts of the world.
Because our exports are largely in semifinished or raw materials we in effect trade off these goods for highly manufactured and highly finished goods which are the largest component in our imports. The minister says the provisions of this bill will increase our productivity. The implication is that if we export more a certain amount of rationalization will take place. There is some truth to this but it is a very small amount Of truth. I say to the minister that we must do far more than merely encourage exports if we are to rationalize industry in Canada and make it as productive as it deserves and needs to be. Far more than this small measure is required. I am always worried when measures of this kind are presented to the house as being a panacea for deep-seated problems. I do not suggest that this small measure will not help in a way, but we should not think it is a very large part of the answer when in effect it cannot be that kind of an answer.
Why do people buy from other countries? They do so because those countries have a natural advantage in the production of both goods and services. We know there are distortions in markets, subsidies and various regulations which must be overcome, but by and large goods move back and forth between one nation and another because there is a comparative advantage elsewhere of which people wish to avail themselves. The bonusing of exports is part of the picture, but I suggest our chief concern should be to make Canadian industry efficient and productive. In order
April 14, 1369

to do that we must rationalize our industry and bring about a more effective structure. The difficulty which stands in the way of getting that kind of industrial structure is the pattern of foreign ownership in Canada. The government has consistently refused to tackle this problem. These palliatives are brought in which serve to blot out the real and substantive difficulty in this country.
It is for these reasons among others that I raise these questions concerning the effectiveness of the measure now before us. Looking through the bill one must marvel at some of the naive assumptions. Perhaps I will be excused if I am not completely accurate when I paraphrase. I can be corrected if I am very wrong. The bill provides that agreements' can be signed with other countries which will commit those countries to honour these agreements. I wonder how this can be done in this revolutionary world. Some countries are now run by dictators and oppressive leaders. What will the situation be when the people overthrow those leaders? Are we to hold them to a commitment made by a government which they did not approve and sought to overthrow? Surely this sort of thing cannot be done. One could try to do it but it is too unrealistic to expect that a commitment of that kind would be honoured. A very good example is the situation in Peru in respect of the seizure of some of the oil assets in that country.
We are in some ways sowing for ourselves seeds of difficulty with regard to some of the emerging nations'. I would hope the government would make it very clear that as our investments in foreign countries grow, particularly in the underdeveloped nations, we will not develop a gunboat mentality and say that because we have investments we must seek to influence the kind of political system the people in those countries choose for themselves. In respect of investments there is always the danger that this kind of attitude might be taken and pressure exerted on the government to protect in this case not only the investments of private people but the government's contribution as well'.
When dealing with foreign countries we should also be prepared to get out when they want us to get out and not raise any fuss about it. I believe Canada should take the position that the sovereignty of nations is more important than any private investment whether domestic or foreign. This should be
Export Development Corporation made very clear, and it does not appear to be clear in the bill as it now stands. We should make sure that we in Canada are not guilty of the same errors regarding extraterritoriality in other countries whereby the laws of another nation have accompanied foreign investment in Canada and have made those investors subject to laws made outside this country. We should ensure and insist that Canadians who invest in other countries will be completely and absolutely subject to the laws of those countries1 in which they invest so there will be no conflict between private interests and the political sovereignty of the nations in which the investments are made.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
We have a chance to show ourselves as sympathetic to the national aspirations of emerging countries. This bill provides a framework in which to do this, but whether it will have this effect will depend to a very large extent on the political direction given to the people in this corporation. It will also depend to a large extent on' whether the corporation will simply be turned loose to make as much money as possible or whether we will accept our obligation to see that it acts not only in the best interest of Canada but also in the best interests of those countries which at this time need our help and assistance. It is for that reason that we support the general principle of assistance and urge that the purpose of the corporation be made clearer than was evident from the minister's statement today. We urge the government to accept its moral responsibilities in the establishment of the Export Development Corporation referred to in the bill before us.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I
should like to advise the house as to the subjects to be dealt with at the time of adjournment. They are as follows: the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave)-Future of Don Messer t.v. show; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Reference of Woods Report to Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.
April 14, 1969

Export Development Corporation



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lang (for Mr. Pepin) that Bill C-183, to establish the Export Development Corporation and to facilitate and develop export trade by the provision of insurance, guarantees, loans and other financial facilities, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-183, now under consideration, is to establish a corporation to facilitate and develop export trade by the provision of insurance, guarantees, loans and other financial facilities as indicated in the explanatory notes of the bill. In other words, the government intends, through various financial provisions, loans, insurance and credit, to facilitate and to increase the exportation of goods and services.
In fact, it is for Canada a matter of increasing its exports to countries or nationals who can pay for the products they buy. On the other hand, if they are not in a position to do so, the government, or the corporation it plans to establish, undertakes to protect the Canadian exporters or manufacturers by taking the necessary means to give them a compensation in case of insolvency. Such are, it seems, the purpose of Bill C-183 and the philosophy of the Canadian government. In that respect, Mr. Speaker, several questions come to our mind. Why do we ask the Canadian exporters to increase exports, even though their customers may not be able to pay for the goods or services delivered? Why does the Canadian government feel compelled to guarantee the reimbursement of unpaid bills by foreigners while the Canadian producers and merchants who deliver goods or services to Canadian customers do not enjoy similar benefits if their customers are unable to pay?
In other words, why would not the government give Canadian consumers a guarantee enabling them to buy goods and services without paying for them, since the government would take the responsibility of doing so?

Such are a few of the questions that come to our minds as we read Bill C-183.
But why all those efforts to increase Canadian exports? It is because foreign countries have a purchasing power which will enable Canadian producers to keep their plants going, to give work to more people that will make more purchasing power available to Canadian consumers and will enable them also to buy Canadian products and services, and come what may, let turn the wheel that brings grist to the mill, that keeps the industry going, that provides profits and returns and enables the government to levy more taxes.
Thus, in order to increase exports, they resort to plans and devices of all kinds, in short they enable foreigners to get our products easily.
Here is what the former Liberal member for Saint-Denis said during a broadcast on the Montreal radio station CKAC, according to the former Liberal newspaper he Canada, in its edition of August 30, 1947, and I quote:
"In spite of the sayings of demagogues whose insight is more than limited, the Liberals do not give anything to foreigners for Canada produces 40 times more than its people can consume, and without exports and loans, whenever necessary, we would have a production surplus, plants would close and we would be facing starvation, unemployment and utter poverty."
As for exports, there would be a crisis, unemployment and utter poverty. Such was the philosophy of the Liberals in 1948; such is still their philosophy 20 years later. And these people are called progressive and open-minded. They say themselves that they have new ideas, that they bring a new philosophy, so that Canada might be governed according to new formulas.
Let us listen to what the Minister for Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Mar-chand) said in a speech he made last March 28 at a seminar on economic development, in Chicoutimi. I quote:
Essentially, regional development is aimed at creating new possibilities for employment and promotion in underdeveloped areas and helping people to take advantage of them.
And he added this:
The first imperative of social justice is to provide enough jobs. It is a basic economic problem, but it is also an essential social problem.
The second imperative is to keep the jobs in harmony. The third one is to have people use the services which they need in order to take advantage of the opportunities for decent employment.
April 14, 1969

Finally, to explain the role of the department which he was going to manage, the Minister for Regional Economic Expansion
stated:
This department aims at increasing the possibilities for productive employment and facilitating access to these jobs.
Such then is the philosophy of the government. To provide work and jobs, as if the objective of the economy was to keep the men busy and to make them work.
Why does this government reason as people did 20 years ago? Why does the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion do likewise? And why does the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) reason the same way, though he is an economist?
Because workers can only earn their bread through hard work. Because, in their opinion, man was born to toil, to produce. If he ceases to be a means of production, he loses any right he may enjoy of benefiting from it. That is why the trend is to set up as many jobs as possible. That is why statesmen, politicians, economists and businessmen are hand in glove with each other. Thus they extol full employment to the point of creating useless jobs, if they must, so as to keep the people busy.
Let us remember, Mr. Speaker, some of the winter works programs-
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)

Maintenance of employment is wanted for its own sake and not simply to make a plan for social security work more easily. It is better to employ people on digging holes and filling them up again, than not to employ them at all; those who are taken into useless employment will, by what they earn and spend, give useful employment to others. It is better to employ people, however the money for paying their wages is obtained, than not to employ them at all.

Our good friends to our right will surely have recognized one of the high priests of British socialism, William H. Beveridge, in this excerpt from the book, Full Employment in a Free Society, pages 17 and: 147.
Another economist, whom our socialist friends esteem highly and who is also recognized as an authority in Canadian government circles, Lord Keynes, was reported by the Canadian Press to have said at the time of a visit to Ottawa on September 4, 1947, and 1 quote:
England needs certain products, but it has neither the money to pay for them nor the goods to pay her imports through exports. Canada and the
Export Development Corporation United States which helped England considerably during the war must now continue to ship their goods to that country to keep their economy moving and provide employment for their workers.
Such reasonings reveal the absurdity of the present system. It is easy to believe that England is happy to accept gratuities coming from Canada. But to claim that Canada should adopt a policy of gratuities to strangers, merely to give work to Canadians, verges on absurdity if not insanity.
In his book entitled Tomorrow's Trade and published in 1945, the American economist Stuart Chase was courageous enough to suggest more reasonable solutions. I quote:
Americans, he said, lend dollars to foreigners; foreigners use those dollars to pay for their imports from the United States. Those exports give a stimulus to production and employment in the United States; but foreigners benefit from the goods while American taxpayers lose everything.
If we must intervene to alleviate unemployment, he added, why not distribute directly our goods to those in need of them in our own country, to Americans themselves?
We of the Ralliement Creditiste are opposed to the philosophical concept implied in Bill C-183 and advocated by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and his colleague the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
When the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion states that:
The first imperative of social justice is to provide enough jobs-
-we reply, with Pope Pius IX, that the economic body will be soundly constituted and will achieve its aim only when it will provide all its members and each of them with all the goods and resources of nature and industry as well as the truly social organization that society has the means to provide them with.
As for the philosophy of the government, of the Minister of Industry Trades and Commerce and of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, it tends to make believe that the objective of the economic activities is to provide everybody with work, to multiply the number of jobs. Besides, we of the Ralliement Creditiste, endorse the opinion of Father Georges-Henry Levesque, whom the Minister for Regional Economic Expansion knows well. I quote:
The economy must not strive to create wealth for its own sake, but to provide for the requirements of all and to produce goods which actually enrich all the citizens of a country. In economics parlance, we would say that the goal of the
April 14, 1969

Export Development Corporation
economy is the welfare of consumers, of all consumers. The consumer first! Such must be the slogan of any truly social, truly humane economic policy.
Those comments are confirmed in the "First Report of the Christian Doctrine Wealth, Committee of the Congressionnal Union of Scotland" dated May 10, 1962. It is a unanimous report from a group of British politicians, economists and Church leaders with the view of drawing up a Christian doctrine on wealth.
Here is what the report says on page 16, and I quote:
The notion that it is better to hold any position than none at all has made its way just as that other one that the first goal of the economic system is to offer employment-
We can only emphasize again what we said in the first part of this report, that the purpose of production is consumption, and, generally speaking, although man's work is a means whereby to achieve such purpose, it must not be considered only in the light of production. From a Christian point of view, it is wrong to say that a man should do the work that can be done by a machine: it is wrong to say that man should work without any physical or spiritual satisfaction. Those are nevertheless the very features of the society we live in, and this is so because man is forced to find some job or other if he is to meet his legitimate needs.
The report goes on to say:
It has been said that nobody should have anything for nothing. However, notwithstanding this so-called principle, social assistance, free schooling, family allowances, health services, all this is acknowledged the world over because it is realized that the community as a whole draws benefits when each individual shares in the common good.
Unemployment and other social benefits reaffirm the principle that it is a duty for the community to ensure the welfare of those who are unable to earn a living, on account of old age, health conditions or their inability to find a job.
Therefore, we must conclude that society will have an ever-growing obligation to distribute means of living among its members by ways other than paid employment.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Those ways of thinking have spread, Mr. Speaker, and on this side of the Atlantic, those people are not the only supporters of such measures.
On March 22, 1964, 26 economists, union leaders, newspapermen and political leaders, including the economist Robert Theobald, Mr. Gunner Myrdal of the Institute of International Economic Studies, Mr. Ben B. Selig-man, director of the Research Section of the Retail Clerks International Association, Mr. Linus Pauling, Nobel peace prize winner as well as other famous American personalities, submitted to President Johnson a brief on the Triple Revolution in progress in the
[Mr. Laprise.l
United States at that time: the revolutions in the fields of cybernetics, armaments and human rights.
In connection with the cybernetic revolution, the signers of the brief state that the present economic system cannot provide employment to everyone and that adherence to the relation between income and employment as a basic method to distribute demand efficiently is now acting as a check to the almost unlimited capacity of a production system based on cybernetics.
They add and I quote:
An adequate distribution of the potential abundance of goods and services will only be carried out when we will understand that the main economic problem is not to know how production will be increased but how the abundance will be distributed. There is an urgent need to alter basically the mechanisms used to answer consumers' needs.
As a first step towards a new consensus, concludes the brief to president Johnson, it is essential to recognize that the traditional link between employment and income does not exist anymore. The economy of affluence may bring to every citizen comfort and security, whether they are engaged or not in what is generally called work. The wealth brought about by machines instead of by men always remains wealth. We recommend therefore that society, through appropriate legal and governmental institutions, undertake to supply each individual and each family with an adequate incqme that would be theirs by right.
The legislation brought before us by the minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce constitutes a residue of puritanism which no longer has its place in a world dominated by cybernetics and characterized by affluence. Solutions of 20 years ago, which the Liberals bring back to try to remedy the economic situation of Canadians, are obsolete cures.
The time, the energy and the money we waste would serve a better end if applied to a study of the solutions offered by hon. members from the Ralliement Creditiste.
Mr. Speaker, before closing I would add that we, from the Ralliement Creditiste, know and believe that we can supply other countries, at least in part, with the goods they may request from our industries.
At the present time, a delegation made up of 4 or 5 of our ministers is in Tokyo with a view to concluding trade agreements.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I believe that when entering into such agreements, we ought to be careful so that the conditions now prevailing will not become permanent, that is selling our raw materials to foreign countries even if we have to buy them back, and at a very high cost, once they have been processed.
April 14, 1969	COMMONS
I think we should endeavour to find ways of processing our raw materials in our own industries, in order to put finished products on the market, according to the physical possibilities of our country.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, unlike the hon. member who just preceded me I will not read from a prepared script and I hope I will be comparatively brief. It is not my intention to address my remarks directly to the bill now before us but rather indirectly following the statement by the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) who introduced the bill this afternoon. During the course of his remarks he made three rather important statements and it is because of these statements that I am on my feet now. I am certain that I took them down correctly and I would like to cite them now.
The minister said, first, that exports are an essential key to our Canadian economy. On the surface no one could disagree with that. Second, he said that stimulation of exports must have top priority. On the surface no one in this house could disagree with that. Third, he said that the Export Development Corporation would give financial support to expanded export credits. On the surface no one could disagree with that. But I am saying that in making those blunt statements without any explanation of government policy regarding the Canadian economy the minister was unfair because in order to appreciate our economic situation in relation to expanded exports and expanded credits it is necessary for the minister to put the principles he espouses in the context of the Canadian economy and of other government policies.
Let us consider his first statement. The minister said that exports are an essential key to our Canadian economy. Of course that is correct. But this house is entitled to know the relationship of the export sector of our economy to government policy on imports because if we expand our exports, as we must, we must be able to meet a trade and financial imbalance. So I say it is unfair to speak about a measure to increase our exports unless we have some understanding of government policy on how to meet our trade and financial imbalance or unless we increase our imports.
I am not an economist but I think I have studied the subject sufficiently to know that some adjustment must be made somewhere. It would simply be impossible to expand exports greatly unless we also expand imports greatly. I do not know whether my friend 29180-474
DEBATES	7487
Export Development Corporation has been here long enough to know that every time we increase imports certain manufacturing industries from the east to the west coast come to Ottawa to meet members of the government and to raise hell because they say they are being driven out of business. We know that four ministers are now in Japan. I believe that the purpose of their visit is not so much to expand our exports to Japan as to curtail imports to Canada because of the complaints that the government has been receiving with regard to what Japanese imports are doing to some of the manufacturing industries in this country, whether they be cotton, linen, pottery, or something else. So it is of the utmost importance for the Minister without Portfolio, when he tells us that exports are an essential key to our Canadian economy, which undoubtedly they are, to tell us what is the Canadian policy on imports. Imports must also expand in order to meet the imbalance of trade and the imbalance of payments.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
How are we to face the manufacturers of Canada, now having a rough and difficult time, and facing increased competition, if we increase our exports? I hope the government has the answers. I believe that members of the House of Commons, having been asked to support this bill, are entitled to know what policy the government has in mind to meet the problem which is bound to arise in connection with a greater volume of imports because of increased exports. Anyone who says we cannot have greater imports and greater exports does not know anything about world economics, let alone in Canada, I hope we shall be hearing about this.
The minister told us that the stimulation of exports must be given top priority. Here again he left something to be explained. What is the policy of the government with regard to the control of exports or the stimulation of exports if our own economy is in bad shape? I followed closely what the minister said this afternoon. He gave no indication of what might be done to control the Export Development Corporation if its actions were likely to have a serious effect on the situation in Canada.
I draw the attention of the house to the situation at the present time in British Columbia where we have experienced the most difficult winter in recorded history. The result is that thousands are out of work because the sawmills and the processing plants lack the logs which they required. Only
April 14, 1969

Export Development Corporation two days ago I returned from my home city of Vancouver. Thousands are out of work there because as a result of the severe winter logs are not available to meet the needs of the sawmills and processing plants. Yet ships are today loading unprocessed logs there to be exported to other countries. I admit I do not know whether this is being done on a credit basis, but this is my point: In such a situation, what control will there be over the corporation to ensure that export credits are not extended at times when, because of certain difficulties, our own people in Canada are out of work? I ask that this aspect be explained because it was not mentioned by the minister when he spoke this afternoon.
Of course I am in favour of exports and the expansion of exports. However, to my mind top priority should not be given to the exporting of our raw materials when they are required in our own country. I cannot feel that the Export Development Corporation or any similar institution should be able to assist such exports at a time when there are unemployed in our own country available to undertake secondary manufacturing. This is an aspect which I believe to be of the utmost importance and one which should be explained in great detail before a final vote is taken on this measure.
The third point made by the minister was that the Export Development Corporation would be used to provide financial support to expanded export credits. In the light of the two points which I have tried to put forward as being of importance, may I ask whether any indication can be given that the expanded credit will be limited to the extension of credit in connection with those things which are of advantage to Canada rather than to those which work to the detriment of Canada? Just think about what I said in regard to the log situation in British Columbia. Just reflect on whether or not credit should be granted with respect to commodities which are the key to the Canadian economy. The key to the Canadian economy lies in extending as far as possible credits for the development and utilization of secondary and tertiary industries based on our raw resources, in seeing that we do not extend credit for exports when our own people are out of work because of special circumstances. It lies in seeing that Canadians are employed first before we export raw materials, that our manufacturers are assisted first.
I conclude by returning to my original point because to me it is such an important

one. The minister talks about extending exports through expanded credits. Will he please tell us what policy the government has in mind to meet the imbalance of trade, the imbalance of payments, so as not to endanger Canadian manufacturing and Canadian industry? If he can tell me that, I shall be the first to complement him.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words in connection with Bill C-183, an act to establish the Export Development Corporation. I for one am more impressed with the contents of Part II of the bill than with Part I. I do not believe that Part I, having to do with the structure of the proposed new corporation, is really of much importance. Like many bills that have come before the house this session, Part I of the measure before us simply with the restructuring of an agency of the government and this, I suggest, is hardly of great importance. The important thing is what the corporation or agency intends to do, the policies it intends to carry forward once it is operational.
I am curious to know in what way the operations of the Export Development Corporation are likely to be substantially different in the next few years from those of the Export Credits Insurance Corporation in the past decade. I feel it is important and worth while for the proposed corporation to enter into arrangements to provide long-term credits to prospective exporters, to offer forms of guarantees and insurance to Canadian business firms which are engaged in the export business in an important way. Some of my colleagues may have expressed surprise that private enterprise oriented firms should want to avail themselves of the benefits of something that is state directed, but I am not surprised at that at all1. Some of our largest firms have shown an amazing capacity to forget their ideological prejudices upon finding something of financial advantage to them. But let us leave ideology aside for a moment and look at the operations of the proposed Export Development Corporation.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
For one thing I hope the corporation will have some guidance from the government as to making maximum use of its powers to provide and underwrite insurance for the export trade. Here I want to make specific reference to use of the port of Churchill, a matter that I am sure is close to the heart of the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang)
April 14, 1969

who is sponsoring the bill. One of the reasons there has not been over the course of many years an increasing utilization of the port of Churchill by the export trade, particularly for the export of wheat, is, so we are told, because of difficulty in obtaining marine insurance for the entire length of the shipping season. To put it another way, one of the reasons the shipping season at Churchill is not longer than it has been in past years is not the physical or climatic conditions but rather the fact that a period of 20 to 25 days has consistently been chopped off the potential shipping season at Churchill because of lack of marine insurance.
It would strike me as strange if we did not make use of the powers contained in this bill to underwrite insurance so as to extend the shipping season at Churchill. It would strike me as strange if we failed to exercise the powers available in this bill, which seeks to stimulate exports by all manner of firms engaged in different sectors of the economy, to extend the shipping season at Churchill and thus reduce the price of western wheat to the importers. If this were the case I would not blame the western farmers and those interested in extending the shipping season at Churchill for being dissatisfied, if not embittered.
The fact of the matter is that the savings that would be realized by producers of western wheat and/or by the importers of that product would be approximately 10 to 12 cents a bushel. Everybody knows this. We have all been looking for ways and means of realizing this kind of saving by reducing transportation costs but nothing ever happens. The answer that comes back is that it is a matter of marine insurance. We are told that the shipping firms that operate the bottoms cannot get insurance, and there the matter is left. The buck is passed and somebody else is supposed to deal with the problem. As a result no progress is made. It would seem to me that this new corporation would be in a position to help resolve this problem, and I will be very disappointed with this administration if it does not give the new corporation some guidance and leadership in this respect.
Having listened with interest to the introductory speech of the minister may I say I agree with him and support his sentiments that we must do what we can to increase and stimulate Canadian exports. That is not saying very much. When opportunity presents itself to take concrete action to achieve this end, I hope the minister will not hesitate in
2918C-474J
Export Development Corporation providing leadership to every sector of the economy.
I should also like to ask the minister whether he does not feel that the government could help to stimulate export trade, and in particular help our wheat producers, by taking steps to appoint more trade commissioners to eastern Europe. Is it not the fact that the number of trade commissioners in eastern Europe is zero? Export trade promotion for Canada in countries like Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Rumania, and Bulgaria is done from Vienna, and those who from time to time try to promote exports to Poland work out of Copenhagen. And so the story goes. Something tangible could be done here to stimulate exports. Since 1965, I believe, we have not increased the number of personnel engaged on trade promotion in Europe, certainly in eastern Europe; yet we expect somehow to do better when it comes to selling goods in that part of the world.
The minister may have a good deal of faith in what Bill C-183 will accomplish. We hope that the proposed Export Development Corporation will somehow stimulate exports. Perhaps one way it will do so is through its system of guarantees of investments, which will help businessmen overcome some of their fears. I have no complaint about this part of the bill. But I will complain if this crown corporation fails to assist in extending the shipping season at Churchill; in this regard I think it couild have a direct influence. I will also' complain if the government, through the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, fails to increase the number of trade commissioners throughout eastern Europe. I think this is a legitimate complaint inasmuch as the government will be missing an opportunity to do something tangible to try to promote the sale of Canadian products in that part of the world.
Very often it seems to me that this administration is guilty of engaging in blown-up publicity and propaganda campaigns, in. setting up agencies and ad hoc committees, all of which look impressive enough on paper, while all the time failing to take advantage of or follow up on opportunities for taking concrete action. I have a long story to tell in this, regard in connection with area development, but I realize, Mr. Speaker, that you would call me to order if I tried to develop this point at this time.
7490	COMMONS
Export Development Corporation [DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I conclude by saying that it is not difficult to support the government's intentions with regard to Bill C-183. Yet obviously there is reason for one to be sceptical as to what the actual effects of the legislation will be. Having established the corporation the onus will still be on the government to provide the primary leadership in stimulating Canadian exports on the world market.


Mr. Depufy Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty to inform the house that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, before the bill goes to committee I wish to refer to one or two of the points raised by hon. members. Some of these matters really have been made clear in my opening remarks. If the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Hales) refers to those remarks again he will see therein enumerated the reasons for introducing a new corporation to take the place of the former Export Credits Insurance Corporation.
The hon. member for Wellington asked whether the Export Development Corporation was to be a non-profit organization. Of course, the intention is the same as for the E.C.I.C., that is, that it should fulfil all its functions and not make a profit. This will not preclude a profit being made as a result of continued good management, although such profit is not required of it.
No advisory council is provided for in the bill. Communication between the corporation and the business world it serves directly will come about through the addition of four members from that area to the board of the corporation. The hon. member for Wellington also asked whether the bill contains a provision requiring the corporation to table an annual report. Although there is no such provision in the bill, such tabling is required under section 85 of the Financial Administration Act.
Hon. members opposite commented about the government's general philosophy with regard to exports and the operation of the Export Development Corporation' in that connection. Surely it must be perfectly clear from the bill and from the remarks made in introducing it that the government stands firm on the very sound, long-term liberal policy of promoting the freest, open kind of society possible and the maximum amount of trade. That is the intention behind the bill

DEBATES	April 14, 1969
and we hope the bill will fulfil its purpose. These days, in talking about the bill, there is particular emphasis on exports, and this corporation is concerned with that particular aspect of our trade.
I emphasized before, and I do so again, that the government believes that stimulating exports is of tremendous advantage to our economy. That stimulation encourages maximum productivity in the face of competition we must meet if we are to compete with other producers in the world markets. It also brings about the advantage of an enlarged market. I am surprised that the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) did not pay sufficient heed to the tremendous advantages accruing to this country from that type of rationalization. Of course we are aware that increasing exports will logically lead to the development of increased imports into Canada. But that does not frighten this government, Mr. Speaker. We believe that open trade and exchange of products between countries is of tremendous1 advantage to those participating in that trade.
The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) was a little worried about whether we were strong enough to resist the pressures of industrialists who might feel the pinch of these imports. I hope the government will be strong enough to face both the industrialists and the workers involved in any particular trade or branch of industry affected by serious competition. I hope we will be brave enough to face them with long-term plans aimed at making our industry in general increasingly efficient. Our objective in the long term is the establishment of the freest possible trade. We have no doubt that that is the right policy. If hon. members wish to hear our assurance in that regard I will be pleased to give it to them.
The hon. member for Waterloo was worried also about assurances we might obtain from successor governments. May I refer him to a general rule of international law in which we put some faith, to the effect that a successor government is responsible for the debts of its predecessors? The history of good faith on the part of governments around the world is good enough to lead us to believe that this is not really such a high risk endeavor-I refer particularly to the investment insurance program-as it might be thought to be by any particular investor. That is an important part of the philosophy behind this insurance program. The government, taking a slightly longer view of the history of a situation, can take
April 14, 1969

certain risks which an individual, small investor might feel he could not take. If hon. members look at the bill as a whole and particularly at the section dealing with insurance of investments abroad they will see that there is adequate recognition of the political responsibilities that must be involved in the operation of certain aspects of the corporation's work. That responsibility is noted in the bill. It rests on the government and the government takes the responsibility for making certain decisions.
I am pleased with the generally warm reception this bill has received. I know the officials most closely associated with the operation of the Export Credits Insurance Act will be delighted in committee to go into specific detail with hon. members concerning the past very useful operation of the aot.


Edward Richard Schreyer: May I ask a question of the minister? Perhaps he might take it as notice and reply in writing or in some other way. Do the provisions of Bill C-183 preclude the corporation from providing insurance with respect to ocean shipment? I am referring to marine insurance. Would that not help to promote trade?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I believe that that specific matter is not within the ambit of the bill. However, I will ask for an opinion on the matter and speak to the hon. member about it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Eric William Kierans: that Bill C-184, to establish a Canadian corporation for telecommunication by satellite be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I want to move an amendment to the motion changing the standing committee from the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts. If the house will be good enough to waive the normal notice, we could put the amendment later.
Telesat Canada Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: My suggestion would be that in future it would be more orderly to move the amendment after debate on the motion. If it is the pleasure of the house I might read the amendment now. It reads:
That the motion for second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications of Bill C-184, an Act to establish a Canadian corporation for telecommunication by satellite, be amended by substituting for the words "Standing Committee on Transport and Communications" the words, "Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts."


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, couldn't this be a house order that we all agree to without any loss of time?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it so agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is so ordered.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, the legislation before the house for its consideration and approval is Bill C-184, an act to establish a Canadian corporation for telecommunication by satellite. This bill, perhaps because it combines two glamorous fields, space and communications, has received a considerable amount of publicity. It was also the subject of many questions by hon. members when the estimates of my department were before the Committee on Broadcasting a month ago, and before the Committee on Transport and Communications last December., Hence hon. members are familiar with many aspects of the project. However, this bill moves a significant and critical step further. It translates theory into practice and refines plans and programs into binding legal terminology. To explain this terminology and practice will, I must warn and apologize to hon. members, require a speech of some length.
In one sense, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-184 is an exceptionally simple item of legislation. The title, which I have just cited, describes the bill in all its essentials. It will establish a Canadian corporation, to be called Telesat Canada, with will develop, own and operate a domestic communications satellite system.
In another sense, however, Bill C-184 is highly complex. The type of corporation proposed is unique in this country. It goes beyond the pecedents set by the Panarctic Corporation in this country and by COMSAT in the United States by combining into a single entity three interests or groups: the government; private industry, which in this instance means the common carriers; and the

April 14, 1969
Telesat Canada Act
public at large. I do not know of any parallel anywhere, but for lack of knowledge of what has been done in countries other than on this continent do not claim this tripartite concept is unique. I do, however, believe that the concept contained within this bill, though not the specific details of the satellite corporation, may serve as a pathfinder for future government-public-private industry partnerships.
As I shall describe in greater detail later, such a three cornered partnershp, which must balance the self-interest of each partner against the interest of the operation as a whole, and which must also strike a balance between financial involvement and management responsibility, is a delicate and difficult exercise. But it is, I am certain, an exercise worth undertaking.
The bill is also complex because of the nature of the undertaking itself. It breaks new technical and scientific ground in a field that is undergoing continuous and rapid change. This field, communications, is one with profound political and sociological implications, and these implications have been reflected in the keen interest taken by hon. members in all aspects of communications, whether in those of the message or, as in this case, in those of the medium. I might at this point mention that I am glad that members of the Broadcasting Committee, which at a later stage will be examining this legislation clause by clause, were able to witness the launching of the ISIS-1 satellite and to visit the satellite ground station at Mill Village.
If some members, aside from acquiring background information, found themselves perplexed by the technological complexities of telecommunications projects I can only frankly admit that there are times when I find myself similarly perplexed.

To return to the bill now under study. Before commenting on it in general, I would like to sketch its background, that is, its justification.
Essentially it is a case of supply and demand combining into a project for the national benefit. The supply exists because Canada has acquired a considerable expertise in space matters and in telecommunications. As all hon. members know, Canadians are per capita the greatest telephone users in the world. As all hon. members may not know we have the second-most extensive telecommunications system in the world, with a microwave network of 50,000 miles. In the
[Mr. Kierans.l
conquest of space, while our contribution is modest by comparison to those of the United States and the USSR, we nevertheless rank among the pioneers.
Alouette 1, launched in September 1962, made Canada the third nation in the world to have an orbiting satellite, and it has been followed by two other Canadian-designed and built satellites. At the Communications Research Center, at Shirley Bay, we have built up a substantial bank of information on space communications. A good number of Canadian companies, most notably Northern Electric and RCA-Victor, have demonstrated their ability by securing important export contracts in this highly competitive field. In sum we possess the know-how and competence to ensure that in any future projects1, in that of a domestic communications satellite system, there will be a substantial Canadian component with an overflow of benefits both industrial and scientific.
Far more important than supply is1 demand. The abundance of skills and knowledge does not necessarily create a demand for them.
When the need exists, the nation as a whole benefits; when it does not, we are faced with the discouraging problem of brains and talent migrating elsewhere. The need for a domestic satellite system, and hence for the use of our skills, becomes self-evident simply by considering the size of the country. As has^ been noted many times, Canada is an expression of geography: since we can find in it highly-urbanized concentrations of population, together with a vast, and largely undeveloped hinterland. A domestic communications satellite system alone will provide the necessary means1 to narrow the gap in the standards as well as in the services inherent to those two Canadian characteristics.
As I said in an earler speech, it amounts to a northern vision for the 1970s. A domestic communications satellite system can fulfill the following needs:
First, provide television coverage in the north and in underdeveloped regions. There is no other economic way this can be done.
Second, provide telephone and message communication service to the north and to underdeveloped regions to bring these areas into the mainstream of Canadian life by high-quality telecommunications.
Third, provide an extension of television service in both languages to all Canadians. This satellite, Mr. Speaker, will broadcast both in French and in English, in short it will speak the languages of Canada.
April 14, 1969

Fourth, establish a second and supplementary service to the existing east-west microwave network so as to ensure telecommunications from coast to coast.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)

This fourfold demand can only be met by a domestic communications satellite system. Because we need such a system, and because we possess the means to build it, this bill will set in motion the construction of the first domestic communication satellite system in the western world. It represents the same kind of confidence in the future which Canada demonstrated shortly after world war II by her decision to develop a nuclear-fuelled power system. As hon. members know, our national scientific and industrial resources are limited. We can succeed only by concentrating our resources in areas where there is a direct national need and a definable prospect of financial and technological return on investment. We can afford neither to bite off more than we can chew, nor, by being too timid, to totally lose our taste for competition. Communication satellites fulfil these qualifications. They represent an opportunity to be grasped and a challenge to be met.
The implications of this convergence of supply and demand have been demonstrated by the interest shown by a number of organizations in the possibility of a domestic communications satellite system. The first such proposal, and the organization deserves credit for its initiative, was made in 1966 by Power Corporation and Niagara Television Corporation. Subsequently, proposals were made by the common carriers, the Trans-Canada Telephone System and Canadian Pacific-Canadian National, and by R.C.A. Victor. The government's own interest was demonstrated by the formation, in 1967, of a special satellite task force headed by Dr. John Chapman who is now an Assistant Deputy Minister in the Department of Communications. The findings of the task force were made public in the government white paper of April, 1968. Its essential recommendation was, and I quote: Having carefully considered the relative merits of public and private ownership of satellite communication facilities, the government will propose that a corporation be formed by special statute of parliament to develop, own and operate both the satellites and the earth stations of the system, consistent with relevant international agreements. The government will propose to encourage private participation in the corporation and to this end will initiate discussions with the interested parties.
Telesat Canada Act
The pattern of ownership needed to maintain effective government control in those matters involving national interest will emerge from these discussions.
This bill incorporates into the law the central recommendation of the white paper. The three groups-government, private industry and the public-will each own a proportion of the system. That proportion of ownership will be reflected in representations on the board of the Satellite Corporation. Without shares there will be no board representation for any party, nor will there be shares without votes nor votes without shares. In other words, there will be no power without financial responsibility and no responsibility without power.
Subsequent to the publication of the white paper, planning for the system has moved ahead, conducted by a special project office with the Department of Communications. During the past nine months continuous and extensive discussions have taken place with all the parties interested: the potential users and participants including the common carriers and C.B.C.; the provinces; other government departments; manufacturing industries. Discussions have also been carried on with authorities in Europe and in the United States and will be carried out with the appropriate international bodies on such matters as frequency allocations. All these discussions have proceeded satisfactorily and I might say that no difficulties have arisen relating to international aspects of the system or to the launching of the satellite. In addition, we have had the benefit of a special financial study conducted by Mr. Robert McIntosh, General Manager of the Bank of Nova Scotia and of technical studies by Northern Electric and R.C.A. Victor.
All of these strands have been brought together in this bill. I would like at this point to praise the efforts and the efficiency of the officials of the Communications Department, and in particular those of Gilles Bergeron, formerly head of the satellite project office and now assistant deputy minister in the department. It is thanks to their efforts that the project is not only proceeding on schedule, but at the moment in fact is slightly ahead of schedule. This has happened although the critical paths involved have been taxing in the extreme. The legislation, which as I have said breaks new legal ground, has had to be drafted; simultaneously negotiations of crucial importance to the success of the project have had to be carried on with the principal users and participants; the technical profile of the satellite itself has

April 14. 1969
Telesat Canada Act
had to be selected and specifications prepared so that procurement of the spacecraft segment can be initiated next month. The target date for the launching of the satellite is late 1971, with the system due to begin operation early in 1972. This is an exceptionally tight schedule and it permits no slippages. I might add that all of this has been accomplished by the officials of the department at the same time as the Department of Communications itself was in the process of being formed and of acquiring personnel.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, we arrive at the bill itself. The purpose of the bill, and the raison d'etre of the corporation it will create, is set out clearly in clause 5 titled "Object of the Company". The preceding and succeeding paragraphs amplify those objectives and provide the means to accomplish them.
Clause 5 reads:
The objects of the company are to establish satellite telecommunication systems providing, on a commercial basis,-
That is on a profitable basis.
-telecommunication services between locations in Canada.
This means that the system will be constituted purely on a domestic basis; that it will provide telecommunications services by means of a satellite; and that it does this on a self-sustaining basis1-that is what commercial basis means-rather than by government subsidies.
Section 2 of clause 5 reads:
The company shall utilize, to the extent practicable and consistent with its commercial nature, Canadian research, design and industrial personnel, technology and facilities in research and development, connected with its satellite telecommunication systems and in the design and construction of the systems.

It is therefore our intention, Mr. Speaker, to utilize in this system a Canadian designed and built satellite and associated ground facilities.
The bill gives a detailed description of the structure of the corporation. Our planning has reached the stage where it is possible for me to describe the system in some detail.
From the start we have been faced with a range of alternatives in the type of system we could choose to build. As was said in the House, the cost of the total system-that is of satellite or satellites, launching facilities and ground stations-could range from $65 million

to $160 million, depending on whether we built a "compact" or a "Cadillac" system.
Having thoroughly considered these possibilities, we have opted for a "compact" system. Its cost will run from $65 million to $75 million, according to the estimates provided to the department and on the basis of the number and variety of ground stations it is decided to install.
That round sum will be made up of $40 million for the satellite, $6 million for the launcher and about $20 million for the ground segment which comprises a master control station, four regional-type multiple-access transmit-receive stations and some 20 northern television receive stations.
These figures are subject to change. For example, our initial estimate of about 20 northern television stations may be substantially revised upwards, if the current estimates of construction costs are borne out. The space segment of the system consists of a single satellite to be placed on geostationary orbit 23,000 miles above the equator and approximately in line with Winnipeg. The satellite itself will comprise six transponders, each able to transmit either a single broadband television channel or the equivalent of 600 telephone circuits. In the event of failure, either at launch or whilst in orbit, this satellite would be replaced by another of identical dimensions. Depending on the growth of demand, a second six-channel satellite could be launched and placed in orbit alongside the first.
The reason why we have chosen a "compact" system is that it meets all our needs at a price we can afford, both as a nation and as a satellite corporation.
The "Cadillac" system would have involved the construction of three satellites, two in orbit with the third in reserve on the ground. It would have also involved the immediate construction of an extensive terrestrial system, instead of, as we now plan, building up that system over the years to match demand. A "Cadillac" system would have provided high reliability in the event of satellite failure and freedom from noise interference during those times when the satellite is in conjunction with the sun and earth. These are marginal benefits which come at too high a price. In addition the two orbiting satellites would have provided a total of 12 television channels, far in excess of anticipated need.
This same consideration of excess capacity has led us to reject a proposal by Comsat that
April 14, 1969

Telesat Canada Act
Canada purchase one of the Intelsat-IV series of satellites. The proposed price was 2 per cent cheaper than for a Canadian-built satellite and launcher. For that sum we would have secured a 12-channel satellite, which could have constituted capacity far in excess of our needs. It was a case of things not coming cheaper by the dozen.
A further consideration in the choice of satellite, Mr. Speaker, is the obvious one that a Canadian-built satellite will add significantly to our scientific and industrial capacity and bring with it, significant opportunities for Canadian firms to secure export orders on similar communications systems being implemented in other countries.
During the clause-by-clause study in committee I will be glad to provide other technical and economic details as required by hon. members.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)

The system I have just described will be operated by the satellite corporation to be created by Bill C-184. Once the corporation itself is in full operation, and the scheduled date for this is September, 1969-between the passage of this legislation and the appointment of permanent officers for the corporation there will be a provisional board of directors as set out in clause 4-the corporation itself will develop the system, subject to such policy considerations as those set out in clause 5(2) and by the requirement for government approval of such initiatives as the construction of new ground stations as set out in clauses 8(1) and 8(2). The corporation therefore, once the system is in operation, will make decisions on expansion, whether of the terrestrial system or the space segment. Given the rapid and often unpredictable rate of expansion of the communications industry, it is impossible at this point to precisely predict the date at which the space segment of the domestic communications satellite system might need to expanded by the launching of a second six-channel satellite.
However, current discussions indicate the possibility that all six initial channels will be fully occupied, that is rented, when the first satellite goes into operation in 1972. The users would be the Trans-Canada Telephone System, in CN/CP and the C.B.C. At a minimum, four channels would be rented by this date with the full six occupied by 1975. However, 29180-475
it is possible, and indeed we are most hopeful, that all six channels will be rented by 1972 and this would naturally have a significant effect upon the profitability of the corporation.
Profitability is a determinate of the structure of the corporation. The common carriers have proposed that they alone construct and operate the system. The government, acting on the recommendations1 of the white paper, has rejected that proposal. The project serves a national purpose. Outer space, carrying with it major considerations of international policy, should not, in the government's judgment, become the preserve of a privately-owned corporation.
The other alternative, at the other end of the spectrum, is a wholly government-owned enterprise. The government could, at the taxpayers' expense, build and operate the system by itself. We have rejected this alternative.
The reason is that the common carriers have acquired an outstanding expertise in the economic development of telecommunications. They claim, and with ample justification, that Canada's telecommunications system ranks as one of the most efficient in the world. It would, in my view, be as unwise as it would be impractical to ignore the contribution which private industry can make to such a system.
A third possibility, which has been proposed, is that barring sole ownership by the common carriers the system should be restricted to a joint partnership of common carriers and government, with the public excluded. This possibility we have also rejected. The public are the final users of the system and will pay for it either directly through rates or indirectly through taxes. Public equity in a corporation initiated by the government fulfils the ideal of public participation in ventures undertaken in the name of the public; it fulfils also the urgent need for a broader selection of Canadian-owned companies available to Canadian investors. Finally, public participation will ensure accountability to the public at large rather than merely to those parties directly interested in the venture.
As hon. members will have noted, the bill does not specify the respective share ownership to be allocated to each of the three groups involved, that is government, common carriers, and public. The reason is that it was not possible, in a legal sense to do so at this time. Discussions with the common carriers are still continuing. Taking the extreme case

April 14, 1969
Telesat Canada Act
that the carriers should decide to decline all share ownership, in which event the government and public shares would be proportionately increased, then to have specified in the bill that the share allocated to the carriers must be such and such would render the bill inapplicable.
I can, however, inform hon. members of the principles upon which the proportionate division of ownership will be based. It has been our conclusion throughout that the share ownership of each of the three parties should be approximately equal and that in the case of none of the parties involved should it fall below 30 per cent. Given those determining considerations a logical division might be 33-J per cent; 33J per cent and 33J per cent. A tripartite division may differ fractionally from those1 percentages but will not, I can assure hon. members, vary to any substantial amount.
Further limitations on the distribution of share ownership are set out in Appendix B. Non-residents may not hold more than 20 per cent of the shares allotted to the public sector, that is approximately 7 per cent of the total shares issued by the corporation. No single shareholder in the public sector may hold more than 2J per cent of the total shares issued by the corporation. This provision is designed to promote the widest possible share ownership while at the same time permitting institutions with a direct interest in the corporation to acquire a measurable share ownership.


An hon. Member:: It is six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It has been drawn to the attention of the chair that it is six o'clock. It being six o'clock I now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, I have already described the rationale behind the public ownership. The considerations behind ownership by the common carriers deserve a more extended explanation. Aside from their expertise in telecommunications, the common carriers will be the principal users of the system. They will rent its services to retail to their own customers. The corporation will operate as a complement, not as a competitor,

to the common carriers. Except in the instances of the C.B.C. and of certain possible purchasers of a complete, undivided television channel on a sustaining basis, the sole customers of the corporation will be the common carriers.
The common carriers who will be eligible for share ownership in the corporation are listed in schedule A of the bill. One change in the list is required. Some hon. members, and most certainly those from the province involved, will have noted the absence of the Island Telephone Company. The reason is that only those eligible common carriers who expressed an interest in ownership were initially listed in schedule A. Subsequent discussions with Island Telephone have clarified this point, and at the appropriate stage in committee I will move the necessary amendment with pleasure. A parallel amendment will be required to accommodate the recent change in name of Saskatchewan Government Telephones to Saskatchewan Telecommunications. A means to ensure any other such needed changes in future is provided by clause 43.
At this point I should mention that I will, in committee, be moving a number of other amendments. For one of them I must apologize to hon. members. In the first line of clause 12(4)(e) there is a mis-translation from the French to the English text which was overlooked in proof-reading. The words "if any", after the phrase "shall fix the number of directors", should be deleted and will be deleted by an appropriate amendment. I will also place before the committee a number of other amendments, making these available to the committee at the start of its hearings. None of these amendments concern matters of substance and none affect any of the remarks I have made in this speech. They involve, however, particular aspects of the corporation's affairs where it appears the existing wording either lacks clarity or is susceptible of an interpretation other than that intended.
Such important but fine legal points can perhaps be most effectively discussed at the committee stage. My purpose here is to convey to hon. members as explicitly as I can the implications and content of the legislation they are being asked to approve. I have discussed ownership by the public and common carriers. I would like now to turn to that of the government. The project, as I have said, is one of national interest and national concern. It also involves important international
April 14, 1969

considerations. All these factors compel a significant government involvement; but that involvement should not, in my judgment, be majority ownership. Such a situation would make impossible significant share ownership by the public at large. The interests of the government, however, and also those of the other "block" partners, the common carriers, are protected by clause 33 which requires a two-thirds majority of the total votes before any changes can be made in the objects of the company. This means that either the government or the common carriers, together with any single owner of a single share, can prevent any change in policy by the corporation detrimental to their interests. Together with this' justified protection there is, in clause 33, a means provided for the corporation to take advantage of opportunities for expansion that would be in the best interests of all its shareholders, but only, I repeat, if such opportunities should be in the interests of all partners and subject to the receipt of letters patent by parliament.
Protection of the primary interest of the government is also incorporated into a number of other sections of the bill, such as clause 9 which requires ministerial approval of agreements negotiated with foreign bodies. Although, as set out in clause 34, the satellite corporation will be neither an agent of Her Majesty nor a crown corporation, it will be required to table its annual report in parliament.
A final and vital source of protection of national interests will come about through regulation. If the satellite system were in operation today, it would be subject to the provisions of the Radio Act both with respect to technical matters and to the scope of the system itself as it already applies to the terrestrial microwave system. It is our intention, as I have already informed the house, to study present and future telecommunications needs, and on the basis of these studies to recommend a national telecommunications policy and accompanying legislation for both satellite and terrestrial systems.
As I said earlier, the distribution of membership of the board of directors will reflect the distribution of share ownership. Financial commitment and responsibility will be directly linked. During the interim period the corporation will be managed by a provisional board of directors as set out in clause 4. It is considered appropriate that these provisional directors should to a degree reflect the eventual composition of the permanent board of directors.
Telesat Canada Act
Before completing this review of the bill, I would like to describe its financial aspects. The amounts of financing which will be required for the initial system will probably be approximately $60 million. This amount is based on the present estimates of the capital cost of the satellite system facilities. Depending on conditions of the capital markets and related factors, it might be possible to raise a portion of the required financing by means of term debt. While there is provision for the issue of preferred shares, it is not envisaged that these will be issued in the foreseeable future. In the circumstances, I cannot provide you with more specific details on the capitalization of the company nor of the exact timing for the necessary financing. However, my own view is that the management of the company will be in a position to proceed with the financing arrangements by the fall of the current year. I also believe that the three groups will participate concurrently. Bridge financing to sustain operations in the meantime will be provided by the government through the Department of Communications.
It will be noted that it is provided in the legislation that the government's participation will be limited to a maximum of $30 million in the shares of the corporation and a maximum of $40 million in loans. It is, of course, not expected that the initial investment by the government will reach the limits I have indicated. These limits were set high enough, however, to enable the government to ensure success of the system.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
At the start of this speech I apologized in advance for its length. Having completed it, I again apologize for having taken up so much time of the house. I will be glad to provide further information and to answer specific questions. The legislation, I recognize, is complex and perhaps difficult. It is designed to create a new and important type of partnership between government, the public and private industry, and to do this in a new and vitally important field of telecommunications. Specific interests that are at times competitive have to be reconciled with the national interest; and national interest has in turn to be balanced against the need to ensure an adequate return on investment by the shareholders of the corporation. This legislation, I am confident, achieves these aims.
Once in operation the domestic communications satellite system will constitute a project of which all Canadians will be proud. We will have blazed a trail both in what we are doing

April 14, 1969
Telesat Canada Act
and in the way that we are doing it. Above all, it will be a project that will help to knit together more closely this country and to narrow the gap in the differences in living standards between those Canadians who live amid the rigours of the frontier and those who live amid the comforts of the cities. In essence, the domestic communications satellite system will reflect, and will help to fulfil, the substance of confederation.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, may I begin by extending my congratulations to the minister in his new robes as Minister of Communications (Mr. Kierans). I should like to thank him also for his courtesy in providing me with a copy of his speech which I have followed with great care. My colleague on the right says that the minister did not send it by mail because I got it. That is the kind of unkindness that would never come to my mind.
I want to assure the minister that it is my intention to speak briefly. Perhaps this is so because there are things in the Post Office Department to which he should be giving his attention, and I do not want to delay unduly the passage of this legislation. If I were as nasty as the editors of the Winnipeg Free Press and the Oshawa Times, I might suggest it would be a good thing for the Post Office to involve my friend the minister in communications for a while. But I would not go along with that at all.
I want to congratulate the minister in a general way for bringing forward this measure. He is right; it is very important. He is right also that many of us have been asking him about it for a long time. However, I was not quite sure he was right when, with the natural pride of legislative paternity, he suggested that the corporation was ahead of time. I believe in fact that it is a little behind the times. His colleague, the unofficial minister of science, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), declared in March of 1968 that the expectation was that this bill would be ready last fall. To that extent the present minister is running behind the hopeful forecasts of the President of the Treasury Board.
There is much to which one might react in this very interesting speech. I was moved by the minister's concern for the communication needs of the people who live in the remote areas of our country, and the thought went through my mind that in certain remote areas of the country the same minister is quite capable of closing down post offices, telescoping rural deliveries and, thus on terrestrial

levels slowing down the process of communications. I was impressed also when he indicated that the proper way to proceed was as he mentioned at page 5 of his statement. He said that we can afford neither to bite off more than we can chew, nor, by being too timid, to totally lose our taste for competition.
At that moment he sounded like a Progressive Conservative-cautious, yet forward looking. I was deeply moved when he spoke about the opportunities which this corporation gave Canadian citizens for investment. I wondered if the Canada Development Corporation, which has taken a bow but never gone up the aisle these many years, was in fact going to emerge in a new form, and that through this opportunity the dreams of his dear friend, Mr. Walter Gordon, would find expression in this particular way. We will see later on, as we hear several more speeches from the throne, whether or not in fact this is to be the case.
I am impressed by some of the figures which the minister has produced. I never thought that he would go for a compact instead of a Cadillac. I hope that this is not short range economy and long range folly. This is an aspect we will have to look into a bit more fully.
I note certain deviations from that stern certainty which characterizes the minister when he describes the future use and the dates of development of the various channels. With regard to the whole bill, I suffered the kind of pangs which do not usually trouble me, and these were procedural ones. I wondered if in fact we were not dealing with a measure which should not be dealt with in the terms of this particular item. We do not have in this parliament a very long record of hybrid bills. The British have such a long tradition, and in fact the standing orders of Westminster have a place for hybrid bills. It would seem to me that we are dealing with something which would fit all the requirements of a hybrid bill or perhaps, since the minister is moving in scientific circles, I should say which would fit within the parameters of a hybrid bill. This bill combines the private and public sectors and might properly be treated in a somewhat different way from that which is ahead of us if this particular stage of the bill carries.
A hybrid bill is a public bill which affects private interests in such a way that if it were a private bill it would, under proper procedure, require preliminary notice to be served on affected parties. This bill has many of the
April 14, 1969

characteristics of a private bill, since it does affect the interests of specific individuals or corporations as distinct from all individuals or corporations of a similar category. If I were a procedural expert like my colleague in front of me I would get off into quite an orbit on this, to use the appropriate terminology tonight. But I do not want to get above my depth, so to speak. However, I am wondering if the minister might consult his advisers in this field, men learned in procedure like the minister from Nova Scotia who is a very able parliamentarian, and reflect upon the value and virtue of regarding this piece of legislation as a hybrid bill. It is clear that what we are setting up is not a public corporation. It is not owned by the Crown on behalf of the public, and therefore it is not a public corporation but rather a private one.
Therefore, some of the procedures followed with regard to private legislation should be considered and conceivably invoked. If this is declared a hybrid bill, of course, the bill would have to be adequately advertised. Second reading would be followed by referral to a special committee of the house or of both houses, and full opportunities would be given to members of the public, the third sector to appear before a special committee.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I do not intend to press this point because I expect to receive an assurance that in the standing committee every opportunity will be given to allow interested people to present their views on this important and, in many ways, unique piece of legislation. I agree with the minister that this is a very complex bill. It is a lengthy bill. It is confusing, and sometimes it is contradictory. I was brought up to appreciate good English rather than legal English and this always places me in difficulty when I start to read the statutes. I find that schedule B is one of the most massive omnibus sections I have ever encountered. It seems that everything which had not been thought of earlier has been dumped into this omnibus schedule. Many of the things I thought lacking in the statute I later found in B. So, it is extremely important that this bill be given close scrutiny in the committee.
It is clear already that one section of the tripartite group is not as happy about things as the minister's speech would lead us to believe. I refer to the common carriers. They were in Ottawa not long ago and I read in one of the great newspapers in the land, the Globe and Mail, that they expressed certain
Telesat Canada Act
reservations about this bill. I should like to read some of the comments made in an authoritative article written by Terrence Bel-ford on the day following this meeting.
Trans-Canada Telephone System is not happy with some parts of the federal government's domestic satellite bill... The working of some clauses in the bill and the implications of others, have prompted the system to act.
System officials have held discussions with the federal Communications Department and have received verbal assurances that some changes may be made.
I was surprised at the limited nature of the changes to which the minister referred tonight. Many things were brought up. One spokesman pointed out that there is no definition of "common carriers"-just a list. Incidentally, I should like to congratulate the minister upon adding the Island Telephone Company, I myself noticed the omission on the first day.


An hon. Member:: No causeway, but
telephones.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: With all his faults, the minister is not always wrong, and that was a good move. The report states:
Mr. Krupski presented the system's view: "We could not really be part owner and be on the board of a company which is in direct competition with us. This has to be made quite clear and it is not in the bill.
We feel that interpretations should be reflected in words. There is no disagreement in principle, I am sure, but the bill does not reflect the apparent agreement.
So he believes that something which is apparent should become linguistic, and this is not really an unfair suggestion. He ends by saying:
I'm sure the government will be very co-operative and consider our questions in this matter, but where we go from there I'm not too certain. It depends on what agreements we can reach with the government.
So all is not sweet harmony even at this stage as far as the common carriers are concerned. I hold no brief for the common carriers although the minister, in his other role as Postmaster General, might well associate with that body and learn something from them. As he says, they have established a fine record. They are improving the service and lowering the cost. Whereas he, as Postmaster General-we all know what he is doing. Service is deteriorating and costs are increasing. So perhaps some cross-pollination with those carriers might not be a bad thing. In any event, if the common carriers, experts in this field

April 14, 19B9
Telesat Canada Act
with whom the minister has had many discussions, are prepared, having seen this legislation, to say, publicly what they obviously have said to the Globe and Mail, I am wondering about the public with whom no consultations have taken place. For this reason I come back to the importance of broadening the area of testimony and consultation in the committee. Again, I suggest that this should be regarded as a hybrid bill.
The potential shareholders will surely have many inquiries to make. For a long time some of us have been asking about the Macintosh report. Here is a very competent man, ^ an economist, a scholar and a banker, who has looked into this whole question. We expected to read what Dr. Macintosh thought. Now we find that his report is not to be made available. But, surely, he will come before the committee, and allow Members of Parliament, the public and potential investors to draw upon his incomparable knowledge and thorough research so that all may better understand this important piece of legislation. This is one thing to which I am looking forward. I am very anxious to hear from Dr. Macintosh partly, perhaps, because I am not at all statisfied by the reasons given for not revealing his report.
Although I planned to make only a cursory set of comments there are some points which come to mind. First, the bill strikes me as one which gives immense authority and power to the government, to the minister. As I read it over, every so often I ran across something like this: "the company shall not, except under the direction of the minister-" do so and so. And when I finally came to the clause setting up the board of directors there seemed very little left for the board to do.
Mr. Speaker, there are many boards of directors of companies operating with great success in this country which would not countenance for a moment the limitations placed upon the board of directors here. In this case, directors are circumscribed in so many ways that it seems they do not have the ordinary discretionary powers usually given. I wonder, too, just what is to be the role of parliament in reference to this company. What will the place of parliament be when the company, like the satellite, is launched? Will there be even the kind of tenuous association we have with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation? I was impressed by the statement that it is not to be a Crown corporation. It is to be something different. It Is not to be an agent of Her Majesty or a

Crown corporation under the meaning of the Financial Administration Act. It is, then, to be something else-something which we must analyse.
* (8:30 p.m.)
I was interested, also, in the potential role of the provincial governments, if any. This satellite company will be involved in the management of an important educational vehicle, if I may use that word. I do not know whether it is quite so simple as the Ministers of Education think. They seem to believe that a satellite is like a blackboard in the sky; nevertheless, it will have educational opportunities anid ramifications. Will the provinces feel that this might be an area of functional federalism? Might it appear, as one looks over schedule A and sees the list of approved telecommunications common carriers noting that some of them are in fact owned by provincial governments, that we will have a situation where some provinces get a voice indirectly, or a piece of the control, which is denied other provinces? Are we building in here a source of future irritation and misunderstanding? I think this question should be reflected upon too.
The minister commented that the proportions to be held by each of the three could not be set forth precisely. While I have the greatest respect for his business success and competence, I find myself not quite persuaded that it would not have been wiser to be more precise and definite. The minister indicates there will be a rough range, and that there will not be much deviation therefrom. It would seem not too difficult to declare that a certain percentage will be held by one group and another percentage by the other two.
Surely, it is not impossible to write such a provision into the legislation. Surely, in the discussions with the common carriers some rough calculations must have been made. And surely from those rough calculations it would not be too difficult a step to set out some precise percentage in the legislation.
I have been reading the projected costs, I sometimes felt endlessly over these many months, and the minister has his figures down pretty compactly. I had read nothing before that led me to believe that his figures, even for a compact satellite, were in actuality likely to be realistic. I notice the minister is not taking up the option of a United States built model at the kind of rate that no Canadian automobile purchaser would ever get, namely a better vehicle at a lower price!
April 14, 1969

I am not saying that I would argue with the minister about that. I know there are advantages, and I think important advantages, especially in the realm of industrial innovation, in putting up our own satellite. But I am wondering-and I got no inkling from the minister's speech-how far we are going with this technological nationalism. Are we going into the field of doing our own launching? I realize people knowledgeable in this field recently suggested this could indeed be done, and perhaps there are also opportunities for industrial innovation in Canada if we do move into that field. I do not want to oversimplify a field that I do not find simple by any means, but perhaps some of the arguments that apply to the vehicle itself might well apply to taking a look also at the launching process.
I am still wondering what the cost is going to be to the Canadian people. Will it be $30 million, or $70 million? What is the involvement of the government of Canada both in control and in cost? This is an important venture. I heard the minister on one occasion liken it to the building of railways, and when he did that he frightened me a little because I know what happened in this country as past governments became involved, voluntarily or otherwise, in the railway building process. I looked back over Hansards of some years ago to read about figures produced by ministers from the same party as the Minister of Communications indicating the involvement of the Canadian government in the building of railways, and these were very, very minor compared with the actual bills which came in some years later.
After all these months of study and consultation, and despite the too frequent areas of flexibility and uncertainty in the minister's speech, I hope that we do know where we are going in this field. I hope this project will not be another Bonaventure or National Centre for the Performing Arts. To have a Canadian satellite is worth a lot. It is worth a lot to stimulate Canada's scientific and technological initiative, and I think the people of Canada are prepared for that. There is a general feeling in the country that this is a move that we should make. But let us have a reasonable degree of confidence that this time the figures are realistic and that we are not heading down a path that will prove far, far more costly than we thought when we entered upon it. Therefore, I appeal to the minister in this whole process not to devaluate the aspect of cost that is involved.
Telesat Canada Act
The minister also mentioned the question of majority shareholding. I read in the Ottawa Citizen this afternoon that the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Schreyer) was going to bring this up. I also read what the minister was going to say. However, there is no indication that I was going to say anything, and if this happens to me again I will cut off my subscription! I am not convinced that 51 per cent would not have been a workable, reasonable, indeed proper figure.
I am interested, too, in some of the things the Governor in Council can do under this bill. Indeed, the common carriers have referred to this aspect. The Governor in Council may delete the name of any corporation from schedule A on the ground that the corporation is no longer an approved telecommunications common carrier. However, I can find nothing in the bill that provides any avenue of appeal against such decision. Can these corporations be ticked off as easily as that? Is there a comeback? Clause 44 (4) provides no appeal, either; there could be some pretty high-handed operations here. These are matters on which I want to hear more elucidation.
One aspect of the legislation that disturbed me was the lack of regulatory authority. The minister did touch on that in the latter portion of his speech when he said that if the satellite were in orbit and operating now, the Radio Act would provide the necessary regulations. I wonder what Mr. Pickersgill will say when he reads that. As our legislation stands now, he might have the lingering thought that he has a role to play there too. I think that here the legislation is not as thorough as that which was passed in the Congress of the United States setting up COMSAT. I know we do not have a body quite like the F.C.C. But, I am impressed with the thought the people to the south have given to this matter. Surely, the regulation of a body such as is to be set up is of the utmost importance. We will watch this aspect as well. The silence in the bill on this regulatory aspect has caused me some anxiety which has been alleviated only in a limited way by what the minister said tonight. I am glad he said what he did on this particular aspect. There is much in the bill which makes it look as if the corporation or company-to use that expression-is a business. It is not a crown corporation and not a government department. It is a business. It strikes me that it is too much like a business run by the cabinet or the minister.
Telesat Canada Act

April 14, 1969
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
If we opt for public ownership, and I presume the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Schreyer) might be sympathetic to that point of view-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: -well and good. I am not so narrow minded or blinded by historic facts to say that public ownership is always bad. It is not. On the other hand, sometimes it is atrocious. But it we opt for public ownership and public control in this area, why not go ini through the front door instead of through these devious regulatory devices which take us in through the back door? Perhaps this mixed economic marriage is a good idea. I confess that I think it is. I think it would be very foolish not to draw, in any joint participation, on the expertise and knowledge as well as concern for advancement which has been shown by the private sector in this field. Yet, I wonder if it would not have been smarter to draw up the terms of the marriage contract more precisely? Too many things in it are not clear and could, in fact, be dangerous. So, I think as this bill is scrutinized it will be in the interests of the country and of our telecommunications advancement, which means a great deal to all of us, to bring in amendments that are a good deal more far reaching than those mentioned by the minister. That, I think, is why we must scrutinize this bill, carefully in committee.
This is a tremendously important piece of legislation, and the minister is1 quite right in saying that in1 many ways it is unique. It is too easy to be excited about the glamour of it all, to be carried away by a sort of sophisticated scientific nationalism and to say that we will get something up there, and! that is all there is to it. There are too many technological ramifications that we have not examined. Tremendous problems are associated with this kind of economic entity, if I may call it that, and I think the minister will benefit from the views of people in the field. Already he has run afoul of the common carriers, and those problems must be worked out. There are other problems here. I think if he is able to show some degree of flexibility, if we find in committee that there is no heavy-handed partisanship, if people generally recognize that this is a complex area from which we all may benefit immensely and if there is an agreeable attitude toward improvements no matter from what source these suggestions come, then there may emerge a

bill which will be worthy of the things this corporation will be charged with directing for years to come.
I share the minister's enthusiasm for our role in the telecommunications field. I agree with him in what he says about the contributions of Canadian men of science. He has some able and most excellent people in his department; they are people who have built up a reputation across this country and beyond this country. There are people in private industry in this field in Canada whose reputation extends far beyond Canada and I think it is wise to have them all working together. No effort ought to be spared to make that working relationship harmonious and meaningful.
At this stage of the bill I will say no more than to express generally my approval of this advance, to wish it well, and to suggest that no effort ought to be spared to bring the greatest improvements possible to this legislation. In this way we may have the very best type of controlling body presiding over our telecommunications satellite, the launching of which will bring a feeling of pride to all of us. We do not want it launched with any spirit of bitterness or any feeling that certain things could have been done 'better. I hope we will make a concerted effort to transcend partisanship, to transcend bureaucratic empirebuilding and to make our very best contribution to this most important project.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, ever since word went out that the government of Canada was thinking of establishing a space communications satellite, I have supported that notion enthusiastically. I supported it for many of the reasons the minister enunciated this afternoon and this evening when he spoke in support of the legislation. The minister has told us why we must go ahead with all determination and with all the benefits of our research and available expertise in the setting up of this communication satellite corporation. It is hardly necessary for me to repeat or emphasize what he said. Certainly, it is evident that by establishing a satellite system we shall enable industry across this country to communicate more efficiently and with more sophistication. The satellite will be a tremendous boon to the remote areas of the country and particularly to the northern frontier of Canada. It will also be of service in providing channels of communication between different parts of the country in both Canadian official languages. For all these reasons we support the notion
April 14, 1969

that we should go ahead with the establishment of a communications satellite corporation.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
As I said about a month ago, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me important we should want to assist the Canadian scientific community to develop the expertise connected with space, with communication by satellite, and that we should be taking an important step toward giving our scientific community something concrete to work on, something that will give that community an important place in the world.
It is a sad commentary on human history that in the past, whenever there was a surge forward in the development of new technology, it always seemed to be at a time of war. Man's imagination should not be so limited. His capacity for progress- should not be so limited that progress can take place at an impressive rate only at a time of war. Here, today, we have an opportunity to do something concrete in the way of giving our best brains a chance to work on a project that will be of benefit to the country for diverse reasons, all of them important, and at the same time assist in the forward movement of technology.
But having listened to the minister say this afternoon that this bill to establish a Canadian communications satellite corporation has profound political and sociological implications, and I certainly agree it has, and having heard him say some three weeks ago when speaking on his estimates that the communications industry is the central nervous system of our society, one can only be utterly amazed with the kind of bill he has asked us to endorse. Two words characterize this legislation. It is a sell-out of the Canadian public interest.
If the minister is correct that what is involved here has profound political and sociological implications, and if the industry involved is the central nervous system of our society, how can he justify putting this corporation under a form of ownership that is hybrid, that is somehow bastardized so that one does not know whether it is public or private or what strange combination of both it may be? Even the minister is not able to tell us exactly in what ratio the public or the common carriers will be represented in the ownership of this corporation, or to what extent shares will be taken up by subscription.
Telesat Canada Act
I had great admiration for the minister's actions when he was a provincial minister in Quebec. At that time he said it was important for a province and its people to develop a firm economic base. He spoke in favour of the idea that the steel industry in that province should be given an impetus by the formation of a publicly owned corporation, Sidbec. I am sure he, himself, will recall other instances where he came out in favour of public ownership. But if ever a case could be made for public ownership it can be made for this sector of our society, the communications sector. However, apparently the minister has had to make one of the many political compromises that are necessary and has agreed to sponsor this bill which will give the Canadian public perhaps 30 per cent of the ownership of this corporation that is to be the central nervous system of our society.
The minister will reply that provision is made for the public to enter into ownership by simply buying up shares. He seems to take pride in saying that no single purchaser will be allowed to buy more than 2is per cent of the shares of the corporation. Presumably the implication is that this will provide for a wide, diffuse ownership, ownership that will not be concentrated in the hands of a few.
But when one pauses to reflect, it does not take one long to see that perhaps 2 per cent of 3 per cent of the Canadian population is all that is involved, and that this provision is of no practical use to 95 per cent of the population. Sometimes I am not sure whether I am a social democrat or one who favours people's capitalism. If it is the idea of people's capitalism that motivates the minister to write in a provision that ownership of shares shall be restricted to 2-J per cent per individual, that is still far from ensuring that there will be wide, diffuse ownership by the general public.
Without fear of exaggerating one can say that the outcome of this legislation will be that approximately 2 per cent to 3 per cent of the Canadian public will derive financial benefit. This will be growth stock. There is no question about that. It is one of the glamor stocks. The minister himself used the word glamorous in reference to the corporation, and 2 per cent to 3 per cent of the Canadian public will benefit at the expense of the general public. It would be far better if this important corporation were established as a publicly owned institution under the aegis of the Crown.

April 14, 1969
Telesat Canada Act
Two or three weeks ago we advanced the proposition that since a role coming under provincial jurisdiction was involved in the field of communications, and since educational television somehow impinges on this whole matter of communications, then for reasons of constitutionality plus better dominion-provincial relations it would be worthwhile to consider the notion that this corporation be established as a publicly owned Crown corporation. Fifty-one per cent of the shares should be owned by the Crown in the right of the federal government, and the balance allocated proportionately and appropriately to the Crown in right of the several provinces. If the minister likes new ideas, and he is the sort of man who does, I believe he would be doing Canadian unity a great tangible service if he would pause and consider this proposition.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
If there are some sound logical reasons that this proposition is not feasible, let us hear them. Ini my opinion, it is inexcusable to place in a position of increased power and privilege the common carriers, the major privately owned corporations, many of whom have exercised influence and power in this country disproportionately for a long time. Let us not pretend we can somehow rely on the process of governmental regulation to protect the public interest. For years I have been suspicious that government regulation was a highly bureaucratic and expensive way to proceed but that sometimes it was necessary if there was no alternative way to protect the public interest. A few weeks ago I had occasion to speak to a man who for a period of many years was an economist with the F.C.C. of the United States, a man whose experience certainly made him qualified to speak. The distinct impression I got from him backed up my suspicion that regulation is an expensive way to proceed and should be avoided if there is an alternative available to protect the public interest. I suggest there is in a case such as this, and that is public ownership.
The way this government has chosen to proceed will he expensive. The government will be sharing the revenues from this corporation with the common carriers who have a vested interest. Their relationship to this corporation will be in the nature of vertical integration because presumably they will lease or rent services from this satellite system and in turn retail the services to their own customers. If that is not vertical integration, then I

do not know the meaning of the term. It is vertical integration. I suggest this is a phenomena which we should choose to dis>-courage rather than encourage. So, we are extending to the common carriers, who as I say for a long time have enjoyed economic power and privilege out of proportion in this country, the right to exercise more of that type of power. They will enjoy the net revenues of this corporation. It will be necessary to regulate their participation. This means it will be necessary to hire quite a number of people to staff the regulatory agency. The public taxpayer, in the end, will be the loser.
It seems to me that we might have benefited at least somewhat from the experience in the United States. A few years ago Congress enacted legislation to establish COMSAT which in turn will be a major shareholder in Telesat. I recall distinctly the minister this afternoon saying that communication, in its international aspect, should be owned and controlled by the national government representing the people. I am sure he said something to that effect or very close to it. The fact is, however, that while in some fields of communication the international organizations are owned and controlled by national governments, in the field of telecommunication by satellite the international organization is owned by a giant privately owned organization. We hope the world trend will be away from that position and somehow the necessary changes will be made so that international telecommunication in the future will be owned and controlled by an agency which in turn is owned and controlled by the representatives of the people.
I believe there is a growing body of opinion in the United States that a mistake was made in the first place when ownership of an industry as important as telecommunication by satellite was allowed to be concentrated in the hands of privately owned giants. I should like to mention something about research and development. Because telecommunication by satellite is a new field, obviously there will be a large program of research and development before there is sufficient expertise and technical competence to go ahead with the actual launching. The minister tried to use this as an argument for private ownership. He says there exists in the common carriers in Canada a pool of expertise upon which the government would be foolish to turn its back. No
April 14, 1969

Telesat Canada Act
one suggests for a moment that the government should turn its back on expertise wherever it exists in this country. The government has a pool of expertise as well in organizations such as the Defence Research Board and the National Research Council.
Let us not forget this very important point. All the common carriers and some of the other companies in this country such as R.C.A., Northern Electric and Bell Telephone which have developed expertise in this field of communication by satellite have done so oftentimes with the help of public moneys issued by way of grants through the Department of Industry for the purpose of science research. No one is complaining about that. There is a problem, however, in respect of a company which is a subsidiary of a United States parent. When that company obtains grants from the government of Canada to engage in research and then develops expertise or a new technique, a situation may arise. I am sure the minister will not deny that in the past there have been instances where the fruits of the research which has been financed by public money have been siphoned out of Canada through the process of the parent company deciding it would export a particular product or technique to some foreign market. In such a situation the subsidiary operating here, and which has been doing so with Canadian public money, has been frozen out by a policy decided at the central parent headquarters.
What guarantee do we have that a similar situation might not arise in respect of this corporation? Some of the companies which the minister has invited into partnerships in this corporation are either directly or indirectly in liaison with United States corporations in the communications industry. I would be surprised if the Canadian public is not taken for a bit of a ride in so far as research and development with public funds is concerned. Therefore, it would seem to me that the public interest would be better protected if we were to spend money developing the expertise through the medium of a corporation that is financed, owned and controlled by the people of this country, that is a Crown corporation. I do believe, although I have no way of proving it, that if the minister were able to act on his own judgment he would not have proposed legislation such as is contained in Bill C-184.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
There is no point in becoming vindictive about this. The minister is a member of the
governing team, the cabinet, and as part of the normal process of political compromise I suppose it must be said that the minister is trying to make the best possible arrangement. Let me say that if this were only a small and unimportant matter one need not become indignant about the fact that it is proposed here to offer to private ownership something that should really, in the public interest, be kept under public ownership. This is not something small or unimportant.
In conclusion, I should like to say that what is at stake here is, in the minister's own words, something vital to present and prospective Canadian unity; something vital to the solution to problems which plague confederation today; something vital to the Canadian north; something vital to the frontiers of our country, and certainly something important and of interest to remote settlements from coast to coast whose industries today, as we all know, are dependent on rapid communication.
I cannot disagree for one second with the minister in his statement that this is indeed our central nervous system and that his department is responsible for administering to the needs of this system. Therefore, it is completely unacceptable that this central nervous system should somehow not be controlled by us. I find that rather strange. For that reason I wish to move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis):
That Bill No. C-184 be not now read a second time, but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house consideration should be given to establishing the proposed Telesat Canada as a Crown corporation, with provision for participation therein by the governments of the provinces as well as by the government of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
Chair would like to take this amendment under advisement and will render its decision later.


Mr. Romuald Rodrigue (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like first to congratulate the minister. In his statement he provided us with many interesting details. I should like to commend him also for introducing this measure in the house so that we may somewhat appraise the policy of the government in. this field of such significance for all Canadian people and which provides us with some indications as to what is in the best interests, of Canada and the Canadian people in the field of satellite telecommunications.

April 14. 1969
Telesat Canada Act
Unfortunately, upon reading Bill C-184 as introduced by the government, we are somewhat puzzled as to the intentions of the government and the true policies which it intends to pursue in this field.
With regard to the introduction of this bill, if we go over its background, we realize that private enterprise, especially the sector concerned with communications and satellite communications is greatly interested in the establishment of a telecommunications network which could serve Canada as a whole.
Among those who claim to be the promoters of such a project, mention must be made of the Transcanadian Telephone Network which includes the common carriers mentioned in Schedule A of the bill. To those telephone service carriers engaged at the present time in telecommunications, we should also add the CN-CP telecommunications, a joint concern of both railway networks. The reasons which prompted' those carriers to establish a Canadian satellite telecommunications system are set out in a brief which was presented in May 1967. The main reasons for promoting the development of such a network were to improve the ground communications system in Canada, so as to provide more services to all parts of Canada in fields of television, radio, telephone and the transmission of computer data. All those common carriers claim to be most suitable to build, develop and own ground facilities. They are also ready to take upon themselves the responsibility of the "space" aspect of the program. They claim to possess everything that is required in the administrative, financial and technological fields in order to carry out successfully such a project.
In that first brief, the above-mentioned common carriers add the following:
Just as they have done as regards the other components of the Canadian integrated communications system, the telecommunications common carriers are ready to finance the building of a satellite communication system and to operate it under government administration.
In July 1967, the National Research Council of Canada, taking into account the Special Study No. 1 of the Science secretariat, better known under the name of "Chapman Report", called for the drawing up and the carrying out of an overall space program for all Canada, and the appointment of a board of directors, the members of which would be selected from industry, the universities and the public service of Canada. The Council was advocating in a way the creation of a corporation or a

body responsible to a minister appointed by the Crown.
It was in March 1968 that the former Minister of Industry and Commerce (Mr. Drury) announced the government's intentions in the white paper entitled "A domestic satellite communication system for Canada".
The white paper came to the conclusion that it was necessary to create a satellite telecommunication system, since it was the most economical, in order to serve all the Canadian people.
The Canadian government also stated that all things being considered, it was advisable that it should take part in the creation of a corporation that would build, own and operate the satellites as well as the ground facilities of such a system. It also invited private enterprise to participate in the establishment and operation of such a corporation.
Following the presentation of that white paper, the Canadian telephone system and the CN-CP Telecommunications presented new "Considerations and Recommendations". In rather plain language, the brief described their resources and competence and added that such a system would perhaps never be economic.
On the other hand, the brief added that it would be necessary to create an integrated system "without using public funds."
Such are the misgivings and the objections of the telecommunications common carriers. They say on one hand, that the system can never be efficient and, on the other hand, that they are not in favour of committing public funds to the creation and to the operation of this system.
However, the authors of the brief accepted the invitation of the government and finally accepted the government co-operation in a domestic enterprise of satellite telecommunications, in order to protect the public interest and to co-ordinate the international relations concerning such a system. Finally, they say that the corporation for telecommunications by satellite should be jointly owned, according to the member of shares and that the telecommuniction companies should participate fully with the government in the ownership of the Corporation.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
It is this last aspect of the question set out at length but not very clearly in Bill C-184 I should like to deal with in the few minutes remaining to me, because it seems to us that this is really an essential question, that is, the ownership of such a system, the role of the
April 14. 1969

government, that of the companies, as well as the role of the approved telecommunications common carriers listed in Schedule A.
Does the Canadian government or the Finance Minister (Mr. Benson) wish to acquire and to hold the majority of the shares of the Corporation? What will be the participation of the agent corporations? What will be the part of the shares which will be developed to the approved telecommunication common carriers? Those are the questions which are unanswered in the bill now under study.
Other important questions are raised as to the membership of the board of directors of the Corporation.
Section 13 provides that:
-any Canadian citizen ordinarily resident in Canada is qualified to be a director of the company elected by the approved telecommunications common carriers who are holders of common shares of the company-
If he is not an officer or director of an approved telecommunications common carrier.
As for the board of directors, who are the the president and the vice-president or vice-presidents, it is specifically stated that these can be neither a director of the company or a shareholder of an approved telecommunications common carrier.
But to what extent do the shareholders of these approved telecommunications common carriers have the right to hold shares in the proposed telecommunication corporation? How can we be sure that the percentages proposed by the minister will actually be respected with regard to the participation of the federal government, of the approved telecommunications common carriers and of the public?
I ask all those questions for the following reasons: several approved common carriers, the names of which are listed in Schedule A, are owned and controlled by foreign interests. Now, it is possible that by purchasing shares in the Canadian corporation for telecommunication by satellite, they might finally end up, if not by controlling the system, at least by impeding its activities, as is the case with the International Telephone and Telegraph, in the COMSAT, in the United States.
For instance, the British Columbia Telephone Company is under the control of the Anglo-Canadian Telephone who holds 51.1 per cent of the common shares. On the other hand, the Anglo-Canadian Telephone is controlled by the General Telephone & Electronics, from New York, which owns 82.3 per cent of the shares belonging to the Anglo-Canadian Telephone.
Telesat Canada Act
Moreover, the Quebec-Telephone Company is under the control of the Anglo-Canadian Telephone which holds 53.07 per cent of the shares, since July 1966.
I also want to point out that another common carrier, the RCA Victor in Montreal, which has submitted to the government a brief entitled "A Canadian satellite which will meet the needs of Canada in the field of domestic communications", is also a concern entirely controlled by RCA of America.
There are many other questions concerning the technical aspects and the impact of the system. For instance, the minister told us in his statement, that there will be channels for French language stations and other channels for English language stations. Will there be other channels available for educational programs? Did the government think of selecting a channel for the Quebec government for the purpose of educational programs? It should be kept in mind that education is the responsibility of the provinces and that the latter should have on their own territory the required facilities, for educational programs.
We also want to know if the Canadian corporation for telecommunication by satellite intends to compete with private enterprise in the field of telecommunications, of commercial advertising, for instance, as COMSAT did in the United States.
Other questions remain unanswered with regard to the cost of the facilities to be built, with regard to the satellite itself as well as with the ground facilities. Have consultations been held between the government and the transeanadian telephone network companies with regard to costs and estimates? Is it true that, contrary to what is being claimed with regard to the transmission of television programs between Europe and America, it would be preferable to install a cable instead of launching a satellite?
Here is what, one could read in the Congressional Quarterly dated March 15, 1968 in this connection, and I quote:
Although no telecommunication enterprise is opposed to the construction of a satellite in itself, they claim that it is far more important to maintain a diversity of communications through improved cables and ground communications technology.
The cable advocates challenge the COMSAT argument to the effect that satellites are less costly than cables. In a letter addressed to the Federal Communications Commission, International Telephone & Telegraph Communications state that the total cost of a cable between the United States and Europe would amount to some $260 million over a period of 25 years, whereas the investments in Intelstat IV, including related ground facilities, would cost $1.2 billions over a period of only 7 years.


Mr. Speaker:: Before proceeding further with the consideration of this bill, I should like to point out that a short while ago an amendment was proposed by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Schreyer). The Chair has some doubt whether it is in order. I wonder, therefore, whether at this point some hon. members might enlighten the Chair on whether the amendment should be accepted. I might say that the Chair feels it is not, properly speaking, a reasoned amendment, which is the only guise under which this type of amendment could be moved and accepted. The hon, member for Selkirk might want to indicate to the Chair whether in his view this type of amendment ought to be accepted1 at this time.


Edward Richard Schreyer: As Your Honour knows so well by now, I am not an expert on procedural matters. However, this amendment wias drafted after considerable consultation. It was felt that it was in the nature of a reasoned amendment in that it was proposing to refer the subject matter of the bill for further consideration. It is my understanding that at this stage of the proceedings on the bill it is not possible to offer amendments on any of the specifics but rather to offer amendments having to do only with the essence of the bill. I submit that this is what we attempted to do, and quite frankly I await Your Honour's ruling with interest.
e (9:30 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: If there are no further comments on the point, I believe that a ruling should be made at this time. As I indicated a moment ago, I have serious doubts as to the acceptability of this amendment from the
[Mr. Rodrigue.)
procedural standpoint. The hon. member himself has said that this amendment purports to be a reasoned amendment. May's seventeenth edition, at page 527, lists the conditions for a reasoned amendment and, in particular, paragraph (1) refers to the fact that such an amendment would have to be declaratory of a principle in opposition, to or differing from the principles, policy or provisions of the bill. I think that the amendment proposed by the hon. member does not follow this requirement. It appears that the amendment as proposed is not declaratory of a principle but rather proposes an alternative scheme. It is, in my view, in the form of a substantive motion which would have to be moved with the usual notice. In view of the circumstances, I doubt very much that the amendment can be accepted. The hon. member might give the matter some thought. The debate will proceed, and there may be an occasion later on to move another amendment which might perhaps conform a little more to my interpretation of a reasoned amendment.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure, tonight, to make a few remarks, following the introduction by my colleague, the hon. Minister of Communications (Mr. Kierans), of a bill establishing a corporation for telecommunication which will be called "Telesat Canada".
First of all, I must say that the establishment in Canada of that corporation and of an adequate satellite telecommunication system is extremely important for the development of northern Canada. In recent years, the officials of my department as well as my predecessor, the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing), have followed such development very closely and have participated in the most efficient way in the achievement of that important project in the field of communications in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, we know that as minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, I am particularly responsible for those people who live in the northernmost parts of Canada and that the role of telecommunications are of the utmost importance in this regard. In fact, on several occasions, when I was touring the North, I have been able to see how painful the problem of isolation can be for the people of those areas, specially for those technicians who came there from the South these last few years to help develop those areas and the abundant natural resources found there.
April 14, 1969

In the North, communications are very important for the population, because this telecommunications system will provide the people living in these isolated areas with a better education system. This new communications system will achieve a bringing together of the various communities of the North by giving them the necessary information on what is happening in the Eastern as well as in the Western Arctic regions.
For example, in the Northwest Territories, between the land of Baffin and the northern most tip of the Yukon, the distance is greater than that between the city of Halifax and the European continent. I think that the creation of a telecommunications system will thus be of the utmost importance for the transmission of information to the people of the North.
Another important factor so far as those isolated people are concerned must be taken into consideration: it will give them a new means of recreation. In the South, we have enjoyed the advantage of television for a number of years, but unfortunately this communications system does not exist or is still in is infancy in the North at the present time. The main- cities, such as Yellowknife, Whitehorse, and a few others, are close enough to the Alberta or British Columbia borders and can enjoy television occasionally. We are very happy to see that with the putting into orbit of this satellite, this means of recreation will reach not only the white people of the North, but also the Eskimos, the Indians, and the Metis.
There remains an element, Mr. Speaker, which is of great importance for the development of the North: I am thinking of industrial development.
During the last few months, and especially since I have been holding this portfolio, I made eight trips in the North and I realized the difficulties faced by financiers because of communications problems.
For instance, an industry pointed out to me that communications between its mining establishment and Whitehorse were completely inadequate and ithat it had to spend large sums of money to make up for deficient communications. Moreover, it hoped that a telecommunications system could be established to serve the whole population more adequately.
In some cases, such communications would greatly promote what will be, we think, the most important oil development in Canada.
Hon. members know that a few months ago, an oil-field called Prudhoe Bay was discovered on the northern slope of Alaska, and
Telesat Canada Act
we have every reason to believe that it is the most important discovery of oil made in America during the last 25 years. The reserves of this geological formation is estimated at about 40 billion barrels of oil, which would be equal to all the known reserves in America at the present time.
As we know that this geological deposit extends to the Northwest Territories, and that there are also very important geological deposits in the Arctic islands, such a communications system will greatly promote the planning of development in the North, because exchanges, discoveries or problems will be known at the same time in the various communities and thus a great deal of money could be saved because telecommunications will make exchanges easy.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
Presently, in the Canadian North, the demand is certainly too high in the field of telecommunications to be met by the present system, and I am convinced that the inhabitants of the Northwest Territories will greet with a great deal of satisfaction the establishment of this Corporation, which will contribute to the improvement of living conditions in this area.
The problem of communications in the North has always been a very important one. Over the last few years we have taken a particular interest in technological communications. We have made a great deal of progress in the field of transportation with the use of aircraft and the building of new roads; and for the last few months, there have been indications that great progress will be made in the field of sea transportation with the projects we have launched. I refer specifically to the Alexbow project, which will develop a new technique to break ice in the North, and to the SS Manhattan project, launched by private industry but to which the Canadian government is closely associated.
It will in fact only be possible to make use of those technological communications if there is also a system of electronic communications. As a matter of fact, one of the great advantages, as I said earlier, of this electronic communication system the Minister of Communications is proposing is that it will contribute to a great extent to the development of television and telephone.
This development will also be useful in that it will bind the North together. Over the last few years, we have succeeded in bringing the North together thanks to aviation. However, this is a rather costly method and we have

April 14, 1969
Telesat Canada Act
found out that it is generally officials or industrialists who use airplanes. With an electronic communication system, on the other hand, we shall be able to unite the North, not only as far as its economic development is concerned but also as far as its cultural and social development is concerned.
An adequate electronic communications system in the North will enable the people who live there, the Eskimos and the Indians in particular, to take part in the Canadian life. A few years ago, we granted them Canadian citizenship, but to enjoy this privilege, one must obtain the required information, and thus take part in the development of Canadian life.
Therefore, through a new system of telecommunication, Eskimos and Indians will be able to participate in the Canadian way of life and learn about every aspect of the economic, social and cultural life in Canada. I am sure the people, especially the natives in the North, will be most happy to look forward to the possibility of enjoying radio and television at home.
Another very important and concrete aspect of that new telecommunications system is that it will allow the industrious workers who head for the North and the resources to be developed there, to find life a little easier.
Such modern means, I believe, will enable us to attract the required technicians if we cannot find them on the spot, and to build communities with a new sense of purpose. In fact, while working towards the development of the northernmost areas in America, people will not suffer from isolation and will even be in a position to take part in all aspects of Canadian life.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I wish to congratulate my colleague the Minister of Communications for having proceeded quickly in that field. It has tremendous importance for Northern Canada, for its inhabitants, and especially for the Eskimos and the Indians. For the first time in their whole life, once that system is established, those people will really be in a position to communicate with the other Canadian citizens and to take part in all aspects of life available to us in the South.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, even if the new telecommunications system does not concern my department directly, I must say that it will help unite our whole country through an exchange of communications in both official languages.,
If we do experience problems in Canada at the present time, the reason is certainly a

lack of communication. Many communities have suffered from a lack of communication with the centre of the country. I refer in particular to minority groups outside Quebec whose mother tongue is French and which have always felt isolated because they could not establish communication with most French-speaking Canadians.
For my part, I had an opportunity to meet many of them. In fact, some members of my family lived in Western Canada and, since means of communications were lacking, they were precluded from keeping some values to which they were devoted, for instance, their own cultural identity. This is why I say that this new telecommunications system will enable French-speaking Canadians throught the country to unite and will give them a sense of participation to that entity which is our country. It is worthwhile to build it. But it is also important to set it up on modern bases and I am sure that this new telecommunications system will enable each Canadian region to understand one another better, to know themselves better and to build a society different from that of our Southern neighbours which shall prove to all nations of the world that it is possible to live in unity while being genuinely different.


Robert Jardine McCleave: It is very rare, Mr. Speaker, for one minister to wander into the preserve of another, but in the last few minutes the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) has done just that to the Minister of Communications (Mr. Kierans). Since communications are what they are nowadays, that is, telephone and telegraph, not mail, we know the reason. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is trying to wipe away the sins he committed in Whitehorse only a few days ago. It provides an interesting footnote to the story of the north, a region which can apparently survive anything, including this government.
I hope the Minister of Communications will give us some guarantee when he closes the debate on the second reading of this measure; I trust he will not resort to the powers given him under clause 6 (1) (b) of this legislation where it is stated that the minister shall direct "suitable areas for the launching of satellites."
Knowing the luck he has enjoyed with the Post Office, I fear that if he ever pushes the button on a satellite going into space it will make a short curve, swerve back to earth and
April 14, 1969

Telesat Canada Act
perhaps get us in. trouble with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. On second thoughts, my fears are quelled, because I understand the satellites are not to be launched until 1972 a year in which an important electoral event will take place, and I suspect my hon. friend from Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) will be pushing the button to send those satellites aloft. And, as we all know, the hon. member for Hillsborough is a straight shooter.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Dreamer.


Robert Jardine McCleave: We have a unique type of bill before us, one which my hon. friend from Hillsborough referred to as a hybrid bill, that is, a measure somewhere between what we call a public bill and a private bill. It sets up a unique partnership, a partnership between government, the communications industry and the people on a one-third one-third one-third basis, as the minister has said.
I find nothing abhorrent about that proposition. It is fitting that a new approach be taken when dealing with a flexible and fast developing industry such as communications. I should like to point out that the Canadian communications industry is probably the first in the world; at least it is not surpassed by that of any other country, though it may be equalled by that of our neighbour to the south. I hope that no measure we pass in this parliament will hurt an industry which is well established, which has never had to call upon any government for subsidy or subvention as far as I know, which has managed to pay its way and keep well in the forefront of technological change, and which has managed to give good service to the people of Canada while at the same time keeping down charges to its customers. As I say, I hope nothing we do will inhibit the progress of the communications industry in Canada. As a partner that industry should be welcomed into any venture. I hope we can, through government, bring the same abilities to that partnership as they will bring to us.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
A few days ago the president of Bell Canada, Robert C. Scrivener, spoke to the Canadian Industrial Management Association, Manitoba division, in Winnipeg, and I should like to put on the record one of the points he made which is well worth noting:
I would particularly wish to refer to two cases where telecommunications are part of the government postal system-Great Britain and France-as examples of high cost and poor service. I will
say that Great Britain has recognized this, and is in the throes of getting its telecommunications completely separated from its post offices. Postal service can't be made better by making telecommunications service worse.
As for comparative costs, using the average wage paid in manufacturing as the unit of measurement, it takes fewer hours of work to pay for one month's telephone service in Canada than anywhere else. The figure for Canada is two hours, for Great Britain four and one half hours and for France 16 hours. In Canada, telephone users pay long distance tolls on a smaller proportion of the calls they make than is the case in any other major country in the world.
I mention these points because I think it is a matter of welcoming, as a partner, a very successful industry indeed. It is a question of welcoming people who do not need policing in what they set out to do, people who have spent enormous sums of money on the technology that is so much a part of the communications scene. I hope our attitude toward them will not be one of regulation but one of co-operation and helpfulness.
This unique partnership does carry with it some elements that I would particularly like to study in committee. I think some provinces and some communications companies are concerned that entry into this new venture may be the thin end of the wedge as far as some form of federal control over their operations is concerned. I hope this will not be the case and that the evidence we will hear will prove it not to be the case.
Secondly, I am concerned and would like more information from the minister on the proposed method of selling shares in the Telesat Corporation to the public at large. I hope this will be done in such a way that everybody will find it possible to participate in the ownership of this new corporation; that it will not be restricted simply to those people who can plunk down large sums of money. If the experience of the Canadian Overseas Telecommunications Corporation is borne out in this field-and I think it will be-this should be a money maker for the government, for the communications companies and for the public who are shareholders. I also hope that in committee the minister will tell us how their one third of the shares will be divided amongst the communications companies.
The hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), in a very thoughtful speech, made some points that I should like to echo and re-emphasize. The question of the dealings among the three partners, the question of the fine print, statutory regulations and the
April 14, 1989

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion like, all have to be explored. As I have said, communications is the most rapidly changing factor in our rapidly changing times, so it is important that we consider this legislation and consider it well. I myself can visualize the day when satellites in the sky will make obsolete the land lines that are so much a part of our communications industry today. Satellites of such sophistication will be perfected that they will be able to transmit directly to radio and television receivers, even to telephones, without the need for an earth station to intercept signals and amplify them.
The final point I should like to make is that there is an advantage in the government being in this partnership. I do not share the views of those who would make it either entirely publicly owned or set up a crown corporation. Similarly, I do not agree with those who would swing the other way and make it entirely a matter for the communications companies themselves. I think there is a good place for government here. I can see the advantage, for example, of the government's being able to deal more effectively with the problems of interference with the operation of satellites or being able to deal with the problems of electronic garbage cluttering up signals to and from these satellites perched
23,000	miles above the equator. I was almost going to say perched "horizontally up" from Winnipeg, since if you draw a tangential line from the North Pole above Winnipeg you would probably hit this little satellite spang on its metallic casing. "Horizontally up" is a phrase that has been added to the English language during our deliberations over recent days.
In any event, I share the enthusiasm of our communications people as to what this technology is going to bring about. I also share the enthusiasm of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) about what the satellite will be able to do in the way of removing some of the spartan elements of life in northern Canada, and what it will do to bring the two languages of Canada and our great dual culture to all of our people. For these reasons, I support the motion for second reading and reference to committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order; it being ten o'clock, the house will now proceed to the questions on the adjournment motion.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, out of orbit and now back on earth, may I say that a few days ago the C.B.C. released its fall and winter schedule of television programs. Most of the programs were renewed but Don Messer and his Islanders were not included in that schedule.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Having checked with C.B.C. officials in Halifax and other sources I find that the decision, or lack of decision, reposes in the Toronto offices of the C.B.C. What has taken place, sir, for those who are familiar with the inner workings of radio and television, seems very much like the kiss of death for a program that has been good and popular fare for several millions of Canadians over the past decade. I am speaking tonight on this matter because I can sense the flap of the wings of the culture vultures in Toronto and I want to drive them back to their roost before they do in a very fine piece of entertainment. Recently the Toronto group took a perfectly good Saturday program entitled "Comedy Cafe", which I thought excellent, and replaced it with a big brass band from Toronto. Now, I have nothing against big brass bands from Toronto, not even Saturday night; but I thought the Montreal production of "Comedy Cafe" was a great program. I thought particularly that the skit involving an English speaking wife and a French speaking husband showed the problems they encountered in their marriage and was a good way of demonstrating to Canadians the problems that we, in more grandiose but less humorous terms, must deal with when considering matters of national unity.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
This appetite on the part of Toronto personages for producing shows in Toronto and not producing them in Montreal, Halifax or Vancouver is voracious and ought to be checked. We cannot doubt the popularity of the Messer group. I recall on July 1, 1967, when the Messer group was touring Canada,

April 14, 1969

it came here and presided in the gallery. The galleries were packed that day and Charlie, Don and other people of the Messer group were up there watching our performance. I was talking to them outside when a very distinguished political personage came to talk to Charlie Chamberlain. An old lady who was outside came to see the line-up and said, "Who is that person talking to Charlie Chamberlain?" I will not reveal the identity of that political personage except to say he was a great ornament of the party opposite.
Sir, there is a remedy to what is happening. If people want to see the Messer show continue they ought to walk to the nearest C.B.C. station or talk to the nearest C.B.C. director or vice president about it. They might get on the telephone to the C.B.C. or, at the worst, mail letters to the C.B.C.
I have known the Messer group for a long time and there is not a swollen head among them. They are a level headed, folksy, good group of people and I say to the plain folk of Canada that if you want the Messer show to continue the thing to do is to show the C.B.C. that you want it to continue. We must show the C.B.C. we want the program to return in the fall and I suggest the campaign for that should start right now.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Good for you, Bob.


Mr. Robert Slanbury (Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of Stale):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose all good things must come to an end, even the stirring appeal of the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave). The C.B.C. advises me that the Don Messer show indeed will go the way of Juliette and will not be renewed next fall. I must say that the plain folk on this side of this house are as shocked by the announcement as is the hon. member. The C.B.C. offers some solace in advising that the replacement for the Messer show will be "Singalong Jubilee" originating in Halifax.
I would like the hon. member to withdraw the suggestion that the villians of this piece in Toronto are trying to take something away from Halifax. On the contrary they seem to be trying to inject new life into Halifax because they advise me that the purpose of this change of programming is to provide that time slot with a somewhat younger look and orientation. They tell me that they recognize the great contribution made by the Don Messer program over the years, and they hope that the new program "Singalong Jubilee" will inspire the same kind of support and
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion approval that the hon. member has expressed for that show, which has drawn so many listeners from so many parts of Canada down through the years.



WOODS REPORT-REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION BY STANDING COMMITTEE

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in the question period this afternoon I asked, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube) if the Woods report and the government's white paper thereon might soon be referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. His initial answer was that this would be done as soon as possible, but when I asked him if we could hope that it might be done during the month of April I believe his reply was to the effect that he did not know.
I posted this question for tonight's late show because I confess to the minister that I am disappointed that it is taking so long to get the Woods report to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. I believe that in expressing my disappointment I am expressing the disappointments of members of all parties in this house, and certainly the disappointment of veterans across this country.
The Woods report was a very important document. It took some two and a half years to prepare. It was finally tabled in the House of Commons on March 26, 1968, over a year ago. The then minister of veterans affairs promised that consideration would be given to it as early as possible, and the present Minister of Veterans Affairs on September 13, 1968, as recorded in Hansard at page 24, said clearly that the Woods report would be referred to the standing committee as soon as possible so that the opinions of that committee might be given to the government. The minister confirmed that position on September 30, 1968, as recorded in Hansard at page 564.
If my research is correct it was not until February 3, 1969, that the minister altered the position and said that no action would be taken to refer the Woods report to the standing committee until a government white paper was also ready so that it too might be referred to that same committee. Several times since then he has confirmed this secondary position that the committee cannot study this matter until it has the government white paper.
This is certainly giving the veterans' organizations and the veterans who are members of
April 14. 1969
7514	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion those organizations cause for very real concern. They feel that the delay is becoming far too lengthy. I would point out that the National Council of Veterans Associations in Canada had its brief ready under date of November 26, 1968. I also point out that the National Veterans Organizations of Canada, including the Royal Canadian Legion and other bodies, prepared a joint statement, copies of which were sent to all of us in this house on February 21, 1969, and also that the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada submitted their statement to us under date of March 21, 1969.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
These various organizations for a long time have been ready and most anxious to appear before the committee. They have all recognized the great importance of the Woods report. They have emphasized that its many recommendations meet with their approval and that they would like to see them implemented. In fact, I think there are only one or two in respect of which there is any doubt at all. Special attention has been called to four important areas. Perhaps I might mention them. There is the question of the Hong Kong veterans and their dependants; the question of pensioners suffering from multiple disabilities; the need to establish an adequate basic pension and the need for the appointment of a pension appeal board.
As the time involved in getting this matter before the committee has dragged on some veterans' organizations have begun to wonder whether they should have accepted the idea of waiting for a white paper. Mr. G. K. Langford, Chairman of the National Council of Veterans Associations of Canada, wrote the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on February 18, 1969, objecting to the fact that the veterans were having to wait for a government white paper. Indeed, that council feels that in so doing a limiting effect is being placed upon the committee itself. I shall not take the time to go into the pros and cons of that part of the contention, but it does seem to me to be most disappointing that this delay is being extended the way it is. One gets the awful feeling that month upon month can run to the end of the session and that there may not be any action taken. This would be a disgrace, but any lists I have seen of legislation to be dealt with at this session do not include the prospect of Woods report recommendations being acted on, for the obvious reason that the whole matter has not yet gone to the committee.


I make an earnest plea to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube) to get this matter to the committee soon. Some of us are concerned and disappointed that the Woods report, with all the good that is in it, does not include matters dealing with the War Veterans Allowance Act. We have asked that such matters also be referred. We are afraid that since it takes this long to get something done about the Pension Act, it may take even longer to get something done about the War Veterans Allowance Act. If that is what happens, the veterans across the country will feel they have been forgotten. I know the minister can tell me that on March 17, as recorded at page 6726 of Hansard, he said clearly that the Woods report has not been forgotten. At that time he referred to the time spent on the preparation of the recommendations and the question of the cost. I have no doubt that is the reason for the delay, the old question of cost.
The fact of the matter, however, is that the veterans of this country have a claim on us, and they have the right to expect their case not to be delayed longer. I plead with the minister as urgently as I can to get the question of the Woods report, together with the War Veterans Allowance Act and other matters which concern veterans, before the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs as soon as possible. I hope he will yet find it possible to get that done before the month of April is over.


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Speaker, first of all I wish to express my appreciation of the interest of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in veterans affairs in general and with the Woods committee report in particular. I know he is somewhat disappointed but I would ask him not to lose heart. His patience will be rewarded. As he said himself it took two and a half years to make the recommendations. Surely, if it took that long just to prepare the recommendations this is an indication of why it takes some time to bring these recommendations to fruition. My department has been quite busy reviewing the report. A committee formed of officials from the Department of Veterans Affairs and other departments has held over 70 meetings to study the Woods committee report, how much the implementation of the recommendations would cost and what recommendations would be in the best interests of the veterans.
April 14, 1969
A first draft of the white paper has already-been prepared. At the present time that first draft is before a cabinet committee. Once that stage is over it will have to go through the full cabinet. As soon as the white paper is prepared it will be referred to the House of Commons Committee on Veterans Affairs. I know it does take some time.
I myself wish that the democratic system could move faster, but perhaps we had better take a bit longer and do an excellent job. In the meantime, all the members of the Committee on Veterans Affairs have been provided with a copy of the report, and this will
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion give them an opportunity to study it. It is a massive report containing 1,350 pages with 148 recommendations. It is complex and far-reaching. If we want to do an excellent job we must take sufficient time. I know that the committee will use this time to study the report thoroughly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: motion to adjourn the house is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this house stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10:19 p.m.



Tuesday, April 15, 1969