1969-06-05

[Stage Direction]
Eighth report of Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence-Mr. Wahn.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Presideni of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, following a statement earlier this week there have been certain discussions among representatives of the various parties in respect of the time to be allotted for the budget debate. I think there might be an agreement that an order of the house be made in respect of the budget debate on this occasion, that four sitting days, namely Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, inclusive, be allocated for this debate. If hon. members of the house are agreeable, I wonder whether this could perhaps be made an order of the house for that purpose. I suggest that four sitting days, namely Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, June 9 to June 12, 1969, inclusive, be designated for the consideration and disposition of the motion of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), regarding the budget, and any amendments proposed thereto.
Perhaps it would also be agreeable that on Tuesday, June 10, 1969, at 9:45 p.m., Mr. Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of any amendment or subamendment, if any, then before the house. It is proposed that on Thursday, June 12, 1969, at 9:45 p.m., Mr. Speaker, shall interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the said motion, and that no member, except the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), the member speaking first on behalf of the opposition, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) shall speak for more than 20 minutes at a time in the budget debate; provided that 30 minutes shall be allowed to the
first spokesman of each of the two other parties, and that in relation to this order the provisions	of	Standing Order 60 be
suspended.
If there is general agreement, perhaps that could be adopted as an order of the house.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say on behalf of the official opposition that this suggested order meets with our approval and agreement.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure when these agreements are reached, particularly in the peripatetic way in which we sometimes accomplish them, to rise and indicate confirmation. In this case, however, this agreement is acceptable, except in respect of one point. The last time I was involved in the consultations, the time for the lead-off speakers of the third and fourth parties was to be 40 minutes. Somewhere along the line ten minutes have been lost. I would prefer the agreement as it stood the last time I was consulted.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how that shortcoming occurred, but I would be prepared to extend the time by ten minutes if the house is generally in agreement.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the suggestion proposed by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald). Subject to the amendments recommended by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), is it so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CANADIAN AND BRITISH INSURANCE COMPANIES ACT


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (for the Minister of Finance) moved: the first reading of Bill S-35 (from the Senate), to amend the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, and other statutory provisions related to the subject matter of certain of those amendments.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

June 5, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister a question. In view of his concern to do everything feasible to avoid nuclear conflict-a concern which is shared by all members of the house-could he give us his reaction and the reaction of his government to the indications given by the British and United States Secretaries of Defence that a cut-back in contributions to NATO would create a need for the earlier use of nuclear weapons by the NATO forces in the event of conflict?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I do not see how the logic of that argument could apply to the Canadian decision. If NATO were to withdraw completely its conventional forces, perhaps the proposition would be sustainable; but there is no suggestion on the part of this government or other members of NATO that we cease to provide conventional means of warfare. If, in our case we are trying to establish a kind of participation in NATO on a conventional basis, this, precisely because it is conventional, would not increase the danger of nuclear warfare.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: For clarification, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask this question. I am sure the Prime Minister understands that the suggestion is that the reduction in conventional forces would create a need for the earlier use of nuclear weapons. Am I to understand that the Prime Minister regards that as an invalid position on the part of the Secretaries of Defence of Great Britain and the United States, and that the government of Canada does not propose to review its decision in view of these indications?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to see the logic of this argument, which is based on the fact that we are reducing, or hoping to reduce, our nuclear commitments, that this would increase the danger of nuclear warfare.



COMBINES


Mr, David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of reports of a very substantial increase in 1968 in the takeover of Canadian firms by American and other corporations, and in view of the very substantial increase in the number of mergers within Canada, would the minister now consider proposing legislation to strengthen the anti-merger and anti-monopoly sections of the Combines Investigation Act without waiting for the report of the Economic Council?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the report to which the hon. member refers arises from a study released either this morning or last night-I am not quite sure when it was released; I received it this morning-carried out for the Economic Council on foreign takeovers in Canada. It is a statistical analysis based upon information provided by the combines investigation branch from their merger register. As the press release of the Economic Council of Canada, issued on June 3, says, they will be shortly publishing, I hope this month, a report on competition policy in Canada which I expect will deal with the whole question of mergers. As I said in my statement in committee the other day when my estimates were being considered, I have already set in motion within the department machinery to recieve the report and to revise the Combines Investigation Act as quickly as possible.
I think my position on that is clear. I think it would be most unwise for parliament to deal with a revised Combines Investigation Act until it has the report of the Economic Council of Canada on the subject.


Mr. Lewis:: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I cannot say I disagree with what the minister said, but I should like to ask him whether, in view of what he has said, he would consider tabling a copy of the study and of the report of the combines investigation branch to the Economic Council of Canada, and also arrange for tabling the merger register itself or the parts of it that are relevant to this discussion.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am not sure of the procedure for tabling the study done for the Economic Council of Canada. Copies are easily
June 5, 1969

available to any member of the house and to the public.
As to tabling the merger register of the combines branch, I think that of equal value to hon. members, to economic analysts and to the academic community, is the analysis published yesterday by the Economic Council which contains the significant figures taken from the merger register.


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the statements made by the director of the combines investigation branch regarding the recent pattern of mergers and take-overs, does the branch also have information on the number of firms which are left to be taken over?



FINANCE


Mr. James A. McGraih (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a related question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Can the minister tell the house what success he is having in his consultation with the provinces with respect to national securities legislation. Perhaps the minister can also tell the house which of the provinces are objecting to the minister's proposed legislation.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether the hon. member would not be inclined to agree with me that the question he is asking now requires a statement which should normally be made on motions.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, in the light of your observation, would the minister give consideration to making a statement on motions before the house adjourns for the summer recess, to clear up some of the ambiguities that exist in this matter with respect to the provinces.


Stanley Ronald Basford: There are no
ambiguities whatsoever. We are proceeding with the discussions with the provinces, which involve a high level of good feeling and co-operation. I expect in due course to be able to announce government policy on this.
29180-618J
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



INQUIRY AS TO ADDITIONAL CLERK ASSISTANT

Mr. Real Caoueile (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Privy Council.
In view of the heavy workload to be carried out by the clerk of the house and his assistants, does the government intend to appoint an assistant clerk who would help them out? If so, when does it propose to do so?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the matter is under consideration and we hope it will be possible to name somebody in the near future.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-tings):: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Would the minister, at the earliest possible moment, make a statement to the house on motions outlining what steps the government proposes to take to ensure that those who handle goods on which tariffs are reduced by the budget brought down on Tuesday night will pass on the benefits of these reduced tariffs in their entirety to the consumers of this country in the form of lower prices, and so make it possible to ensure that the end in view of helping to control inflation and the rising cost of living may be realized?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, since the policy of accelerating tariff reductions under GATT was agreed upon I have been holding discussions with my officials to establish the proper kind of machinery within the department to ensure that, where savings by reason of these reductions can be passed on, they will in fact be passed on to the consumers of Canada. I hope to have something more to say in a definitive way on this shortly.



UNITED NATIONS


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the Canadian government agreed to continue for a

June 5, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry further six months the maintenance of the Canadian contingent in the United Nations force in Cyprus?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain whether that decision has yet been made, but certainly it is the intention of the Canadian government to agree to such a proposal.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is quite a sentence, if you analyse it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the size of the Canadian contingent to remain the same, or will there be any reduction or increase in it?


Mitchell William Sharp: It is our hope that there will be a reduction.



TRAIL, B.C.-ANNOUNCEMENT OF FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION TO DISASTER FUND

Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: My
question is directed to the Minister of Public Works, Mr. Speaker. I believe this is the day upon which it is anticipated an answer will be given in connection with federal aid to the City of Trail in respect of flood damage. Is the minister now in a position to make known the results of the cabinet's consideration of this important matter?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: I am pleased to tell the house that the Government of Canada has decided to make a contribution of $200,000 to the Trail disaster fund. We are earmarking it for the private sector, whether business premises or private homes. I think the house will be interested in knowing that total private losses have now been assessed as $1,150,000, and our contribution will make possible a distribution in that area of $931,000, which I think is a generous underwriting.


Mr. Thomas S. Barneii (Comox-Alberni):: May I ask a further supplementary question with regard to the situation at Trail in order that the record may be clear. Can the minister tell us what the other $731,000 expenditure by the federal government in the Trail area entailed?


Arthur Laing: I was referring earlier to the total amount to be distributed to the private sector. The $731,000 is the contribution made by the Province of British Columbia and the private subscription which was contributed, and which reached a sum, I believe, of $100,000 or $120,000.
[Mr. Harkness.I



LUMSDEN, SASK.-SHARING IN COST OF DAMAGE PREVENTION

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Cenire):: Could the minister advise the house whether the federal government will also be sharing in the cost of preventing flood damage-and by this I do not mean what may be done under the Canada waters legislation; I refer, for example, to the cost of sandbagging and all the other costs incurred by the town of Lumsden in Saskatchewan. Has the hon. gentleman received requests for assistance in this regard and will the government be sharing these costs?
Hon. Arihur Laing (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has a long record of making contributions in this regard, in the Manitoba area, in the Fraser Valley and in other areas under the Canada Water Act legislation, as well as by special agreement with the provinces. The hon. member makes particular reference to Saskatchewan. Action with regard to the situation there has been delayed only because as yet no full assessment of the loss incurred has been available.



HIGHWAYS


Mitchell William Sharp: On May 28, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Calgary South asked whether the United States government had requested permission of the Canadian Government for a congressional sub-committee to hold public meetings in Calgary on June 19 on the subject of paving the Alaska highway.
The Canadian Government has been informed by the United States authorities that a sub-committee of the United States House of Representatives wished to make arrangements for an informal exchange of views on the subject of paving the Alaska highway with interested businessmen and local officials in Calgary, Alberta, on June 19, 1969. The informal discussions proposed are not intended to constitute a public hearing.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. Speaker. Has the Government of Canada made strong representations to the
June 5, 1969



Soviet Union protesting the flights of Soviet aircraft over commercial air lanes near the Province of Newfoundland, bearing in mind the great risk to life and property caused by these military manoeuvres on or over routes used for international flights?


Mitchell William Sharp: The Canadian government did make representations to the government of the Soviet Union to that effect.


David Lewis: May I ask
the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether Canada or her allies engage in air manoeuvres which may take planes fairly close to the boundaries of some other country, particularly the Soviet Union?


Mitchell William Sharp: I doubt very much whether they would fly in such a way as to interfere with international civil aviation, which is the problem here.


James Aloysius McGrath: Do
these flights of Soviet aircraft near the coast of Newfoundland bear any relation to the proposed visit of the Premier of Newfoundland to the communist People's Republic of China?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he has received any response from the government of the Soviet Union as a result of his protest and if he has received any response, what the response was.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I recall the exchange, when we drew the attention of the Soviet government to the possibility that these flights might interfere with the safety of international civilian aviation, I think the response was that the planes were flying over international waters.



THE MINISTRY


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Prime Minister expressed his belief in the cabinet system of government and stated, as reported at page 9730 of Hansard:
-I for one have great confidence in my ministers.
Inquiries of the Ministry
I would ask the Prime Minister whether he was expressing that confidence when he said to a Winnipeg audience: "Big deal! James Richardson-I believe you should have somebody better"?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I never said anything of that kind.


Donald MacInnis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if that be the case I suggest to the Prime Minister that he take up a question of privilege with the Globe and Mail.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



FINANCE


Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: According to the press release sent to us by the Prime Minister's office, the Prime Minister told the delegates of the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities, and I quote:
We know the programs and activities of the federal government have an increasing effect on the development of our cities-
Could the Prime Minister tell us whether the government of Canada could grant the municipalities loans of $500,000, as the one he has just made to Algeria this very day?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the question asked by the hon. member could easily be put on the order paper.



FISHERIES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. In the light of the minister's announcement of the formation of a salt fish advisory committee, will the minister, following his meeting with this committee in St. John's on June 12, make a statement in the house in regard to his department's policy on the salt fish industry?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: I will certainly give the matter consideration, Mr. Speaker, but any such announcement would have to be after our first meeting with the committee on June 12.

June 5, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingaie):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister whether, after the meeting on June 12, he would give consideration to broadening the representation on the committee to include areas such as the Labrador fishery, which is presently omitted?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the Labrador fishery is adequately represented but I will take into account as well any suggestions that my hon. friend has.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Public Works whether, in view of the policy of the government, announced by the Minister of Finance the other evening, to try to discourage construction of office buildings in some 22 Canadian cities for the next two years, the Department of Public Works is considering postponement of any of its own building programs in those cities?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, there has been a considerable cut-back in federal government building in recent years, as my hon. friend knows. We will pursue a policy of good business. At the present time we are paying a very large sum of money for rentals, amounting I think in Ottawa alone to $18 million. We have the situation under review at the present time. If we can build buildings and bring about a situation where the rates quoted us are more competitive, then I suggest to my hon. friend we would be practising good economy, and this is what we intend to do.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am not being argumentative; I just want to understand the minister. Is he suggesting that there is one rule of good sense for the government and a different rule of good sense for business-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -and that the same reasons that might influence the government to go ahead with its plans would not prevail in the private sector?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member says he does not wish to be argumentative, but his supplementary question sounded that way.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Public Works. Is it the intention of the government to proceed with construction of the C.B.C. building in Montreal? It is to cost $66 million.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Broadview.


Some hon. Members:: Answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. The hon. member has asked his question but the minister does not answer.


Arthur Laing: The minister, sir, wishes to reply. I might inform the hon. member that that building is not being built by the Department of Public Works. It is being built by the C.B.C.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: That's hairsplitting.


Alfred Dryden Hales: May I direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State, Mr. Speaker. Will he advise us if the C.B.C. is to proceed with its new building in Montreal?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of Slate):: According to the last reports, Mr. Speaker, the C.B.C. has not indicated that it intends to suspend the work in progress.



NATIONAL CAPITAL


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Since, as evidenced by the minister's recent statement about National Capital Commission plans, Ottawa and Hull are being considered together for purposes of planning and construction, will the minister say whether certain aspects of the government's new anti-inflationary policy will be reconsidered, since that policy now places Ottawa at a distinct disadvantage vis-a-vis Hull in this respect?
June 5, 1969


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think Ottawa is under any disadvantage with respect to what is to be done in Hull. I think there is a strong imbalance between the two cities. We are going to develop Ottawa as much as we can at the same time as we develop Hull.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Since most provinces of Canada have passed legislation making provision for compensation to victims of criminal violence, and since the minister has undertaken to discuss this matter with attorneys-general in August, will he consider drafting a model bill to cover the Yukon and Northwest Territories so that the bill can form the basis of discussion with regard to this problem in those areas?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would consider that, but I am not too sure that it does not already lie within the power of the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories do to so under ordinance.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question arises from an answer given earlier by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. His answer was to the effect that any reductions in the prices of commodities which enter Canada as a result of our adoption now of certain Kennedy round tariff reductions will be passed on to the consumer. In other words, the consumer will benefit. Will he tell the house how so novel and unusual a plan can actually be carried into effect? What authority has the federal government to so direct? Will he tell us whether the provinces have been consulted in this connection? Are they willing to co-operate in order to ensure that the consumer shall benefit?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the action announced on Tuesday, by my colleague the Minister of Finance is to
Inquiries of the Ministry increase competitive pressures among a certain range of goods in Canada. As I said previously, I will be making a more definitive statement shortly. We want to be sure that these competitive forces are in fact at work. The situation it seems to me is not much different from that which prevailed when the former Minister of Finance removed the sales tax from pharmaceutical drugs. We set up machinery to be sure that any decrease in sales tax at the manufacturing level would be passed on.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker, if the government intends to bring in legislation saying that where any company importing goods into Canada does not pass on price reductions consequent on the removal of the tariff, action will be taken against such person or company?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Well, Mr. Speaker, I will be saying more on this subject later. Whether legislation is to be introduced at some future time will depend on actions in the private sector.


John George Diefenbaker: The government has not such power.



PUBLIC WORKS


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. Has there been any cancellation or postponement of any Public Works projects outside the Ottawa area, but included in the original estimates tabled for 1969-70? If so, would the minister be prepared to tell us what these are?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, the entire field of projects for the department is under review at the present time and I would not be prepared today to indicate where we will stop or start.


John Stratford Burton: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can hon. members of the house take it, then, that the government in fact has given consideration to the cancellation or postponement of some Public Works projects?


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. The question as asked is argumentative.

June 5, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry HOUSING



NEWFOUNDLAND-FEDERAL PARTICIPATION IN LAND ASSEMBLY AND OTHER PROGRAMS

Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for housing. Is he in a position to answer the question I asked in the house yesterday concerning the announced land assembly and public housing project in St. John's, Newfoundland.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, in December, 1967, the government of Canada entered into an agreement with the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation which provided for 75 per cent federal participation in the land assembly or acquisition of approximately 850 acres of land in the Mount Pearl area of greater St. John's. The estimated cost of the land is $1,275,000. There has been some discussion between officials of C.M.H.C. and those of the provincial housing agency with regard to a further cost-sharing arrangement for the development of the first part of these lands.
With regard to the larger project the hon. member referred to yesterday, no formal application has been received by us yet.


Walter C. Carter: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister inform us of the present status of certain urban renewal schemes which are being considered. In particular I am thinking of the Mundy Pond urban renewal scheme in St. John's West.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. I wonder
whether it is in order for hon. members to ask about individual urban renewal schemes. I have some doubts about this.



NATIONAL CAPITAL


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In asking my question I am considering another question asked a few minutes ago with regard to the expenditure of moneys on public buildings. Since I think we all welcome the announcement that there are to be large expenditures for buildings in the National Capital area and since there is a need for economy, as evidenced by the budget speech, will the minister do what he can to expedite the formation of a parliamentary committee on National

Capital matters so that it may concern itself with these matters?


Jean Marchand: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Has his attention been drawn to a statement made by the President of Loblaw Groceterias asking consumers to boycott beef, since the price of steaks and roasts has increased by 40 per cent in the last four weeks?


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. The hon. member asks whether the minister's attention has been directed to a statement. I think the question as asked is out of order.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I rephrase the question. What is the Minister's department doing about the substantial increase in the price of beef in the last four weeks?


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. I think this type of question ought normally to be considered at the time of adjournment.


James Aloysius McGrath: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This matter is of urgency to all consumers across the country. There has been a 40 per cent increase recently in beef prices.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. That is why I think the hon. member will welcome the opportunity to consider this matter at length at the time of adjournment.


James Aloysius McGrath: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday of this week I directed a question to the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications. I wish to direct the same question to him today. I asked him whether he had received a communication from the Canada News Agency concerning long delays in the cable office in Toronto. He replied that he had not received such communication. I now ask the Postmaster General whether he has checked his office to see if he has received such communication. If so, what action does he intend to take?
June 5, 1969


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Poslmasler General and Minister of Communications):: It still has not come to my attention, Mr. Speaker.


Max Saltsman: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Postmaster General undertake to see why his mail delivery is so slow, since I received a copy five days ago?



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Thomas Miller Bell: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Due to the fact two ministers are here today when they should not be, does this mean that the Prime Minister is weakening on his roster system? May I say, Mr. Speaker,
I apologize for reporting upon these two ministers because they are very popular with the opposition.



WATER RESOURCES


George Harris Hees: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask whether he has observed lately the shocking and even disgusting condition of pollution of the Ottawa River. If so, does he not agree the time has arrived for the federal government to initiate a comprehensive and practical national policy of anti-pollution between the provinces and the federal government to try to do something regarding this matter which is talked about, but about which nothing is done?



EXPROPRIATION


Hon. Jean Chrelien (Minister of Indian Aflairs and Northern Developmeni):: Mr. Speaker, last Monday, the hon. member for Hillsborough raised a question concerning expropriations in Prince Edward Island. I am pleased to inform the house today that we have been in touch with the Attorney General and that we have come to an agreement on that problem.



INDIAN AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
REDUCTIONS IN GRANTS TO BAND COUNCILS Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni): I
would like to address a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and Indian Development. I ask the minister whether he
Inquiries of the Ministry is aware that actions within his department which initially encouraged band councils to assume the management of their own affairs are being seriously jeopardized by later actions to cut the amount of the grants which have been established as the rate under which the program would begin.
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I will take the hon. member's question as notice.



AGRICULTURE


John Stratford Burton: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister indicate to the house whether the government's policy statement on agriculture expected within the next 90 days will deal solely with long term measures, or will it also report the government's policy with respect to emergency steps to be taken as recommended to this house by the agriculture committee?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of any statement having been made by the government respecting the preamble to that question, therefore there can be no reply.


John Stratford Burton: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the house expect a statement from the minister before the summer recess with respect to measures to assist agriculture in the emergency situation which it is now facing?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, as has been stated over and over, the house can expect an answer with respect to these and other matters to be given in this house in the usual course.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question relating to questions I asked him earlier in the question period. In view of the Prime Minister's difficulty in understanding the logic of the concern of the secretaries of defence for Great Britain and the United States, will the Prime Minister consult with the Minister of National Defence of this government to make certain that the concern,

June 5, 1969
Business of the House
and the logic of the concern of the two secretaries of defence which I mentioned, is fully understood and appreciated by the Government of Canada as a whole?



WATER RESOURCES


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley Wesi):: My
question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In a sense it is supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees), as it deals with national water standards. On October 16 the minister stated that an advisory committee would be formed after consultation with the provinces. I also asked about this matter on February 25. Can the minister tell this house if to this date there has been any progress on this very important issue?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: The consultation with the provinces is still the issue if we are to proceed toward a committee, along the lines of the original intent. There has been no positive progress either toward a date or the appointment of the committee.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the government house leader if he has anything to add with regard to the business for tomorrow?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There is some basis for hoping that Bill C-191 will be dealt with this afternoon. If this happens, we will then call the following items at the report stage, and then for third reading. First, item No. 63, Bill C-183 with respect to the Export Development Corporation; second, item No. 66, Bill S-29 with respect to oil and gas production and conservation; third, item No. 64, Bill C-184, respecting Telesat Canada. Following those items today, or if necessary tomorrow, we propose to call item No. 84, the motion for second reading of Bill C-202 with respect to area development incentives.
On Monday we propose to call the order for the continuation of the budget debate. Pursuant to the special order made earlier, we will remain on the budget motion until Thursday.

[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, June 4, consideration in committee of Bill C-191, to amend the Income Tax Act.
The Deputy Chairman:: When the sitting was adjourned yesterday, clause 27 of the bill was under consideration.
On clause 27-Social development tax.


Mr. Nysfrom:: Mr. Chairman, yesterday I was in the process of making a few remarks with regard to the government's social development tax. I had suggested to the committee that the minister should consider removing it from the bill.
I believe most Canadians will agree that the social development tax is one of the most regressive forms of legislation we have seen this year. As I have already stated, it established a ceiling of $120 on the tax. People with incomes of $6,000 will pay just as much under this new tax as those with incomes of $40,000, $50,000 or $500,000 a year. It is difficult to justify this type of taxation in our present society. When such a tax is implemented by the government, it makes people ask what kind of priorities the government has in mind or what it recognizes as being most important. It makes one wonder whether the government is giving top priority to the people, regardless of their social or economic background.
Last night I stated that this tax reminds me of a Robin Hood in reverse theory because most of the money is collected from the lower and middle income groups, while Members of Parliament, for example, with salaries of more than $18,000 a year do not have to pay any greater amount. The implementation of the social development tax emphasizes the real need in Canada for over-all and immediate tax reform in all its aspects. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway mentioned a number of items that should be included in tax reform.
I ask the Minister of Finance to consider seriously taking the Carter commission report out of the wastepaper basket and looking at some of the more progressive proposals that it advocates. The government talks about inflation. How will we curb it? Will we do it by imposing a social development tax on those in the low and middle income groups who will
June 5, 1969

be hit the hardest? I do not know how it can be called a social development tax when it hits hardest those people who need opportunities to develop. Many of them live in economically depressed areas of our country. They need assistance in the field of culture, in achieving higher academic standards and so on. So once again I appeal to the Minister of Finance to consider seriously what he is doing before bringing in a tax of this sort. I appeal again to the minister to move away from the kind of philosophy the government has displayed in seeking to impose this tax.


Mr. Godin:: Mr. Chairman, following the June 1968 election, the well timed arrival in the house of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had given rise to great hopes in many Canadians.
Following the adoption of new rules of procedure, together with the establishment of a more flexible procedure within the cabinet and a roster system designed to give ministers more free time, it was felt that deep changes were in the offing and that economic problems would at last be looked into for the benefit of the whole population. Unfortunately, an analysis of most bills which were amended and passed shows that it was only a dream.
The government has indeed dealt with some economic and financial problems. Regional disparities were pointed out and a series of bills designed to remedy those disparities were introduced and adopted. Nevertheless, for workers anxious to build their own home, for veterans who are looking for work or want to start a business, so as to end their constant shifting about, for fishermen and farmers, all the measures dealing with the working class, far from helping those people, have tied them down and made them increasingly dependent upon financial interests.
And the highlight of this session is, I think, Bill C-191 now under consideration, since it affects the taxpayers who had not been affected by the bills already mentioned. In fact, clause 27 stipulates:
Every individual liable by virtue of subsection (1) of section 2 to pay a tax under Part I for a taxation year shall pay a social development tax for the year equal to the lesser of
(a)	2% of his taxable income for the year as determined for the purpose of Part I, or
(b)	$120.
Mr. Speaker, the government levies a social development tax. As the fishermen's income
Income Tax Act
is too low to be subject to tax, Bill C-151 throttles them with the interest rates charged on the loans they raise in order to finance their operations.
In the case of farmers, who seldom pay direct taxes owing to their exorbitant operation costs, the situation is almost the same. As a result of Bills C-110, C-lll and C-112, which allow the government to juggle with interests rates every three months, the farmers, during the next years, will obviously pay their fair share to the financiers.
Government experts had a brilliant idea: to tax development. One can remember that the idea of a social development tax had been put forward with a view to balancing the budget and was supposed to be a temporary measure only.
This temporary tax is unfortunately in the process of becoming a permanent one, just like all the others, with this difference, however, that it is still more unjust.
Many hidden taxes have become public owing to the force of circumstances, such as the sales tax, the excise tax, and import duties. All such taxes are paid by purchasers. To some degree, we have become used to such taxes.
There are also direct taxes on workers' pay. That was the fairest form of taxation, as it was determined by income. I am not thinking of the fabulous amounts that some people may fail to mention, but I am thinking of the worker who receives only part of this pay after all levels of government and various organizations have taken a share of it.
Now, under clause 27 of Bill C-191-Part IB, Social development tax-this tax is limited to $120.
Mr. Chairman, I would say that this clause smells of blackmail and haggling even.
"Social development", those are two words used to designate a 2 per cent tax that cancels out on salaries exceeding $6,000 a year. Considering that $100 more or less is of little importance to the man who earns $10,000 or more a year, and that it is a social development tax, why put a ceiling of $120 on it, Mr. Chairman?
I believe that the economist, the lawyer and those who earn $20,000 or more a year, have made more progress than the man who earns only $3,000 a year.
When the government collects $120, from the man who earns $12,000 a year and collects the same amount of $120 from the man who

June 5, 1969
Income Tax Act
earns only $6,000 a year, it has one law for the rich and one law for the poor.
Mr. Chairman, can anything be more ridiculous than to collect $100 from a man with a family who earns only $5,000 and who already lacks purchasing power? With what obscure intention can one enjoy imposing such an unjust tax?
In view of the fact that the Canada Economic Council has established that a family whose income is less than $5,000 is living in poverty and that 75% of Quebec families earn less than $4,000 a year, why persist in collecting money from workers who already lack the basic necessities?
When we know that the personal debts, the finance loans of Canadians reach $3,500 per home, without considering mortgages, why overtax these people? Why tax low income groups who are not even solvent and with whom the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation refuses to deal?
This is rather strange, Mr. Speaker. Under the pretext that his income is insufficient, the person earning less than $6,000 a year will be turned down by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation when he asks for a loan with a view to building a house. But this very same citizen remains solvent in the eyes of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) as regards paying taxes.
There are tax increases, sales taxes, an 11 per cent tax on building materials, and when the government has taken right and left and has multiplied taxes of all sorts, the Minister of Finance makes statements like the one appearing in Hansard for June 3. The minister would have us believe too often that he does not know exactly why prices have risen.
Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance does not seem to know that two and two are four. If he cannot add, he surely has a talent for acting.
It is quite easy to ignore that taxes are added to the price of goods, but this Minister of Finance had plenty of nerve to disclose his plan of attack which consists in uniting all possible forces, public and private, to fight more aggressively than ever against inflation.
Mr. Chairman, is it possible to ask nearly 75 per cent of the families of the province of Quebec, who receive less than $4,000 a year, to the businessmen who go bankrupt, to farmers who sell by auction, to industrialists who go out of business, to the many who receive social assistance, to go on a crusade against inflation? Is it also possible to ask

those people to do something and fight in order to stop price increases?
Mr. Chairman, I think it is time for us to show some logic, and we have not won the war with taxes, but with capital.
The problem today is not one of inflation, since we are in the midst of abundance, and we are facing a lack of purchasing power. To legalize the collection of additional taxes would simply lead to a widening of the gap.
The extent of the tax increases and their consequences will have to be considered.
This government does much planning ahead about regional disparities. All those fine projects will prove unavoidably useless if some citizens are protected by taxes limited to $120, as provided for in the bill before us.
I know that government action is essential for the well-being and the survival of the people. However, because the Minister of Finance is trying, under clause 27 of the bill under consideration, to protect the ones most capable of paying, namely those earning $6,000 and over, I shall vote against this bill.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Chairman, I think this clause of the bill really makes a mockery of the concept of a just society. It makes a mockery of the words of the Prime Minister who, when he went across Canada from one coast to the other, raised people's expectations as to what might be done in Canada, what we can do together and what might be accomplished in our nation. If this measure simply resulted in disillusionment with that hon. gentleman, that would be one thing, but it seems to me it has a serious effect on the country as a whole in that it results in disillusionment regarding the expectations which were raised last year as a result of the particular type of approach used, with success, by the Prime Minister during the last federal election campaign.
We now have the Minister of Finance sitting calmly in the house, or at least he was a moment ago, like some form of Buddha or sphinx

I have not made up my mind which-and blandly placing this measure before us as one step toward the just society in Canada. I find it very difficult to see how he can possibly justify such a regressive form of taxation. This regressive tax will in fact bear most heavily on those people in the lower income tax brackets. They are the ones who will have to bear the burden of this tax. It will fall most heavily on wage earners and
June 5, 1969

people on, salaries, as well as others with a low level of self-employed income.
I should like to mention the situation which exists in respect of wage and salary earners. They are the people who are now discriminated against under our present income tax structure. They are the ones in particular who will now have to bear the burden of this new tax which the government has decided to impose to raise revenue.
We must ask ourselves this question: Is this tax based on the principle of ability to pay? I defy the minister to show me that this is in fact a progressive tax based on ability to pay. It seems to be ironical that we are discussing this measure now, a couple of days after the minister presented his new 1969 budget. The minister made public his social development tax proposal last October 22. That was when it was unveiled in this house. But it is only now, more than seven months later, that the government has brought this legislation forward for the consideration of the house. The government was unable to get this measure through the house before the new budget was presented.
It seems to me that if things are going as well as the Minister of Finance indicated in his budget the other night, he might very well consider withdrawing this tax measure and introducing some other more progressive measure to raise what he considers to be necessary revenues. We are not going to achieve any sort of a fair or equitable society by heaping injustice upon injustice. That is what is happening at the present time.
This new tax seems to further distort our tax system, which is badly in need of reform. This fact has been acknowledged and the subject has been throughly studied by the Carter Commission. We all know of the many inequities which exist under the present system.
The minister has indicated from time to time that he is going to introduce a white paper. The latest indication is that it will be introduced during the parliamentary recess. It seems to me it is not many weeks ago that the minister indicated the white paper would be introduced in June. A little later we heard that it would be made public during July. The minister is now saying it will be presented during the parliamentary recess, which means any time during July, August or September. I predict that we will see further delays in the presentation of this white paper. Certainly this will be the case if the present pattern continues.
Income Tax Act
When we are dealing with this particular proposal we must also consider the fact that we now have one tax which is related to the basic structure of the proposal now before us-the old age security tax. Some of the figures are different but the principles of that tax structure are similar to the tax measure now before us for consideration. We must consider some of the inequities of the tax system in our economy, and the fact that there is no provision for taxation on capital gains. There are all sorts of loopholes for the benefit of those people who now have high incomes. Many of these people escape taxation altogether.
I suggest that we need a complete reversal of practice in respect of our taxation policy. I also suggest that the evidence indicates that in practice such a reversal will not be forthcoming under the present government. We need a general change in both fiscal and economic planning which should be based on equity.
Let me draw to the attention of the minister the situation which faces many people in my own constituency of Regina East. Many of them are living on modest wages and salaries in the city of Regina, and many of them are having a very difficult time coping with the present economic situation. This measure, together with the measures proposed by the minister in his speech the other night, will do nothing to relieve the problems of these people. Similarly, this proposal and the proposals of the minister in his budget speech on Tuesday night will do nothing to relieve the serious problems facing the farmers in my constituency. It will do nothing to help the people living in the villages, towns and rural areas of my constituency.
It is certainly true that we are faced with the problem of inflation. I think the government has shown its unwillingness to tackle adequately the problem of inflation, and its unwillingness to correct the inflation which exists at the present time. We are not going to reverse some of the trends toward inequity in our economy by the tinkering the government is doing at the present time. In order to solve this problem we require a radical change in our approach to economic and social policy. I urge the minister to take such steps before it is too late to save the Canadian economy from a disastrous situation.


Albert Béchard: Shall clause 27 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.

June 5, 1969
Income Tax Act


Some hon. Members:: No.
The Depuly Chairman: Those in favour of clause 27 please rise. Those who are opposed to clause 27 please rise.
Clause agreed to: Yes, 50; nays, 19.


Albert Béchard: I declare the clause carried.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
On clause 28-Investment income tax.


Mr. Benson:: Mr. Chairman, there is an amendment to clause 28. The main purpose of the amendment is to bring the bill into line with the resolution. The amendment is in the first line of the sheets which hon. members have. We used the words "term life insurance" in the bill and "group term life insurance" in the resolution, and we are bringing the two into line.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I move:
That Bill C-191 be further amended
(a)	by striking out line 10 on page 48 and substituting the following:
"(C) group term life insurance policies,"
(b)	by striking out lines 24 to 28 on page 49 and substituting the following:
"(b) the amounts required by subsection (4) of section 68a to be included in computing the insurer's income for the year, other than amounts deducted under paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of that section in computing its income for the immediately preceding taxation year;"
(c)	by striking out lines 6 to 9 on page 50 and substituting the following:
(b) interest payable by the insurer in respect of the year pursuant to a legal obligation incurred by it in the course of carrying on its life insurance business in Canada;"
(d)	by striking out lines 13 and 14 on page 50 and substituting the following:
"for the year in respect of a building at least 80% of which was used regularly by it for the purpose of earning";
(e)	by striking out the word "or" in line 34 on page 50, and by striking out line 38 on page 50 and substituting the following:
"group life insurance business, or
(v) was payable by the insurer to a province as a tax in respect of premiums collected by it in the year under life insurance policies."
(f)	by striking out line 12 on page 52 and substituting the following:
"whatever other than to provide for payment of the premiums at time intervals more or less frequent than those fixed and determined immediately before the variation;"
(g)	by striking out line 17 on page 52 and substituting the following:
" 'property, property used in the year in, or held in the year in the course of' carrying on an insurance business in Canada and 'relevant authority' "; and
[The Deputy Chairman.]
(i) by striking out line 15 on page 53 and substituting the following:
"expression 'group term life insurance policy,' ".


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, before this and subsequent clauses carry, could the minister explain briefly what different there will be as far as taxation is concerned between Canadian owned insurance companies and foreign owned insurance companies?


Edgar John Benson: So far as business in Canada is concerned, there will be none. Foreign owned insurance companies operating in Canada will be taxed on their Canadian business; Canadian companies will be taxed on their business in Canada.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Does this mean that Canadian companies doing business in other parts of the world will not be taxed on that business, and the profit which comes from that business will be treated apart from the profit which is earned from the Canadian business?


Edgar John Benson: Foreign business will not be taxed, but when profits are brought back from it they will be taxed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 29-Rents, royalties, etc.
Edgar John Benson: There is an amendment to clause 29, Mr. Chairman.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I move:
That Bill C-191 be further amended
(a)	by striking out lines 32 to 38 on page 53 and lines 1 to 27 on page 54 and substituting the following:
"(ii) for information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific experience where the total amount payable as consideration for such information is dependent in whole or in part upon
(A)	the use to be made thereof or the benefit to be derived therefrom,
(B)	production or sales of goods or services, or
(C)	profits,
(ill) for services of an industrial, commercial or scientific character performed by a non-resident person where the total amount payable as consideration for such services is dependent in whole or in part upon
(A)	the use to be made thereof or the benefit to be derived therefrom,
(B)	production or sales of goods or services, or
(C)	profits,
but not including a payment made for services performed in connection with the sale of property or the negotiation of a contract,";
(b)	by striking out the word "or" in line 15 on page 55; and
June 5, 1969

(c)	by striking out lines 23 to 25 on page 55 and substituting the following:
"an interest in any or all property or other things of value that may result therefrom, or
(ix) a rental payment for the use of or the right to use outside of Canada any corporeal property;''


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: I move:
That Bill C-191 be further amended by striking out line 26 on page 53 of the French version and substituting the following:
"precede, tout paiement"


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: I move:
That Bill C-191 be further amended by striking out the word "scientific" in line 21 on page 55.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clause 30 agreed to.
On clause 31-"Insurance Corporation" or "insurer19.
Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, there is an amendment to clause 31.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I move:
That Bill C-191 be further amended by striking out lines 18 to 27 on page 58 and substituting the following:
"(wa) 'life insurance business' includes
(i)	an annuities business, and
(ii)	the business of issuing contracts all or any part of the issuer's reserves for which vary in amount depending upon the fair market value of a specified group of assets, carried on by a life insurance corporation or a life insurer;
(wb) 'life insurance corporation' or 'life insurer' means a corporation that carries on a life insurance business that is not a business described in subparagraph (i) or (ii) of paragraph (wa) whether or not it also carries on a business described in either of those subparagraphs;".


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 32-
Edgar John Benson: There is a technical amendment to clause 32, Mr. Chairman, dealing with definitions, and so on.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I move:
That Bill C-191 be further amended (a) by striking out lines 30 to 37 on page 59 and substituting the following:
"paragraph, a capital improvement or capital addition to a building owned by an insurer shall be deemed not to be part of the building but to be a separate and distinct building acquired by it, if the cost to the insurer of such improvement or
Income Tax Act
addition as the case may be, exceeded $100,000)," and
(b) by adding immediately after line 39 on page 62 the following:
"(6) For the purposes of subparagraph (i) of paragraph (b) of subsection (12) of section 68A of the said Act, the cost to an insurer of any Canada security owned by it at the end of its 1968 taxation year shall be deemed to be the actual cost to it of acquiring the security
(a)	plus a reasonable amount (having regard to the amount included in respect of the security in computing the insurer's income for its 1969 taxation year by virtue of paragraph (c) of subsection (4) of section 68A of the said Act) in respect of the amortization of the amount by which the principal amount of the security at the time it was so acquired exceeds such actual cost, or
(b)	minus a reasonable amount (having regard to the amount deducted in respect of the security under paragraph (d) of subsection (3) of section 68A of the said Act in computing the insurer's income for its 1969 taxation year) in respect of the amortization of the amount by which such actual cost exceeds the principal amount of the security at the time it was so acquired,
as the case may be.
(7) for the purposes of the Income Tax Act and this section, an insurer's maximum tax actuarial reserve for its 1968 taxation year for life insurance policies of any particular class shall be deemed to be the maximum amount that would have been deductible as a policy reserve for the year for those policies under subparagraph (i) of paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of section 68A of the said Act, if section 15 had been applicable to that year."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 33-
Edgar John Benson: There is an amendment to clause 33, Mr. Chairman. Here again it is a clarification in wording.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I move:
That Bill C-191 be further amended
(a) by striking out line 26 on page 63 and substituting the following:
"(1) that proportion of the tax computed";
(b) by striking out line 33 on page 63 and substituting the following:
"(m) that proportion of the tax computed;" and
(c)	by striking out lines 3 to 5 on page 64 and substituting the following:
"tized cost, 'Canada security', 'participating life insurance policy' and 'principal amount' have"


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 1-
Mr. Riichie:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
whether I could have the indulgence of the

June 5, 1969
Income Tax Act
committee to ask the minister a question for clarification. My question concerns deductions for medical expenses.


Albert Béchard: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Gordon Ritchie: With regard to deductions for medical care that is not covered by an insurance program, that is, extra expenses, will these be allowed as an income tax deduction?


Edgar John Benson: If the provincial scheme is broader than the federal scheme, that is, if a portion is paid by the government through the provincial scheme, then of course they are disallowed; the federal government is making a contribution to the provincial scheme. If one has additional coverage under a private scheme, then of course the expenses in this regard will be allowable, that is, the portion of the claim paid by the private scheme will be allowable, as it is now. The main purpose of the provision is that where you have a provincial scheme and the federal government is contributing part of the cost to the provincial scheme, we do not also allow the deduction for tax purposes of expenses which are paid by the federal and provincial governments. But if one has, beyond this, personal coverage with a private company, as is the case with hospitalization at the present time, those portions paid by the private company are deductible because the premium is paid by the individual and the government does not contribute to it.


William Gordon Ritchie: Has the minister looked into the functional operation of this program in Manitoba, say, where doctors are operating out of the plan and the patient pays the full amount and is then reimbursed a portion of it? Has any direction been given by the Income Tax Department in this regard?


Edgar John Benson: If it is under a provincial scheme and the province gets into medicare, all payments made by the provincial scheme will not be allowable. If the individual has separate coverage and pays additional expenses beyond that, we have not changed the situation whatsoever.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Albert Béchard: Shall the bill as amended carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Motion agreed to: Yeas, 51; nays, 17.


Albert Béchard: 1 declare the bill carried.
Bill reported.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: When shall the said bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


Edgar John Benson: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it the
pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we were against the legislation contained in this bill when it was first proposed last October, particularly the social development tax. We have been against it all through the piece and we are against it now. We think this tax is regressive, iniquitous, unfair, unnecessary and intolerable. Therefore we are going to vote against it on third reading.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I will only say a few words on the third reading of this bill.
What the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) just said is quite true, and it is also our position concerning this bill aimed at levying a 2 per cent social development tax.
The government has not acted honestly when it imposed that tax on the people, being fully aware that the workers cannot pay more money.
I think that when the government was actually defeated in 1968, on vote in the committee of the whole, it should have normally gone to the people for a confirmation of its mandate, but it failed to do so.
We then opposed a 5 per cent tax, and the bill was withdrawn. The Minister of Justice, with whom I appeared on television at that time, had solemnly promised, on behalf of the government, that such a bill would not be introduced in the house again and that there would be no tax increases.
At the time of the general election and since then, we, of the Ralliement Creditiste,
June 5, 1969

agreed to maintain the government in power on a vote of confidence, as we thought this was an honest government.


An hon. Member:: It is a different
government.


David Réal Caouette: This is exactly the same situation. Following the election, a 2 per cent tax was levied, a 3 per cent extra tax which will be in force until 1970. And now we are burdened with a so-called 2 per cent social development tax which again is levied on the small wage earners in order to pay for the government's evastefulners.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot agree to that bill. My colleagues opposed the motions for first and second readings, and on third reading, we shall vote against the imposition of that social development tax, which is named just like the hurricanes that lash the Atlantic and Pacific oceans from time to time. The government wants to lash the poor in Canada by subjecting them to more poverty and more taxes. In fact, once again, as I said the little people will bear the costs of the present government's wastefulness. Our position is clear, precise and plain; we strongly oppose that 2 per cent social development tax.
Some Liberal members said that money does not grow on trees. Everybody knows that. However, the government takes care not to say where it actually grows.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) might have told us, for example, where the $14 billion required for the 1939 war were found, when there was an emergency and our national debt amounted to $3 billion.
The present national emergency is just as serious as the one in 1939, and the time has come for the government to tell us finally where money grows, if not on trees. If the minister does not know, we do; but when we tell him, he does not listen and he does not want to hear. Like the ostrich, they bury their head in the sand, and refuse to hear or to see anything.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: From time to time, some people, like the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain), hold forth on demagogy and other such things. I have seen the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres in Saint-Marc of Shawinigan, with a white beret on his head, sitting with-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
Income Tax Act


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres on a question of privilege.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Temiscamingue has just made serious slanderous remarks about me, because I have never approved the stupidities he has been advocating for 35 years.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I think I still have a photograph of the Saint-Marc meeting, at Shawinigan, where the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres is sitting on the stage with your humble servant, Mrs. Gilberte Cote-Mercier and our leader at the time Mr. Georges-Emile Lapalme. And the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres was wearing a white beret just like everybody else. He was convinced that Social Credit was a good thing.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order please. The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres is rising on a question of privilege.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Both my colleagues in the house and myself welcome from time to time the opportunity to hear the hon. member for Temiscamingue joking or being humourous on serious matters, but I would like to remind him that under our Standing Orders he has to accept the word of a colleague who points out some inaccuracy. Furthermore, I would be grateful to him if he would offer me as a gift the photograph he has mentioned.


David Réal Caouette: I think I will make a present to the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres, Mr. Speaker, but I forgot to mention someone else, Rene Hamel who used to be a member of the Bloc populaire-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. Frankly, I think that the hon. member for Temiscamingue is straying somewhat from the third reading of Bill C-191.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, with this 2 per cent surtax or social development tax, don't you think that the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres would look very nice if he entered this house wearing a white beret? It seems to me that this has something to do with the extravagant expenditures of the government.
Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres sets upon us, saying that we

Juns 5, 1969
Division
are demagogues, that we play the poor against the rich, that we try to use the poor in an effort to spread our philosophy, etc., etc.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres when he was mayor of his city was chairing one of our conventions as honorary president, in Trois-Rivieres, at the "Flambeau". The "Flambeau" was not the mayor of Trois-Rivieres-


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question.


David Réal Caouette: Yes.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Would the hon. member tell me in what year he was a Liberal candidate?


David Réal Caouette: Certainly; I said it a while ago; in 1956, exactly when the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres was wearing a white beret. At that time, I was a Liberal member. The hon. member will recall that. Our common leader was Georges fimile Lapalme. He surely will remember that as well.
Mr. Speaker, that is not what I want to talk about. When he was mayor of Trois-Rivieres, the present member for Trois-Rivieres spoke highly of the blessings of Social Credit, of its achievements. The member for Trois-Rivieres said great things about the Alberta administration-


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member is rising on a question of privilege.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says I spoke highly of the blessings of Social Credit... There was an election campaign going on and I praised the achievements of the Liberal party; I should like to ask the hon. member, if he has any sense of honesty left, not to say such monstrosities.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres is the one who spends his time saying monstrosities. A while ago, two Liberal members came to me behind the curtain and said: Mongrain is a bore. Two Liberal members told me: He gets up when it is not time to do so, and when we do not want him to, he gets up to speak anyway. The member for Trois-Rivieres is not a serious man, and he is not taken seriously in his riding either.

Mr. Speaker, that is all I wanted to say this afternoon because I would not like to delay the vote further. We will deal with these taxes some time next week when we study the new budget of the Minister of Finance.
Mr. Speaker, we oppose the social development tax and we will vote against it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it the
pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?



EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
The house proceeded to the consideration of 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, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Otto Emil Lang: That Bill C-183, An Act 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 amended by striking out lines 39 and 40 at page 16 thereof and by substituting therefor the following: "(b) the expropriation, confiscation or deprivation of the use of, or the arbitrary seizure of,"
He said:	Mr. Speaker the amendment
before us and the subsequent two amendments
Measures to Develop Trade are being introduced to improve the wording of the bill. The particular amendment before us now was discussed in committee. It was thought in committee that the wording of the bill was ambiguous. This matter was being discussed at a time when the committee did not want to hold up the reporting of the bill. Accordingly there was a request that this matter be brought forward for clarification. The wording of the amendment does not change the intention of the original wording. The order of the words has been changed to make sure that the meaning which was originally intended to be conveyed is clear, There was ambiguity in the English version and perhaps a misinterpretation in the French version. This amendment is designed to clarify the meaning of the clause it is amending.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it the
pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Lang, for Mr. Pepin) agreed to.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Otto Emil Lang: That Bill C-183, An Act to establish the Export Development Corporation and to facilitate and develop export trade by the provision of insurance, guarantees, loans and other financial facilities, as amended by the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs be further amended by striking out in the French version the new subsection (3) added by the Committee to Section 16 at page 7 thereof and by substituting therefor the following:
"(3) Chaque regie merit, administratif etabli en vertu du paragraphe (1) sera depose au Parlement dans les quinze jours qui suivent son approbation par le Ministre, ou, si le Parlement ne siege pas a ce moment-id, l'un quelconque des quinze premiers jours ou il siege par la suite."
He said: Mr. Speaker, this amendment is an amendment in wording which is suggested by expert draftsmen to some words which were added to the bill at the committee stage. The amendment makes no change in the substance of the bill as reported by the committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it the
pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Lang, for Mr. Pepin) agreed to.
June 5, 1969

Measures to Develop Trade


Otto Emil Lang: That Bill C-183, an Act to establish the Export Development Corporation and to facilitate and develop export trade by the provision of insurance, guarantees, loans and other financial facilities, as amended by the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Aifairs be further amended by striking out the word "to" in the phrase "and to fix the terms and conditions of his appointment and his remuneration" inserted by the Committee after the word "being" at line 40 of page 3 thereof and by substituting therefor the word "shall".
He said: Again, Mr. Speaker, this is merely a drafting change which will result in carrying out the intention of the committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it the
pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Lang, for Mr. Pepin) agreed to.


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, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, be concurred in.
Motion (for concurrence) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: When shall the said bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Some hon. Members:: By leave.


Mr. Lang (for Mr. Pepin) moved: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to make a few points with respect to the bill before it passes because it deals with a matter of tremendous concern to Canada, namely, our trading position and the development of trade between Canada and other nations.
I wish to point out what I think has been a failure in government policy over many years, which also extends to some provincial governments. I refer to what I consider to be the over-enthusiastic manner in which the government promotes the export of our natural resources in their raw or near-raw state. This may be all right for renewable resources such as wheat, lumber, timber and even logs, because with proper conservation
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard).]
practices they will be available for future generations.
I do not consider it to be in the best interests of Canada to exert so much effort to promote the export of resources such as minerals which are not renewable. We are exporting the material either in a raw state or in a near-raw state in the form of concentrates. So far as minerals are concerned, we are left simply with a hole in the ground because we have exported resources that cannot be renewed.
By exporting our resources of raw materials we are also exporting job opportunities. In addition, we are contributing to an imbalance of payments with other countries. We import into this country finished products manufactured from the same raw materials we have exported. We pay much more for them than what we receive from the sale of the resources. By endorsing the export of Canadian concentrates from British Columbia, we are putting ourselves in the position of being unable in the future to develop in the Canadian mining industry smelting and manufacturing plants.
Each time we export these concentrates to another nation we deny ourselves the opportunity to process these concentrates in later years when we may be in a position to promote seriously smelting and manufacturing industries. This government and its predecessors have not exhibited any great concern about the necessity of promoting secondary manufacturing industry in Canada or using our natural resources to develop remunerative jobs and positions for Canadians.
The government seems content with and intent upon selling out the resources of Canada for an immediate, small, short-range gain. It does not seem to be able to look into the future to the time when these resources will be of value to our country. This field must be promoted. Perhaps the Department of Regional Economic Expansion will concern itself with this field more intensely than has been the case in the past, or more intensely than the present policy of that department indicates. The fundamental point is that when we export our raw materials or natural resources in their near-raw state we are exporting job opportunities for Canadians. We are denying ourselves the opportunity of promoting the economic well-being of Canadians by exploiting our own wealth for a short range benefit.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Although no one on the government side is paying too much attention to me at the
June 5, 1969	COMMONS
moment, I hope someone will read Hansard and pay attention to the concept I am putting forward, if not to every word. I am sure the minister who is piloting the bill through the house is aware of the situation, as are some of his colleagues. I ask the minister to give some recognition to this concern so that we can use our resources wealth for our own benefit first and not for the benefit of some other nation.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that we have been paying attention to the hon. member's remarks even though what he has been saying is not relevant to the bill before us. We certainly can share his interest in the development of secondary industry in this country and the jobs that depend on it. Of course the purpose of the former legislation and the approach which the Export Development Corporation will have are exactly in the direction of promoting exports of materials, equipment and items produced by our secondary industry. Therefore the operation of the Export Development Corporation should go a good way toward inproving the position of the working men in the country through the provision of jobs and the efficiency generally of industry in this country, secondary industry in particular.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words at this stage. I am delighted to hear the minister say that he is as concerned as we in this group are about the export of our nonrenewable resources, and that he hopes the legislation he is piloting through will prevent a recurrence of what has been happening in respect of our resources and secondary industry of a manufacturing and processing nature in Canada. I support wholeheartedly what the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) just said. I hope the minister and his colleagues, not only through this legislation but also through any other legislation which is now or will be on the books, will concentrate on keeping Canadian non-renewable resources in Canadian hands so that the products of those resources will be available for the maximum benefit of Canadians. By selling these non-renewable resources we betray succeeding generations. Our grandchildren and those who follow them will not forgive us for what we have already done in respect of some of these resources. I hope the minister will be able to correct the attitude that a buck for his friends is all right now
DEBATES	9781
Oil and Gas Production and Conservation and they will not worry about the country until later.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it the
pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION AND CONSERVATION


[Stage Direction]
The house proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-29, respecting the production and conservation of oil and gas in the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Stanley Howard Knowles: That Bill S-29, An Act respecting the production and conservation of oil and gas in the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories, be amended, in subclause (1) of clause 4, by deleting the words "not more than" after the words "five members" in line 22 on page 3 of the Bill; and in subclause (2) of clause 4 by deleting the words "one member" and substituting therefor the words "one of the three members in the public service" in line 28 on page 3 of the Bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this amendment and the three that follow it are on the order paper in the name of the hon. member for Bat-tleford-Kindersley (Mr. Thomson). It so happens that my colleague, together with other members, is in eastern Canada with the Standing Committee on Agriculture. Therefore someone had to be found to take his place. I thought this morning I had found a colleague who was familiar with this legislation who would do this.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. These amendments have been dealt with in the committee and have been rejected by the committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is not a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is perfectly in order to try, back in the house at the report stage, to do something that did not succeed before the standing committee. Is there any doubt about that, Mr. Speaker?
June 5, 1969

Oil and Gas Production and Conservation


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: 
Mr. R. J. Orange (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said he felt as though he was acting as parliamentary secretary to the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Thomson).


An hon. Member:: Unpaid.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Yes, unpaid. I congratulate him for the way he once again expressed what the hon. member expressed in the committee in respect of the amendment. This amendment was thoroughly examined by the committee and, if I might say so, I think the opinion of the committee was of such a nature that it cut across these lines of action. I experienced this cutting across lines of action in respect of an amendment I proposed. It was not accepted by the committee. It dealt with the insistence in subclause 1 of clause 4 that the minister select members of the public service as members of this committee. I felt this would deny the minister the kind of flexibility which I believe is essential to a developing industry in a developing area.
Let me use the example of how we could lose this flexibility if the chairman of the National Energy Board reached retirement in his career but was, as a public servant, available to continue to serve his country and was agreeable to accept an appointment of this nature. He would then be one of the two people classified as being from the private sector. This is the kind of flexibility the minister should have, and we must be careful that we do not become dogmatic by insisting
DEBATES	9783
Oil and Gas Production and Conservation that all the members of our boards and commissions be controlled necessarily by members of the public service. We must be sure that members of the public service do not necessarily have the upper hand.
It is not a bad idea that members from the public service be outnumbered by people from the private sector in developing and working on a board such as the oil and gas conservation board for the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. I believe there are sufficient controls within the bill to preclude the so-called vested interests from taking over the operations of such a board.
While it has not been said in this amendment, I think there is allusion to the fact that we must be careful, in respect of vested interests in the oil and gas industry, to avoid having more than three or four in control of the activities of such an oil and gas conservation committee. There are other controls within the framework of the legislation in respect of the amount of stock which can be held by individual members of the board, and the fact that a member should withdraw if there is a conflict of interest.
While I respect the hon. member's proposed amendment, I do not believe it is practical. I do not believe we should incorporate in legislation a fundamental principle that will give the public service control over such a board. I do not suggest that the minister initially or in years to come would not have three members on the board from the public service, but I think this is a bad principle to adopt. It does not allow the minister the necessary flexibility, and it could conceivably eliminate other desirable people in the future.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
The amendment to subclause 2 concerns the chairman of the committee. I do not believe this house should insist that a member of the public service become chairman of the committee, again for the reason of flexibility. Therefore, while I do not dispute the motives with which the amendment was put forward, it is just not practical at this stage and I propose to vote against it.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange). The only element of flexibility that I can see in what the hon. member said is the elasticity of his argument and the extent to which he stretched credulity beyond recognition in trying to make a point which I do not think was very well made.
June 5, 1969

Oil and Gas Production and Conservation
I gather that the gist of the objection to the amendment revolves around the concept that if the amendment were accepted it would interfere with the flexibility of the minister to do whatever it is he wants to do. If there is any validity to the point of interference with the flexibility available to the minister, one is entitled to ask why the appointment of people from the public service was included in the bill in the first place. If the minister and the government wanted that element of flexibility which the hon. member for Northwest Territories says is necessary, why did not clause 4 simply provide that the committee shall consist of five members, period, without making any reference to "not more than three of whom shall be employees in the public service of Canada"? If the bill as proposed by the government has any meaning whatever in terms of the constitution and construction of the committee, surely it must mean that there will be somebody from the public service, presumably up to three persons.
The government has decided that it wants the opportunity to have up to three people from the public service on the committee. Having decided this, the government has interfered with its own opportunity to be flexible; it has constrained and confined itself to selecting some people from the public service. Either this clause means that or it is in the bill just as a sop and to pay lip service to the concept that the public should be involved in the functioning of the committee through the public service of Canada. I am inclined to think, after listening to the hon. member for Northwest Territories, that this is only a lip service proposition. The government says: We believe this is a good idea and will say something about it, but we are not really going to do anything about it.
I believe I can draw an exact parallel here. There is in the Liquor Control Act of British Columbia a provision that the liquor control board of the province shall consist of not more than three people. That provision has been in the act since 1954. However, not more than one person has ever been appointed to the board. Reading the provision in this bill I was immediately reminded of the arguments that then Attorney General of British Columbia, Mr. Bonner, and the Premier of that province, Mr. Bennett, put forward in 1954. They argued the same way as the hon. member and said they wanted a degree of flexibility. They said they wanted a board of up to three members; they did not want to specify three, two or one, but up to three so they would have flexibility to appoint people

competent and knowledgeable in the field of liquor control, liquor distribution and the like. They asked to be given the opportunity to draw people from all sectors of society. That was all hogwash. Their intention was to have only one person on the board, and that has been the situation since 1954.
The same arguments have been advanced by the hon. member for Northwest Territories. As I understood him, he said it would be a bad principle to adopt the idea that we should involve people from the public service in this sort of activity; we would be far better off to draw people from the private sector who know more about this matter, have been involved in it, know the details and are really much more capable in this field.
I do not usually hold too many briefs for people in the public service, especially those in the minister's department, but I think it is rather slighting for a parliamentary secretary to stand up in the house and belittle in an oral way the performance of people in the public service. I thought he would be one of the first to rise and endorse their ability and protect them to the utmost. However, the hon. member says that it would be a bad principle to have people from the public service serve on the committee because they are not competent enough to involve themselves in its work to the extent envisaged when the bill was drafted. I think that goes a bit beyond his authority as a parliamentary secretary.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Mr. Speaker, this shows how little the hon. member knows. I am not parliamentary secretary to this minister.


Frank Howard: The hon. member for Northwest Territories, having been one of those gentlemen who worked in the public service of Canada, may have prior knowledge of the abilities of people in the public service. His knowledge may go beyond mine and may have flavoured his views on this matter. The fact is that he has argued contrary to the position of his minister and the government. In the bill the minister says that the government wants some people from the public service serving on this committee. The minister has said the government has decided it wants up to three people from the public service of Canada on the committee. The hon. member for Northwest Territories says he does not want anybody from the public service on the committee, that the government should have enough flexibility to be able to choose whomever it wants. He coupled that concept with an expressed lack of faith in the ability of
June 5, 1969	COMMONS
public servants to function properly on the committee and fulfil its purpose. The hon. member went even further and said that people in the private sector are much more knowledgeable.
This brings me back to where I started. The hon. member has stretched the idea of flexibility to the breaking point, when the only flexibility involved is in the hon. member's ability to do a poor job of trying to cover up something and explain to the house that which is not explainable.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand that the minister has already taken part in the debate.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: If not, the minister may proceed.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get into a long argument in explaining to the house why we cannot accept the amendment. The fact is that as far as the north is concerned we would like to make sure that the exploitation of oil resources is the best, and in achieving this we do not want to repeat the errors that have been made elsewhere. That is the reason for this clause. We want not more than three people from the public service of Canada on the Committee. We do this because we have to be realistic about this matter. The development of the north will not be carried out by only the public sector. Right now there is a great deal of activity in the north and the money is coming from the private sector.
The committee provided for in the bill will have to deal with problems in order to make sure that we achieve in the north the best production at the lowest possible cost so that the products of the north are easily saleable in world markets. We have in the north some problems that are not the same as those elsewhere in Canada. These problems arise because of the difficulty of transportation. We included this provision in the bill to make sure we will achieve the best possible productivity in the north. In order to achieve it we will sometimes have to interfere with the interests of the private sector and ask or urge them to do things that perhaps they will not like to do. This is why we want to make sure that at least two of the members out of the five will come from the outside.
DEBATES	9785
Oil and Gas Production and Conservation [DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
If we were to say that all the members of the board should be civil servants, we would not ensure the proper representation of the private sector. Perhaps the three other members on the board should be from the public sector. That I do not know. This may or may not be desirable. As the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange) said, we may appoint someone who is completely independent and who has no interests whatever in the oil industry. If we do not have any flexibility we would not be in a position to appoint a person connected with an industry that is not related to oil or, as the hon. member said, to appoint someone who has been in the civil service and who would be pleased to act as a member of the board after retirement.
So I think that we must ensure that public and private sectors are represented, and this clause gives us sufficient flexibility to do so. If we feel that we need three civil servants on the board, we will appoint them. If not, we will not be forced to do so, but we want the people who are involved and who put up the money for the development of resources in the north to be represented on that board. It is fair that we keep two slots for them. The clause we are considering makes sure that three members on the board may be from the public sector. Anyway, all five of them will be appointed by the minister whose duty it is to this house and to the public of Canada to make sure that the people who are appointed to the board are the best possible.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to hear the minister say that the government is desirous of appointing to the board people who have invested their money in the oil and gas industries so that the government can make use of their knowledge, and that because they have investments in these industries they are entitled to have some say in the operations of the board. If that is logical, then I find it passing strange that, for example, in the case of Panarctic Oil-I do not know whether this is the case today but it was a short time ago- the people of Canada, who have 45 per cent ownership of the company, have hardly any representation on its board. Following the minister's logic and argument one would conclude that 45 per cent of the directors on the board of Panarctic Oil would be people from the public service directly representing the investors, that is, the public of Canada. How many are there in fact? Only one. If the
June 5, 1969

Oil and Gas Production and Conservation minister's argument is logical, I wish something could be done for the other side of the coin. I am still unconvinced by the minister's argument concerning flexibility, though this may be because of my own denseness.
May I point out that the hon. member for Northwest Territories is fortunate to be the representative of an area that is still, to all intents and purposes, a frontier. I am sure he is more interested than anyone else in ensuring that we do not repeat the errors of the past, the exploitation of our frontier areas and consistent under-representation of the public interest. There was exploitation of all kinds, from the slaughter of buffalo to the rape of our forests, and representation of the public interest was minimal. Those who wished to exploit the resources did so to the maximum extent possible. Because it is still a frontier area and because its development is surging forward more rapidly than it has in the past, surely it is even more necessary to ensure that three of the members of the oil and gas committee shall be people from the public service.
I plead with the minister and with the hon. member for Northwest Territories to think again and to think of the whole history of resource development in Canada and of what occurred in other parts of the country which were developed sooner than the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. I hope that the historical evidence of that experience will convince them that at least for the first few years the board should have on it at least three members from the public service. Certainly the appointment of the chairman of the board from among these three members is a further logical extension of the protection of the public interest on the oil and gas committee.
I hope the minister will agree that this amendment does not in any way drastically or radically affect his legislation. I think he will find after a year or two of experience that it will prove practical and will give him all the flexibility he needs. If it does not prove to be that way, the minister will find that I and others in this group will be the first to agree and will gladly support an amendment which he might want to bring in a year or two from now. Frankly, I doubt very much that the government will initiate a change of this nature a year or two from now.
I would like to lodge a final plea with the minister and the hon. member for Northwest Territories that they change their minds. This amendment is not all that important. I urge

them to try it this way first. If it does not work, the minister can come back and tell us about it.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We will try it this way, and if it does not work we will come back.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. The minister has already taken part in the debate.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the minister very carefully, as I always do, and particularly when he said that we do not want to repeat the errors of the past. I think his words were to that effect. What strikes me about the whole situation is that by simply bringing in this kind of legislation the minister will not correct the errors of the past. I can appreciate the minister's intention to bring a little bit of order into the exploration for and development of oil.
The minister also indicated in the same vein that he wanted the best production and the best prices possible, and that he wanted to see these resources developed as effectively as possible. I point out to the minister that this legislation will not do that for him. Unless he changes the entire nature of the oil industry, he will be a captive of that industry, particularly if he rejects our amendment and insists on putting buccaneers at the helm of the ship. Surely this is a shortsighted policy for a minister who sincerely wants to change things and to develop the north.
If the minister wishes to ensure that our resources will be used in the best possible way, that they will bring benefits to the north and to the Canadian people, and that they will be an instrument of national policy, then he must go farther than he has in this bill. Certainly he should be prepared to accept our amendment. The evidence of what has taken place in Canada in the oil industry is shameful. Consumer prices are infinitely higher than they need be because of the monopolistic practices of the oil industry.
This industry is not the slightest bit interested in Canada. The companies have international affiliations. They exploit the country to benefit their own particular interests, and they will have no hesitation in exploiting the minister's dream to further their own interests. Therefore I fail to understand the reason for the minister's rejection of our amendment, and I fail to understand his optimism regarding this bill. If he sincerely means that he does not want to see the errors of the past repeated, then he must urge upon his colleagues-and I know it is not entirely within
June 5, 1969	COMMONS
his purview to make these changes-the necessity for a complete revamping of the oil industry to give him some measure of marketing and distribution control and some say in the way the resources of this country are allocated. Otherwise control will be in the hands of those who are in command of the oil industry, namely, the international companies. The consumers are already paying tribute to them. It has been estimated that every gallon of gasoline bought in this country costs five cents more as a result of the inefficient manner in which the oil industry has been developed. One has only to look at the pattern of development in the west, at the underutilization of wells in provinces like Alberta, to observe how wasteful this development has been.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
The minister points to this legislation and indicates that it will help in this connection. I do not deny it will be of some assistance. But it does not get to the crux of the problem, the way in which oil is marketed and transported in this country, and until something is done along these lines nothing much will be solved. What happens if the companies do not want to sell the output? After all, the major producers are also the major retailers of oil. Suppose they do not wish to take oil from the Northwest Territories; what will he do? If the minister wishes to answer that question now, I think the house would be interested in hearing his reply.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. minister has already spoken in this debate and unless the house gives unanimous consent to allow the minister to reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman), he will not be able to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, Bill S-29 we introduced is precisely intended to cope with the problems referred to by the hon. member for Waterloo.
This legislation gives us the power to require the industries to combine their interests to the best advantage of all Canadians. This conservation committee is going to do just that. However since the growth and 29180-6191
DEBATES	9787
Oil and Gas Production and Conservation development of oil resources in the North were partially ensured up to now by private entreprise, we deem it fair and reasonable that it should be represented on this committee.
We say there will be at least two representatives who are not the public service employees.
But that does not mean that we do not intend to take the necessary steps to have those resources developed in the interest of Canadians, rather than in the interest of the operators only.
Reading the legislation, one can see that we intend to take the necessary action to avoid a loss of energy or too much capital investment in proportion to the returns, as it has probably happened in the province of Alberta, according to what the hon. member said.
We hope to do it with the help of this legislation. And it is not only the presence of three civil servants on the committee that will allow us to do so. The regulatory powers are still in the hands of the minister and the objectives are well known.
However, since the minister himself cannot deal with all the problems, we thought it reasonable to set up this committee.
Three public service members will be appointed if necessary, so that the Canadian public can be assured that never, if we so wish, the private enterprise concerned in the northern development will control that committee.
However, if we insist upon three members being from the public service, it is possible that people from outside the public service may not be able to serve, even though they have Canada's interests as much and even more at heart than some public servants.
Let us suppose that my hon. friend decides tomorrow to retire from politics, I may not have even if I think he is competent enough, free scope to offer him membership on such a committee.
So I think that those who fear that the committee might be entirely controlled by private enterprise in the North may be assured that this will not occur, and that the government has no intention of repeating in the North errors that were made elsewhere.
The very fact that this is mentioned in the legislation and that we may express those views here in the house should be clear enough to my hon. friends.
June 5. 1969
9788	COMMONS DEBATES
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion [English]


Mr.   Bailsman@: Mr. Speaker, while
admiring-
The Acling Speaker (Mr. Bechard): Order.
The hon. member for Waterloo will need unanimous consent if he wishes to take the floor again.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Max Saltsman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. While admiring the minister's optimism and his obvious feeling for the development of the north, I think he is making a somewhat naive assumption. It is really stretching things to expect that people knowledgeable in the oil industry, having been appointed to the committee-presumably they will either have had associations with the oil industry or be still in association with it-will look at the possibilities of development in the north from a purely objective viewpoint. The great problem in Canada is that we have far more oil now than we can market. Can the minister not anticipate the difficulties which will arise when someone who has oil interests not only in Canada but in Arabia or Venezuela is faced with the problem of marketing the output of the north? Will he forget about all his other interests and investments to concentrate on marketing the northern oil?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It is my
duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the house that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman)-Canada Pension Plan-exemption for the Old Order of Mennonites; the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Dumont)-Erection of a monument commemorating Louis Riel; the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath)-Consumer Affairs-Suggestion by Loblaw president to boycott beef purchases.
It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of government orders as listed on today's order paper, namely private bills, notices of motions (papers), public bills.
[Mr. ChrAtien.l


Frank Howard: There has been some discussion, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the business during private members' hour. In order that the leader of the house may not be accused of asserting what I think he himself once called his viciousness-he did so facetiously and jokingly-perhaps I could put a proposition to hon. members which might find favour, namely, that during the time set aside for private bills the house should proceed to consider only the first item, namely, second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs of Bill S-34, respecting the Nova Scotia Savings and Loan Company, and that upon completion of this item the house then revert to government orders.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Perhaps that could be made an order of the house, Mr. Speaker.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants) moved: that Bill S-34, respecting Nova Scotia Savings and Loan Company, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


[Stage Direction]
MEASURE ESTABLISHING OIL AND GAS COMMITTEE AND REGULATING POWERS OF GOVERNOR IN COUNCII^-REPORT STAGE
The house resumed consideration of Bill S-29, respecting the production and conservation of oil and gas in the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development,
June 5, 1969	COMMONS
and the motion of Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre, for Mr. Thomson).
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Max Saltsman: Returning to the subject of representation on this committee, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me-and I hope the minister will think about this seriously-that the chief purpose of putting representatives from industry on the committee is this. Although ostensibly the purpose is to help the government reach decisions, to lend the wisdom of these representatives to the government, the chief purpose, I think, will be to make sure that nothing happens to interfere with their prearranged method of marketing. We are really letting in a Trojan horse. I do not see any reason for doing it in this way beyond the ideological commitment that the Liberal party has for doing things in this way. The government obviously has the power to do so;
I do not think there is any question of that.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The power is in the bill.


Max Saltsman: But the government does not have the power to determine marketing methods. The government has some power to determine exploration and who markets the oil, but does it have the power to insist that all the oil produced in the north will be marketed according to the needs of the north and the Canadian people? If so, I do not see that provision in the bill.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, this bill has nothing to do with the marketing of oil. The bill is concerned with the exploration for oil and gas in the north.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member for Waterloo.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the minister's interjection because that is the very point I am trying to make. What is the point of this bill if the government does not control the marketing? What is the point of developing oil production in the north if these Trojan horses are sitting on the committee and determining the conditions under which the oil is marketed? That is why I suggest the government cannot proceed in this way.
If we really wanted to develop the north, and to do so in the national interest, I would even go beyond the amendment of the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Thomas) which is very mild in its terms.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am aware of what is going on.
DEBATES	9789
Oil and Gas Production and Conservation


Max Saltsman: They are all honourable men and have in mind the national interest. They are all trying to accomplish the same thing. We really should not dither around, pretending that something will come from this kind of measure, when the ultimate decision is going to be made by the industry itself, particularly when representatives of that industry are sitting on the committee.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I should like to correct a point that has been raised.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order or on a question of privilege?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: On a question of privilege, the hon. member stated that this committee would be controlled by the representatives of the private sector. According to the bill, these members will be appointed by the minister. The membership will be flexible in that there will be others besides civil servants on the committee. The bill does not provide that we appoint people from the oil industry to the committee, and I never said so. The bill provides that not more than three members will be civil servants. Although the government has indicated it would like some representatives from the industry, these members will be selected by the government, not by the industry. That is specifically provided in the bill.


Frank Howard: On the question of privilege raised by the minister, Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that he read his own legislation. Then he would know what he was talking about. He pointedly emphasized with his forefinger that it is the minister who appoints the committee members. The bill makes no reference to that. According to the bill, the Governor in Council appoints the members. Is the minister trying to substitute himself in place of his leader? I know he would like to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I do not think we should adopt the practice of asking questions at this stage of our procedure because, procedurally speaking, this could be very dangerous.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, it was one of those rhetorical questions to which the minister could not have replied in any event. The minister made another error, and this is a direct conflict between what he said just now on his question of privilege and what he
June 5, 1969
9790	COMMONS
Oil and Gas Production and Conservation said earlier. Just now he said that he had no intention of appointing people from the oil industry.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I did not say that.


Frank Howard: Now the minister says he did not say that. Before that he had said that one purpose of the bill was to ensure that at least two members from the private sector were appointed.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No, not necessarily.


Frank Howard: A moment ago the minister said he has no intention of doing this. He cannot have it both ways. However, I can understand his confusion because he has presented a very poor case to the house. He is not doing too badly, but he has muffed it once more.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it the
pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Carried.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: those against the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: In my
opinion the nays have it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Negatived on division.
Motion (Mr. Knowles, Winnipeg North Centre, for Mr. Thomson) negatived.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That Bill S-29, an Act respecting the production and conservation of oil and gas in the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories, be amended, in clause 6, by deleting all words after the word "Canada" in line 40 on page 4 of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, once again I rise on behalf of my colleague the hon. member for 

Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Thomson) to present this amendment which has been on the order paper since May 29. The amendment relates to clause 6 of the bill. Clause 6 is the clause in which the government recognizes that it has to do something about a possible conflict of interest in so far as the members of the oil and gas committee are concerned.
I understand that in the proceedings in the standing committee this issue was grappled with and that the government realized that this clause did not go quite far enough. As a result of that realization certain words were added. We think that even with the addition of those words the clause still does not deal with the very real danger of a conflict of interest so far as the members of this committee are concerned. I say that with respect to all the members but particularly with respect to the members who come from the private sector.
As will be obvious to any who have taken the trouble to study these amendments, we are proposing one solution to this problem in this amendment, and if this amendment carries I will not move the next motion because it will not be necessary. I hope that entices hon. members opposite to vote for this amendment. That will save my being a parliamentary assistant four times today. I shall be one on three occasions only.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Let us look at clause 6. I shall read it as it now stands. The clause now before the house is in the form in which it was amended by the standing committee. Clause 6 thus reads as follows:
No member of the Committee shall have a pecuniary interest of any description, directly or indirectly, in any property in oil or gas to which this Act applies or own shares in any company engaged in any phase of the oil or gas industry in Canada, in an amount in excess of five per cent of the issued shares thereof, provided further that no member who owns any shares of any company engaged in any phase of the oil or gas industry in Canada shall vote when a question affecting such a company is before the Committee.
To keep the record complete and to show that I am not thinking this out as I go along, I may point out that that part of clause 6 which I have just read beginning with the words, "provided further that no member," was added to the clause when the bill was before the standing committee. Our proposal, and it is our main proposal with respect to clause 6, is that the clause be amended by putting a period after the word Canada and striking out all the rest of the words in the
June 5, 1969	COMMONS
clause. They include all those that were there before the bill went to committee as well as those that were added in the committee. The clause would then read:
No member of the Committee shall have a pecuniary interest of any description, directly or indirectly, in any property in oil or gas to which this Act applies or own shares in any company engaged in any phase of the oil or gas industry in Canada.
We think that is the way this clause ought to read. We believe, even with the proviso added in the standing committee that allowing for the possibility of people who own up to 5 per cent of the shares in any company dealing in oil or gas to sit on this oil and gas committee is to put people in the way of temptation, is to invite trouble, and is to provide almost openly for a conflict of interest.
I know it is argued that 5 per cent is a low figure. But we are well aware that that much of an interest can be a major financial holding in companies operating in this field. We think there is no point in recognizing, as the clause seems to do, the problem of conflict of interest and then saying, "Oh, it is all right for members of this committee to hold up to 5 per cent of the issued shares of any company in this field."
It was argued in the standing committee that the stricture in the clause to the effect that no member of the committee shall hold any pecuniary interest in any company covered by the act could be interpreted in such a way that most conflicts of interest would be avoided. To argue in such a way is, I suggest, to ignore the very close interdependence of the large oligopolistic firms in the oil and gas industry.
Because we think that to allow the committee members an interest of up to 5 per cent in any company in this field creates a conflict of interest situation and because the words I noted do not cover this situation in the kind of world we live in today in which we see huge, international complexes, we think the matter ought to be taken care of. That is why we seek to move an amendment to clause 6 asking that the clause stop after the word "Canada". We ask that a period be inserted at that point and that the rest of the words in the clause be deleted.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to try to persuade the minister to accept this amendment. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has talked about conflict of interest, something that everyone in this house is
DEBATES	9791
Oil and Gas Production and Conservation aware of. It has been a long-established tenet that members of government boards or commissions in Canada and other countries shall not be open to any conflicts of interest. In the United States particularly the members of the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade Commission and similar bodies are required to divest themselves of pecuniary interests in any organizations, companies or enterprises which may be affected by decisions of the board or commission in question. This requirement protects not only the public but also protects and safeguards the members of those boards or commissions. These people are placed above suspicion, the idea being that there should be no opening as a result of which suspicion may be created.
I know that there are many competent and highly technically trained people in the oil and gas industry who may be extremely valuable to the minister. No doubt he will want to use their services. Under the provisions of this bill their remuneration is to be set by the minister and the cabinet. The minister may think that passage of this amendment may mean that almost all the people he may want to appoint will be ineligible for such appointments since many of the people employed in the gas and oil industry hold shares in companies operating in that industry. Anyone who is asked to accept an appointment under the minister will, if our amendment is accepted, have to divest himself of his shares in the oil or gas industry. If these people are interested in serving the public they will serve on the committee if the remuneration they are paid is reasonably good. Surely the minister is as anxious as anyone else to make certain that those sitting on this committee are above suspicion. If our amendment is accepted the members of the committee will not only appear to be clean and above suspicion but they will be clean and above suspicion.
The clause as it stands in my opinion seeks to countenance something that I though had not been practised for many years. What the clause seeks to countenance has not been countenanced in appointments to government boards and commissions under federal and provincial jurisdiction. I think the minister is expecting too much. He may be putting the people on this committee from the private sector of our economy in an impossible position.
I hope the minister accepts the amendment. I submit it is one that ought to apply to the
June 5. 1969

Oil and Gas Production and Conservation members of any board or commission of government. Furthermore I submit that any responsible government ought to insist that the appointees to any board or committee divest themselves of anything which may lead to a conflict of interest. I therefore urge the minister not to depart from the kind of practice that has prevailed in the public service and in appointments to various commissions.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, the religious training of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), into advocates official or non official confession-he is in the habit of hearing confessions-makes him see vice almost everywhere.
According to his amendment, it is assumed naturally that all members of this committee will necessarily be so weak they will yield to temptation. If we follow his argument, Mr. Speaker, I do not see who could be appointed, because there are many ways of influencing people.
A member of this committee who would own 5 per cent of the shares in another company could no more be influenced than another member who would not have any interest but whom the oil companies, would attempt to influence with gratuities.
So, the argument could be carried to its extreme limit and could succeed in proving that it is impossible to appoint anyone as a member of a committee who could not someday be exposed to temptation. This 5 per cent limit does not constitute a greater temptation than having a powerful company offer a Christmas present to a committee member in return for protection of its interests. Such things do happen. One must believe, however, that there are still honest people left in our society, people who are able to take an oath of office and to abide by it.
Where are we going? I cannot conceive of a committee whose members could not, on occasion, in a discreet way, sell their conscience, to use a current phrase.
I presume that the government will make sure that the people appointed will have provided evidence of fairness and respect towards the charge devolving upon the incumbents.
In my opinion, the 5 per cent limit is not that important. That is the reason why I do not really see the use of that amendment, Mr. 
Speaker, I believe that it is simply futile and gives the illusion of a non-existent guarantee.
Another thing might happen. As was said a while ago, someone hoping to be appointed commissioner might sell his shares and pretend to be no longer involved. However, it is a well-known fact that there are fictitious sales.
To sum up, Mr. Speaker, I would say that we have nevertheless to adopt a policy and trust people to a certain degree or else nobody is honest in our society because everyone may give in to temptation. It is not because a citizen has a 5-per-cent interest that he will be more honest, I think.
I hope that when this government or another one-if eventually there is another one- appoints a commissioner, it would first make sure that the man is honest and able to fulfil the duties inherent to that position. If there does not exist that minimum of trust, we will never be able to find a commissioner capable of assuming such duties.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I suppose other hon. members enjoyed as much as I did the theological dissertation we just had from the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain). However, it was somewhat irrelevant to the realities of the situation we are discussing in relation to clause 6 of the bill. With regard to the amendment, I remind the house of the accepted practice in respect of members appointed to the cabinet. One can draw many parallels-


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Will the hon. member permit a question? Is the hon. member aware this committee is a part time committee, not full time? That may have some bearing on the argument about conflict of interest and the comparison with cabinet ministers and members of full time federal government boards. Is the hon. member aware of that fact?


Frank Howard: That is no different from a part time government.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: My colleague says it is no different from the part time government we already have. We are doing our best to ensure that one minister has to work full time.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Don't worry about it.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The question of whether the board is to be a full time or part time board
June 5, 19S9	COMMONS
is irrelevant to the subject matter under discussion. I listened carefully to the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange) and also by the minister in the discussion regarding clause 4 of the bill. They presented a convincing case for the proposed amendment to clause 6. The minister made reference to the kind of people who might be available for appointment to these positions. He was kind enough to make the suggestion he might be prepared to nominate my colleague the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) if he was thinking of retiring from the political field. I wish to propose my nomination to the minister. If the hon. member for the Northwest Territories, for whom I have high regard, decides to retire or is involuntarily retired from politics, he may be a suitable person for this board.
I do not know anything about the private holdings of either of these hon. members, but I suspect neither one holds 5 per cent of the shares of Imperial Oil. I mention Imperial Oil because I have no idea of the total value of the shares of Imperial Oil, but I suggest to the hon. member for Northwest Territories that if he held 5 per cent of those shares he would probably be in a somewhat more affluent position than he is.


Frank Howard: He might even be a minister.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: 
Robert John (Bud) Orange: Mr. Speaker, so that there will be no misunderstanding I am not the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. My interest in this particular bill is as the member for the Northwest Territories. In reviewing the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the committee for Wednesday, May 14, it would seem to me that some of the concern expressed by my friends across the way
June 5, 1969
9794	COMMONS DEBATES
Oil and Gas Production and Conservation might be overcome it they would refer to page 824 of these proceedings where it is indicated the committee moved an amendment to clause 6 which reads:
-provided further that no member who owns any shares of any company engaged in any phase of the oil or gas industry in Canada shall vote when a question affecting such a company is before the Committee.
The members of the committee examined this provision pretty carefully. I cannot help but think that this amendment may meet some of the objections coming from the members of the New Democratic party. It is unfortunate that that particular party was not represented at the committee meeting because their representative might have been in the position of being able to explain to the members of his party the purpose of this particular amendment. As I recall, it was agreed by the members of the Conservative and the Liberal parties who were at that meeting that this seemed to be the best way to overcome the natural concern about conflict of interest. I just point this out in the hope that it may alleviate some of the fears which some members on the other side of the house seem to have.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the comments from the other side of the house one cannot help but realize the kind of basic assumption being made by the Liberal party.


An hon. Member:: What is basic about shares?


Max Saltsman: Well, we heard the hon. member for Essex (Mr. Whelan) express concern about putting a tariff on bananas because it interfered with the sale of tomatoes.


Mr. Whelan:: No, that is to help the underprivileged countries which supply the cheap bananas, and you know it.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Chair will take cognizance of the irrelevances emanating from that side of the house when we are attempting to discuss a serious matter. It seems to me the assumption is being made on that side that only the businessmen of this country can be trusted to make decisions which affect the development of the nation.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Oh, no.


Max Saltsman: Then why insist-everybody does not understand the reasoning of the

minister and the government in this regard- that people from the private sector be members of this committee and not even give us the assurance that those who are members are not involved in a conflict of interests.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Read subclause (2) as
amended.


Max Saltsman: Even with the amendment there could be a conflict of interest. We on this side of the house are not satisfied that the possibility has been eliminated. We think the only reason many of the people in the private sector will be members of the Committee will be to ensure that their interests are not jeopardized. In the past this country has created Crown corporations of various kinds when the country was being developed. When we established the Bank of Canada it was thought that people involved in banking would have the expertise required of those who would be involved in the Bank of Canada. It turned out that this was disastrous. Ultimately, it was necessary to have the Bank of Canada completely under the direction of the representatives of the people of this country rather than those who might have a conflict of interest. I suggest this very well might be the case in respect of this kind of instrument.
I sometimes wonder whether the government, in bringing in a bill of this kind, is not itself cognizant of the difficulty we are pointing out in respect of a conflict of interest but feels, because of their great commitment to the business interests of Canada, that it is necessary to take this preliminary step, even though ultimately the committee will have to be under public direction in order to preserve the national interest. So, I am very sceptical about legislation of this kind. I wonder, for instance, whether the minister has taken a look at what has been done in Italy. In that country a large part of the oil industry is under national direction, and even though oil is not indigenous to that country the price of the product to the consumer is quite low. In this great nation of ours, where we have all the natural resources, the Canadian consumer pays more for gasoline than does almost any other consumer in the world. So, it does not make much sense to input people on the committee because they have expertise. They have the expertise to suit their own interests, but will they have the expertise to suit the national interest?
I also wonder why some attention has not been paid to having some representation on this committee from the indigenous people of
June 5, 1969	COMMONS
the north. In some ways we seem to be perpetuating the old benevolent imperialism of the past. I believe there should be a provision which would ensure that the people who live in the north would have some say in respect of the activities of this committee. No such provision has been made.
I do not wish to continue this discussion beyond this point because we have made our position very clear. We have pointed out that unless changes are made in this bill there will be a conflict of interest and that the conflict of interest will result in the north not being developed as well as it might had we been able to eliminate such a conflict.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How do you know? You didn't call the nays.


Mr. Speaker:: All those against will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
division.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is negatived on division.
The motion (Mr. Knowles for Mr. Thomson) negatived on division.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That Bill S-29, an act respecting the production and conservation of oil and gas in the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories as amended by the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development be further amended in clause 6 by inserting immediately after the words "affecting such a company" the following words: "or any of its competitors in the oil and gas industry".
DEBATES	9795
Oil and Gas Production and Conservation
He said: Mr. Speaker, I indicated when I moved the previous amendment, which I offered on behalf of my colleague, the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Thomson), that if that amendment had been accepted by the house it would not be necessary to move this one.
I had hoped that the offer would bear some fruit, but apparently it did not have the right appeal to my friends opposite. May I say at the outset, in case my friends on the other side did not realize it at the time, when I read clause 6 in connection with the previous motion I read it in its entirety including the words that were added in the committee. In other words, I am fully aware-


An hon. Member:: Your friends over there were not listening to you.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My
friends did not need to listen to me because they knew what I was going to say, but I had hoped my friends on the other side of the house would have paid some attention to my arguments before trying to answer them.
The contention that this matter of conflict of interest has been taken care of by adding the words that were added to clause 6 in the committee is in my view quite hollow. Perhaps I should at this point, since we are on the new amendment, read clause six as it is now before the house, namely as it appeared in the original bill plus those words added by the standing committee. I now discover that those words represent an agreement, a plot or a concoction arrived at by the Liberals and Conservatives. I thought there was something wrong with it. I was not a member of that committee so I did not know what had happened. I am just a pinch hitter.


An hon. Member:: You are striking out.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
trouble is that members of the other side do not realize when I have knocked a home run.
Clause 6 now reads:
No member of the Committee shall have a pecuniary interest of any description, directly or indirectly, in any property in oil or gas to which this act applies or own shares in any company engaged in any phase of the oil or gas industry in Canada in an amount in excess of 5 per cent of the issued shares thereof, provided further that no member who owns any shares of any company engaged in any phase of the oil or gas industry in Canada shall vote when a question affecting such a company is before the committee.
I hope this time my friend, the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange),
June 5, 1969
9796	COMMONS DEBATES
Oil and Gas Production and Conservation and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) heard me read those last words which begin with the phrase "provided further". They are not in the printed copy of the bill and I suppose that is why they did not hear me read them. Those words are to be found at page 1047 of Votes and Proceedings for Tuesday, May 20.
It seems to me that the committee, when it added those words, admitted that this clause did not go far enough in terms of dealing with the question of conflict of interest. The addition of those words was a clear admission that the stricture imposed on a person having any kind of an interest in a property to which this act applies did not go far enough in reference to people who owned up to 5 per cent of the issued shares of any particular oil or gas company.
Realizing that this was not good enough, the Standing Committee added the words to the effect that persons who do own shares up to 5 per cent shall not vote when any question affecting the company in which they have an interest is before the committee. How ridiculous can this be? We say to people that they can be on this committee and own up to 5 per cent of the shares of a company, but if a matter affecting the interest of the company in which the member owns shares comes before the committee the member shall not vote. But he can still vote if these matters affect some other company which is before the committee. A member must not protect his own interest. He cannot protect his own interest by voting directly on the affairs of his own company, but he is in a position where he can vote in respect of the affairs of some other company.


Frank Howard: Which may be a subsidiary.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That other company might be a subsidiary of the company in which the member has an interest. Even if it is an independent company, in so far as these companies can be independent, I suggest that this concoction that was added at the end is utterly meaningless. If the charge of the hon. member for the Northwest Territories was correct, that our members did not happen to be at the committee on that occasion, let me say I am sorry they were not there. I am sure that anyone with half an eye could have seen how meaningless it was to add these words, supposedly thereby coping with the problem of conflict of interest.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we contend that if the government insists on this right to own shares up to 5 per cent, a few words should be added to this clause, namely "or any of its competitors in the oil and gas industry". If this amendment were accepted clause 6 would then read:
No member of the committee shall have a pecuniary interest of any description, directly or indirectly, in any property in oil or gas to which this act applies or own shares in any company engaged in any phase of the oil or gas industry in Canada in an amount in excess of 5 per cent of the issued shares thereof, provided further that no member who owns any shares of any company engaged in any phase of the oil or gas industry in Canada shall vote when a question affecting such a company or any of its competitors in the oil and gas industry is before the committee.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
If you are going to keep the clause there at all, I believe the words I included should be added. That is why I have pleasure in moving this amendment on behalf of the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Thomson).


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


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, we thought the minister would rise and at least put up some sort of argument on this question, or agree with the amendment. Perhaps I could expand a little on the argument advanced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in order to indicate how ludicrous is the position of the government. In clause 6 of the bill the government indicated that it was concerned about conflict of interest. The minister points to the bill, Mr. Speaker. He loves to point to the bill to indicate what is going on.


An hon. Member:: It is a good bill.


Frank Howard: My hon. friend says it is a good bill. I cannot account for his inability to grasp what is going on here. The government recognized in clause 6 that there was an element of conflict of interest, or might be, and it had better be controlled. The government said: We will control that element of conflict of interest by saying that if you have more than 5 per cent of the shares-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Up
to 5 per cent.


Frank Howard: -you cannot be on the committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Up
to 5 per cent.
June 5, 1969	COMMONS


Frank Howard: Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, the assistance one obtains does not help a great deal.


An hon. Member:: That applies to both sides of the house.


Frank Howard: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was thinking of one aspect of the operation of the committee and I was thinking of another. If you have more than 5 per cent of the shares of a company, you cannot be a member of the committee; "you are not pure enough", says the government to such a person. Five per cent of the shares plus one share makes you impure, suspect, and ineligible to be a member of this great committee. But if you sell that share to your wife, law partner or somebody else, this makes you pure enough to get on the committee and everything will be all right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: share holding of 4.9 per cent is pure.


Frank Howard: Five per cent is purity; 5 per cent plus one share is impurity, as far as the government is concerned, in terms of conflict of interest. This matter was explored even further in the standing committee. As a result of a coalition between the Liberals and the Conservatives, which is not unusual and is certainly not surprising but it has never been quite so direct and in the open as it was in this case, they decided they had better go a bit further with regard to purity and impurity. As a consequence they said: Even though you have 5 per cent of the shares of a company, even though that makes you qualified to sit on the committee, we think we should do something else. We will prevent you from voting on any issue affecting the company in which you have 5 per cent of the shares.
Incidentally, as is well known, in the oil and gas industry the element of competition does not exist to a very strong degree. There is a great element of friendliness in the oil and gas industry, a great element of price fixing and the like; maybe not such that can be ascertained under the Combines Investigation Act, because they operate in a rather secret way, but there is the element of extremely close friendship in this industry which militates against the interest of the consuming public.
The committee, in effect, said to an individual who may be on the committee that he may hold 5 per cent of the shares in company X but he could not vote on an issue
DEBATES	9797
Oil and Gas Production and Conservation affecting company X. He would be able to vote on an issue that affected the parent company of the company in which he held the shares, a subsidiary of the company in which he held the shares, a so-called competitor, or a friendly company with which his company had an agreement.
All the amendment seeks to do is say to the government: If you are really serious about the matter of conflict of interest exhibit that seriousness by taking the next logical step and accepting the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on behalf of the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Thomson). If the government does not accept the amendment, all it is doing is window-dressing the idea of conflict of interest and this provision in included in the bill just to look good; the government does not really mean it. If the amendment is not accepted, it simply means that the government is once again exhibiting the fact that it is controlled by the industrial giants of this nation and the individual member of the consuming public will get what is left over, if anything.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I just want to give the necessary explanation.
If one reads the clause carefully, one realizes that there must not be any conflict of interest. We allowed members to hold shares in companies not directly involved in the Canadian North, up to 5 per cent. Of course, this is an arbitrary percentage, and since it is a part-time agency and since we want experts in oil research to sit on it, we do not object to some of them holding a few shares in industries not doing any business in the North. The clause covers this point very well. There must be no conflict of interest between the business of an appointee to the board of directors and his official duties.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre), for Mr. Thomson, seconded by-


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is it the wish of the house that we continue?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Six
o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
June 5, 1969
9798	COMMONS
Oil and Gas Production and Conservation AFTER RECESS
The house resumed at 8 p.m.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say a few words with respect to the amendment before us moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) on behalf of the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Thomson).
I also wanted to make a few remarks related to the other amendments which are before us because it seems to me that in this bill, as well as in other measures which will come before this parliament from time to time, we have a unique opportunity to protect the resources of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories in the interests of the people of those areas and of the people of Canada. I think the drafting and preparation of some portions of the bill has been done with considerable care. I urge that further steps be considered in order to make certain that we take this opportunity to ensure that the resources of that area are developed in the interests of the people of that area and of Canada as a whole.
For that reason, I hope that the minister and the government will be responsive to some of the proposals which have been placed on the order paper as amendments. The particular amendment that is before us suggests that anyone who has an interest in an oil or a gas company which has dealings with the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, and who will have to appear before the oil and gas committee, should not have a say in any decisions which are made.
May I point out that when this bill was before the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the committee saw fit to propose an amendment which is now before the house which ensures that any member who owns shares of any company engaged in any phase of the oil or gas industry in Canada shall not vote when a question affecting this company is before the committee. These are not the exact words of the motion; I paraphrased them to set out their effect.
It seems to me that if there were cause to amend this section of the bill in such a way as to ensure that anyone who has an interest in a company appearing before the oil and gas committee does not take part in any decision of affecting that company, there is equal cause to ensure that that person does not have an opportunity to make decisions with respect to the competitors of any company in
IMr. Speaker.]

which he has an interest. It should be obvious to all hon. members that just as someone could make a decision which might favourably influence the operations of a company in which he had an interest, so could he influence the operations of a competitor by making an adverse decision.
For this reason, I hope that the minister will be responsive to the proposal placed before us to ensure that there is no chance of any foul play in dealing with the resources of the North. I think this is a particularly important matter because, as I stated previously, we have this unique opportunity to ensure the sound development of our northern resources. Therefore, I hope that the minister will accept this amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it the
pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: In my
opinion the nays have it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
division.
Motion (Mr. Knowles for Mr. Thomson) negatived on division.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: That Bill S-29, an act respecting the production and conservation of oil and gas in the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories be amended in subclause (1) of clause 7 by adding the words "and two members who are employees in the public service" after the words "in the public service".
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is the fourth of the amendments to this bill inscribed on the order paper by my hon. friend from Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Thomson). I realize that I have indicated previously the reason for his absence from the house today but perhaps I may repeat that he is a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, and that that committee is somewhere in eastern Canada studying the problems of agriculture in that region. It has therefore been my privilege
June 5, 1969	COMMONS
today to move these various amendments on behalf of my hon. friend.
The one which is now being presented suggests a minor but important change in clause 7 of the bill. Clause 7(1) now reads as follows:
A majority of the members, including one member who is not an employee in the public service, constitutes a quorum of the committee.
Our proposal is to add the words set out in the amendment. If the amendment were adopted, clause 7(1) would then read:
A majority of the members, including one member who is not an employee in the public service and two members who are employees in the public service, constitute a quorum of the committee.
I believe the wording of the amendment, particularly when incorporated into the text already in the bill, makes its purpose very clear. As it now stands, a quorum of this oil and gas committee could be achieved by the presence of two of the non-public servants and only one of the public servants-this is on the assumption that the committee is made up of three members of the public service and two from outside it.
However, as hon. members are aware, the house did not accept our amendment to clause 4 which would have done something with regard to the number of public servants who must be on the committee. It is possible under the bill as it now stands for three, four or even five of the members of this committee to be from outside the public service. If there are as many as three, then, of course, the three outside members can constitute a quorum of the committee under 7(1) and do the work of that committee. But even without such a situation obtaining it would be possible under this clause for the quorum to consist of two of the non-public service members and only one of the public service members.
It has been our contention throughout our consideration of this legislation that the government is giving too wide a scope to those who come from outside the public service. We think this is pinpointed right here in the clause before us which is written in such a way that the non-public service members could direct and control the work of the committee.
As hon. members are aware if they have studied the bill, particularly clauses 8, 9, 10 and 11, this oil and gas committee is not some ladies' aid society, if I may be pardoned for using that phrase. It is a very important body which has the powers of a court of record.
DEBATES	9799
Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Indeed, it has powers equivalent to those of a superior court; it can make all kinds of findings and its determinations with regard to questions of fact can be binding. By a certain process its orders can be made orders of the Exchequer Court of Canada. In other words, without taking the time of the house to read the clauses I have referred to I am making the point that this is an extremely important committee. Accordingly, in the light of our conviction that the public interest should be dominant in this legislation we have already objected to the composition of the committee and we now object to the wording with regard to the quorum which would make it possible for non-public service members to form a majority of the quorum and thereby to control the work of the committee.
One of the objections I can foresee coming from hon. gentlemen opposite, the minister and his parliamentary secretary-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: He is not mine. He is the hon. member for the Northwest Territories.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
minister is not as well off as is the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley. In any case, the minister or the hon. member for the Northwest Territories may try to tell me that if we were to specify that there must be two members who are employees of the public service present to form a quorum we might be making the arrangements unworkable because there is no requirement in clause 4 that there be two members of the public service on the committee. Subclause (1) merely provides that there cannot be move than three public service employees but it does not fix any particular number, nor any minimum. However, I can hardly imagine hon. members opposite using this argument, because by doing so they would be admitting it might be in the mind of the government that the committee should be set up with two, one, or even no members from the public service of Canada.
Therefore, because of the general position we have taken that the importance of this oil and gas industry to Canada is such that the public interest should be predominant I urge that the house accept this amendment to 7(1) which would make it read:
A majority of members, including one member who is not an employee in the public service and two members who are in the public service, constitutes a quorum of the committee.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: The arguments put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)
June 5, 1969
9800	COMMONS DEBATES
Oil and Gas Production and Conservation
are compelling. There is no question about that. We have reached that part of the bill which deals with the constitution of the committee which will operate under the act, at least initially. Earlier today there was some discussion in regard to whether or not members of the committee drawn from the private sector should have some financial involvement in that area. Clause 6 provides that no member of the committee shall have a pecuniary interest in an amount in excess of 5 per cent of the shares of a company. This clause was amended to provide, in effect, that the members could not discuss or be involved in any decisions that affected any company in which they possessed some ownership.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I am wondering at this stage whether the hon. member is not making a point that is a little more fundamental, namely where the board should be located and how it should be constituted by members from the private sector as against the public sector. Reference to the minutes of the committee will reveal that an amendment moved by me, which in effect provided that the oil and gas conservation board should either be located in the Yukon Territory or Northwest Territories, was defeated in the committee. I admit it was a non-partisan defeat because I received support from members in a certain part of the house whereas other members from all parts voted against the amendment.
I was concerned with some of the statements made to the committee by officials of the department. The decision of the committee, I suggest, was based on a cost estimate that was presented by the officials and which showed the extra cost involved if the committee were not located in Ottawa but was established north of the 60th parallel in the area to which this oil and gas conservation act has reference.
The figures presented to the committee showed that if the activities of this committee, particularly its technical activities, were carried on from Ottawa the cost would be in the vicinity of $15,000. If the committee, primarily the staff of the committee, were required to be headquartered in the territories, the cost would be $126,000. I am a little concerned about this information because, when the officials of the department were asked to table the information, they supplied in great detail the estimate of the services if rendered from Ottawa but somehow or other 
failed to provide the information regarding the services if provided in the territories.
I should like to come back to a fundamental point. I do not think anyone who knows of the oil and gas potential in the north is against the principle of this bill. If those of us who live in the north are to see our hopes, dreams and aspiration with regard to oil and gas exploration in the north realized, this kind of control and involvement on the part of a regulatory body becomes very important. On the other hand, there is concern that, as a result of the location of this body and the fact that people from the public and private sectors are involved, it may once again develop into one of those agencies that are removed from the place where the action is.
As reported at page 796 of the committee evidence, the deputy minister had this to say to the committee:
I think it is most unusual for Parliament to try to place a restriction on the executive arm as to where part of the public service will be located.
I should like to remind the house that when the legislation setting up the freshwater fish marketing board was passed, the board was designated to be located at Winnipeg. Many other pieces of legislation have designated the location of the headquarters of a particular agency of government.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has moved an amendment which would include two members of the public service in any quorum of the oil and gas conservation committee. Although his arguments are compelling, he once again denies the kind of flexibility that I think the minister wants, namely to be able to draw from the best people available, be they in government or industry, to put together the kind of program that will benefit not only the Yukon territory and the Northwest Territories but all of Canada.
If the hon. member will refer once more to the committee evidence, he will find that the deputy minister indicated that this is an interim measure until such time as oil and gas become a very important part of the north in terms of production, not in terms of exploration and development. I suggest that during this interim period not only will the board move north but that the composition of the board should consist, and must consist of necessity, of members appointed full time, not merely for two or three weeks a year.
At present there is excitement in the Mackenzie delta, the Liard valley and along the Mackenzie river itself as a result of oil and
June 5, 1969	COMMONS
gas exploration. We can only hope and anticipate that in the months ahead-and certainly without doubt in years to come-further oil and gas development will take place there. I should like to think at some stage that the members of the board will be full time. I should like to think that the board and its staff will be located in the north, in the area of activity, if not in northern Alberta where these industries are located.
It seems to me that in some respects this bill may be a little premature. During the hearing of evidence before the committee, it was suggested the bill might also encompass control of offshore oil and gas. I want to think that this bill is to apply particularly and only-and I am speaking to the minister now-to the Northwest Territories and the Yukon territory. I am confident about what is to happen in the MacKenzie Delta, the Arctic Islands and the Liard Valley in time to come.
I should like to think that the provisions of this bill will apply to that area and that the staff we are concerned about here, regardless of the sorts of figures which have been given to the committee, will be located in the centre of activity. If the government proposes to introduce legislation affecting other areas of Canada over which the federal government has jurisdiction that legislation should be brought in separately.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has made some compelling arguments. I regret he was not a member of the committee. I have served on committees with him before and we could have used his knowledge, expertise and good sense. His amendment tries to ensure-it is the amendment of his colleague for Bat-tleford-Kindersley (Mr. Thomson)-that the public service will predominate on the oil and gas conservation board. Frankly, I do not think this is necessarily desirable. When saying that I cast no reflection on the abilities of members of the public service. I think the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) pointed out earlier today that I was a public servant. I am very proud of that and I am sorry the hon. member is not here to listen to my remarks. I recognize that the public service has its limitations and weaknesses as well as its strengths. If Canada is to grow and develop we must involve in that development segments of our society other than that very small group in the public service of Canada.
DEBATES	9801
Oil and Gas Production and Conservation
For the reasons I have outlined, I cannot support this amendment. We must involve people outside the public service, no matter what our feelings may be about what may have happened in the past.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, may I say at the outset that I found the remarks of the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange) informative. I think all hon. members of the house recognize the special interest he has in the subject matter of this bill. As he knows, I had the opportunity a few years ago to see some bits of his constituency. Sometimes I think my constituency is large enough; but we all know that the area he represents here is far larger than any area any other hon. member represents. I learned a great deal about the viewpoint and outlook of the people in the north when I visited the MacKenzie Valley and other parts of the Territory with a northern affairs committee. I also learned something about the hopes and aspirations for future oil and gas developments in that part of Canada.
I am pleased to see that the hon. member recognizes in principle at least the desirability of having a full-time board of competent people. Possibly his remarks to the effect that this is an interim board reflect indirectly some measure of agreement on his part with a point of view put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and other members of this party. Perhaps the conundrum we have been debating in these amendments could have been avoided if the minister, on behalf of the government, could have assured us that it was the intention to appoint knowledgeable people with a background of experience, but without any connection with the industry, to that board as full-time members. I will go this far in agreeing with the hon. member for Northwest Territories; if that situation were to exist I might be inclined to agree with him that it is not necessary to have people who are actually in the public service on the board. We could have public servants of Canada serving on it in the same way we appoint judges or members of judicial bodies to serve as members of certain bodies, free and unbeholden to other interests or pressures in the country. That has always been my understanding of our objective in such appointments. I detect some agreement on the part of the hon. member for Northwest Territories. Probably he shares, in some small
June 5, 1969
9802	COMMONS DEBATES
Oil and Gas Production and Conservation measure, my opinion as to what is most desirable with respect to the composition of the board.
We face the proposal the government has presented to us. Debate on other amendments indicated that, under the circumstances, we feel it would be desirable that most of the decision making on the interim board, as the hon. member calls it, should be in the hands of people fully and directly responsible, through the government, to the people of Canada. I felt that some of the remarks of the hon. member for Northwest Territories were more relevant perhaps to sub-clause 2 of the clause we are considering than to the amendment we are debating.
I express the hope that his concern about the locale of the board and the focus of the board will be dealt with by the committee as a result of powers granted to it under subclause 2. I hope the minister will consider it desirable that those people assigned from the public service to serve on the committee will be free to make their own rules with regard to to places and times of sitting, so that they may meet the objectives which were advanced by the hon. member for Northwest Territories. This would tend to make the work of the committee more effective and its decisions with respect to the development of the industry in the north would be more realistic. While the hon. member has indicated his disagreement with the text of the amendment now before us, I feel perhaps that he harbours some fair measure of agreement with the spirit of the objectives we are trying to promote. For this I thank him, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it the
pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: In my
opinion the nays have it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
division.
Motion (Mr. Knowles for Mr. Thomson) negatived on division.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: That Bill S-29, An Act respecting the production and conservation of oil and gas in the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories, be amended by deleting clause 58 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
"(58) This Act shall come into force following a settlement mutually acceptable to the Crown and the people commonly referred to as Indians and Eskimos indigenous to areas now referred to as the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories at the time European explorers or their descendants first visited the areas, and the said settlement relating to lands, resources and other tribal or community property rights of the said people."
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Bechard): Order, please. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is raising a point of order.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether the motion of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) is in order. I doubt it very much because this amendment has nothing to do whatever with the bill now under consideration. I realize there are problems connected with treaties entered into with the North-West Territories and it is our intention to take the necessary steps to settle them. However, this matter is altogether outside the scope of this legislation which is dealing with the production and the development of the oil resources in the North-West Territories.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to rule this amendment out of order.

The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Bechard): I thank the hon. minister. Is the hon. member speaking on the point of order?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak on the point of order raised by the minister. If I may be allowed to say so, I think at the moment the minister has a conflict of interest with himself inasmuch as he has responsibility for the people referred to in this proposed amendment.
June 5, 1969	COMMONS
The minister made reference to the existence of certain treaties within the Territories covered by this bill but I suggest that is quite irrelevant to the question of whether the amendment is in order. The particular clause under consideration has to do with the coming into force provisions of the act. The amendment changes the proposal in the bill with respect to the coming into force of the act. It does so on grounds that should be of particular interest and concern to the minister in connection with the other aspect of his portfolio, because it is basic to the whole question of the right to the development of oil and other resources of the Territories. If this consideration is not relevant to the manner in which these resources will be developed, then this house is negating one of its basic responsibilities about which the minister has expressed some concern in other contexts. I refer to the right of the Territories to the land and resources which lie beyond any of the treaties to which the minister referred. The question of order does not relate to the relevance of this amendment as it concerns the treaties, but rather to the basic question of the right to exploration for the oil itself.
In this particular bill we are dealing with a section of Canada for which this parliament has direct responsibility in respect of the resources, land, its use and development. The minister can not suggest this amendment is out of order because jurisdiction overland and resources is in the hands of the provinces. This question relates clearly to how, when and to what extent this bill should come into force so that it will be consistent with the position being taken with regard to the right of the indigenous people to the resources and use of the land which they occupy.
The amendment proposes to change the existing provision with regard to the proclamation of certain provisions of this bill until we have dealt, as we have the right to do in this parliament, with our responsibilities to the indigenous people. This bill provides us with a unique opportunity to tell the indigenous people of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, where I understand there are no reserves in the ordinary sense and where the indigenous people do not want reserves, that we will recognize the principle of a fair settlement of their indigenous rights to the territory. In this particular part of Canada we are increasingly moving toward infiltrating their rights.
DEBATES	9803
Oil and Gas Production and Conservation
I argue that this amendment to alter the coming into force provision is clearly within our jurisdiction. We should have a right to discuss this matter before the bill proceeds any further.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on this point raised by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett). I suppose geographically there is no one in this house who is further removed from the area mentioned in this particular amendment than myself, and perhaps philosophically there are few people further removed from the hon. member for Comox-Alberni than myself.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Not really.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Probably not. A fellow shouldn't say that, Mr. Speaker. I think the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has stated in terms of compassion and realism something which should affect us in our deliberations on this bill. I would be shocked and surprised if anyone were to suggest that this matter of the acceptability of the application of this legislation to the people mentioned in this amendment should be recorded as out of order. Indeed, I am shocked and surprised. I come from a constituency where the people mentioned in this amendment do not exist. I commend the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) and the hon. member for Comox-Alberni who is speaking on his behalf, for bringing forward a suggestion which is not only compassionate, but practical. I ask that no thought be given to the restricted, narrow and brittle suggestion that such amendment be ruled out of order.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Heaven knows, Montesquieu was not the first man who noted the distinction between the letter and spirit of the laws. If these laws are not too happily and properly applicable in the area of their geographical jurisdiction this would be a most unhappy state. So I should like to say, Mr. Speaker, with great brevity but with utmost sincerity, that I agree 100 per cent with the hon. member for Comox-Alberni who was hitting the truth right on the head tonight.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, may I say that I have listened to both the hon. members who have just spoken with compassion in respect of what should happen to the people who were born in the Northwest
June 5, 1969
9804	COMMONS DEBATES
Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Territories. One cannot help having a feeling, however, that this bill is a technical bill based on some emergency which could exist such as a well coming in tomorrow. I should like to give examples of the kind of thing this bill is intended to do. It is to establish regulations requiring and prescribing the making of tests, logs, analyses and surveys, and the taking of samples. Another section refers to the designation of fields and pools prescribing the method to be used for the measurement of oil, gas, water and other substances obtained from wells. Then, there is the section which mentions prescribing the measures to be adopted to confine any oil, gas or water encountered during drilling operations to the original stratum and to protect the contents of the stratum from infiltration, inundation and migration.
In effect, this bill is a technical bill designed to meet what could be an emergency tomorrow, particularly if we should discover oil and gas in some areas, as is happening I believe at the moment. I do not believe this amendment has any relation to the traditional rights or demands of the people who were born in the Yukon Territory or the Northwest Territories and who can be described as Indian or Eskimo people. I think this amendment is out of context in relation to this particular bill. The minister, who has a responsibility to bring in ideas for the resolution of what we call treaties 8 and 11 which have never been resolved, I think has this in mind in another area. I believe the minister has a direct responsibility to do this. Members of the committee who are in the house, and those members who heard me talk about this earlier today, I am sure will recognize that I am not too enthralled with certain aspects of the bill, particularly in respect of the location of the staff of the committee. But I do not believe this particular amendment has any relation to the present circumstances with which we are dealing, since this bill is intended to control the production of oil and gas in the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories. It is completely divorced from the indigenous rights of the native peoples of the north. I should like to suggest that this particular amendment is out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add a few words in support of the position taken by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) and supported so effectively by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie). I may say that this amendment, as everyone knows, is before the house in the name of the hon.

member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). He was here this afternoon to help us when we were dealing with the amendments we moved on behalf of the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Thomson). The reason he is not yet here this evening is that he is attending a meeting of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry over in the West Block. We have sent word to him, and if he is not too heavily involved there, we know he will be here to take part in this debate. This does not mean that I will keep this debate going indefinitely.
There is no argument about the right of members to present amendments to the various clauses of a bill at the report stage. That is provided for under Standing Order 75. One recognizes, however, that that right to put down amendments is circumscribed by certain general rules regarding amendments. We came up against this when we were dealing with the report stage amendments to the Criminal Code bill. Some of the amendments we produced in respect of that bill were ruled out of order and with justification. In fact, after two or three had been ruled out of order we did not even argue about some of the others because clearly they were beyond the scope of the bill. I might mention them as a part of making my point. The Criminal Code bill which was before us dealt with many subjects well known to everybody. We tried by amendments to have the bill deal with the question of expunging criminal records, the question of corporal punishment and a few other matters. None of these subjects had been alluded to in any way by Bill C-150 so we had to accept the judgment of the Chair that they were beyond the scope of the bill.
I gather that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) is relying on that judgment as one which should apply here. He is contending that this amendment is beyond the scope of the bill. I think the wording he used is, "not related to this bill". I submit there is a world of difference between the kind of amendments to the Criminal Code bill that were ruled out of order and this one. Those amendments sought to bring before the house another subject altogether. This amendment does not seek to bring before the house another subject. It lays down one of the conditions that we feel should be applied before this bill is put into effect. I would point out that the bill itself makes clear in clause 3 that it applies to oil and gas in the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories. This is an area in
June 5, 1969

which the rights of the Indian and Eskimo people figure very largely. Surely, it is within the right of this house to say that if we are enacting legislation which relates exclusively to areas in which the rights of these people figure so largely it should be in order to write into the bill something to protect those rights.
The hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange) says this bill is a highly technical one. There is no gainsaying that point. But perhaps I might draw attention to one or two of its provisions. I shall do so by noting clause 12, both the preamble to the clause and subparagraph (a). Under the provisions of that part of the bill regulations may be made respecting the exploration and drilling for oil and gas. Subparagraph (a) talks about regulations respecting the locating of wells and so on. So, as I go on through all the provisions of clause 12 and its various subparagraphs it seems to me these things which the Governor in Council is empowered to do are all things which could impinge upon the lands or the rights or privileges of the indigenous people, the Indian and Eskimo people, in that part of Canada.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Therefore, it seems to me to be very much a part of what we are doing in this legislation. When we come to the clause which provides for the coming into force of this measure, I suggest that since this legislation deals with matters affecting these people they should be consulted before it actually comes into force. That is why we propose this amendment.
There is also clause 58, which says that certain sections shall come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation. I take that to imply that the rest of the sections come into force when the bill is given royal assent. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) suggests that in line with the rights that these people have, this act should not come into force until there has been a settlement mutually acceptable to the Crown on the one hand and the Indian and Eskimo people on the other. In so far as they have rights in this particular area, it seems to me that this proposal is completely different in nature and kind from those that were ruled out of order when we were dealing with Bill C-150. I would hope that for technical reasons, and those reasons of compassion so eloquently presented by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), Your Honour will find this amendment in order.
Telesat Canada Act [Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I am
very thankful to the hon. members who were kind enough to enlighten the Chair at this time.
I have listened with much sympathy the remarks of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett). The amendment moved by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) is perhaps relevant to the exploration and the production of oil and gas, but, at this stage, it must be determined whether it is relevant to the bill itself.
The Chair entertains serious doubts as to whether the amendment is in order, in that it is rather a motion-

It is suggested that the motion proposed on behalf of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), is not in order in that it is in the nature of a substantive motion which seeks to introduce new questions into the bill.
As stated at page 558, May's 17th edition, a new clause is out of order for many of the same reasons as an amendment and, in particular, will not be entertained; (1) If it is beyond the scope of the bill; (2) If it is inconsistent with clauses agreed to by the committee; (3) If it is in effect a redrafting of a clause which is already in the bill. Accordingly, the question on the said proposed motion cannot be put to the House.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That Bill S-29, respecting the production and conservation of oil and gas in the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, be concurred in,

Motion (for concurrence) agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The house proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-184, to establish a Canadian corporation for telecommunication by satellite, as
[Stage Direction]
June 5, 1969
Telesat Canada Act
reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.
Max Saltsman: That Bill C-184, an act to establish a Canadian corporation for telecommunication by satellite, be amended, in clause 3, by deleting the words "together with such persons as are shareholders of the company from time to time"; and by deleting the words "with share capital"; and by inserting the word "Crown" before the word "company".


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) will agree, but I should like to suggest to Your Honour that you might exercise the discretion given to the Chair under Standing Order 73(10) to combine this amendment with the second amendment set out in the order paper in the hon. member's name.
Unless the second amendment is made in conjunction with the first amendment, assuming it is carried, then the bill would be just nonsense, because you would then have two directly conflicting provisions. It seems to me that it is essential that amendment No. 1 and No. 2 must be considered together. Perhaps Your Honour would rule that we might consider both amendments at the same time in order to decide whether or not this is a Crown corporation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might say a word on behalf of the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) who moved this motion. We are quite prepared to agree to that suggestion. It will be obvious to those who have studied these two amendments that the second one is consequential and only necessary if the first amendment is adopted. If the first amendment is not adopted, then the second one is perhaps in vain. Therefore, it would be quite satisfactory as far as we are concerned to have the two amendments taken together. We want to be sure, if the first amendment is adopted, that provision is made for the necessary and consequential amendment. Therefore, we agree with the suggestion that there be one debate on the two amendments in the name of the hon. member for Waterloo.
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Bechard): It is
suggested that amendments one, two and three, standing in the name of the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman), be considered together. The purpose of the amendment is to convert the telesat Canada corporation

into a Crown company. If the first amendment were negatived the third amendment would be a nullity. Therefore, it is suggested we leave the third amendment until we have considered the first. Should amendment No. 1 be decided in the affirmative then the house could consider the third amendment and dispose of it. We will now proceed with amendment No. 1.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to speak to this amendment which was originally proposed by the hon. member for Selkirk. It now stands in my name. I am asking for Telesat to be made into a Crown corporation. Let me make it very clear that my argument is not based on any ideological ground. I am trying to make a practical presentation in respect of why this should be a Crown corporation. Our feeling is that it will work much better and will serve the nation's interest to a greater extent as a Crown corporation than under the present arrangement suggested by the minister.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
We are not opposed to joint participation, the crown participating with private interest or other governments. We can think of many instances where such joint participation would be of advantage. We have in the past made such suggestions, particularly with regard to the potash industry where we felt it would be advantageous for the crown to combine its resources with those of other interests in respect of certain kinds of development.
However, in this case it must be obvious that a very severe conflict of interest arises in trying to weld together the national interest as represented by the crown, the private interest as represented by investors, who after all are like other investors and interested only in the rate of return on their money, and the interest of the common carriers who in the communications systems are very eager to protect and enlarge their activities.
It became quite obvious during the committee hearings that these interests were in conflict. At one stage a very serious disagreement arose between the communications people and the minister as to who was to use the telephone openings in Telesat. Therefore, if the program is to be successful, this conflict must not take place. The best way of resolving the conflict is to ensure that the crown itself operates Telesat. It can bring in the private investors in other forms; it can issue debt instruments on the market; it can go to the
June 5, 1969

market tor its funds without giving equity to private investors, and with that equity giving them a voice that may be in conflict with that of the crown. In the same way, the common carriers of Canada can have that interest represented in various ways without actually having share ownership in the corporation.
One of the arguments frequently made for public ownership, aside from conflicts of the type I have mentioned, is that sometimes an operation is so complicated that if you have to administer, supervise it and resolve the conflicts that arise, the cost of the supervision and administration exceeds whatever benefits will accrue from private involvement, we have seen this happen in the past; we have seen it with the Bank of Canada and other corporations in Canada where ultimately they had to be turned into completely public corporations because of the conflicts and difficulties of administration.
The minister is not unaware of the possibilities of a crown corporation, because in his testimony before the committee he indicated that he had considered public ownership; this was one of the things he had taken into consideration before making his recommendations. But what was disturbing about the minister's indication that he had considered public ownership was the rather cavalier way in which he dismissed it. I would like to quote from the minister's statement to the committee so that the house may know what he said about public ownership and some of the arguments he made on behalf of public ownership before dismissing those arguments. At one stage of the committee hearings he said:
Let me say frankly that such a proposal-
That is, a crown corporation.
-has some superficial attractions to me:	it
would rid me of a lot of headaches. Drafting legislation for a crown corporation would be relatively simple; I could probably make some easy political mileage by running against the telephone companies and finally I would have no more worries about cost and efficiency.
I emphasize these words in the minister's statement, "I would have no more worries about cost and efficiency". This is the Postmaster General of Canada (Mr. Kierans) speaking, the man who operates the Post Office. Is the minister telling us that because the Post Office is run by the government of Canada he is not concerned about cost and efficiency? Is he telling us that the only people concerned about these things are private
Telesat Canada Act
entrepreneurs, and not the government? If this is his attitude toward the Post Office, I think some of the credit that has been coming his way regarding the management of the Post Office has been misplaced. I hope that the Postmaster General of this country is as much concerned about cost and efficiency in his department as any private entrepreneur. The minister continued in his statement to the committee:
If the satellite system, under a crown corporation, proved to be more expensive than forecast, this could readily be explained away as inevitable in a first-of-its-kind project of this type, and the extra cost unloaded on to the taxpayer.
What a remarkable statement from a minister of the crown! What an indication of his attitude toward the operation of government departments-"the extra cost unloaded on to the taxpayer". Is this his reason for rejecting a crown corporation, namely, that he has so little confidence in himself and the people associated with him in his party that they are afraid to trust themselves with a government enterprise? Surely, no more spurious argument than that could be made against a crown corporation.
In effect, the minister is telling us that as long as the Liberals are in office, with the kind of mentality and attitude expressed by the Liberal party, any hope of getting efficiency in government departments can be forgotten. We have suspected that this situation existed. One has only to consider the chaos in the passport office today to see one example of the sort of thing the Postmaster General is worried about.
However, I like to think back to the days when the Postmaster General was not in the cabinet, perhaps even to those days before he was running for the leadership of the Liberal party. In those days I think he made some of the finest statements ever made in this country with regard to possibilities for the future of Canada. He had great idealism and courage then. What has happened to that idealism and courage in the intervening period?


An hon. Member:: He has been clobbered by Benson.


Max Saltsman: My colleague has just suggested the answer, he has been clobbered by Benson.


Eric William Kierans: Battered by Benson.


Max Saltsman: I thank the minister, Mr. Speaker; he has just said, "battered by Benson". This is a very clear indication of how

June 5, 1969
Telesat Canada Act
the Postmaster General can rise to the occasion. Hopefully, he will rise to the occasion in this instance and accept the opportunity offered him by the amendment. The minister's statement continued in these words:
[DOT]-government could, by using its tremendous resources, create a crown corporation to compete with the automobile manufacturers. Government ownership is the easy way out. The trick, in terms of the maximum public good, is to achieve maximum efficiency but under the umbrella of government regulation, and if necessary, involvement. We could use up the government's scarce financial resources to build the system entirely ourselves. I believe that money can better be spent on a hundred other purposes, from regional development to foreign aid.
I draw attention to two things contained in that statement. First, there is what I think is the rather offhand suggestion as to the government getting into the automobile business. We are not here to argue about the automobile business tonight. But there are many areas in which the government could usefully create a crown corporation. We have argued for a crown corporation in respect of drugs, which would very effectively lower drug prices in Canada. The government could in many areas enter the marketplace as a competitor and effectively serve the people of this country by reducing consumer prices and increasing the efficiency of certain industries. Just because the government does not enter these fields does not mean that a crown corporation should not be established for Telesat. The minister said that money can better be spent on a hundred other purposes, from regional development to foreign aid. The implication is that if the government raises money for Telesat there will not be any money for regional development or foreign aid. Surely, the Postmaster General is far too good an economist to believe that kind of statement.
Whether we have money for foreign aid, regional development or Telesat depends upon the government's willingness to go into the money market and decide its priorities there. Since the minister has entered the cabinet it seems he has recognized how unwilling are his colleagues to change and reorganize the system under which we operate. He has developed this rather defeatist attitude toward what can and what cannot be done. Looking at the minister's statement, I am led to the conclusion that his objection, was that the government could not obtain the money and that if it had to get the money for this purpose it would not have money available for other purposes. Where is this money going

to come from? Either way it is going to come from Canadian sources. There is no suggestion that Telesat be financed by foreign money. The financing will come from Canadian savings of one kind or another, and presumably it will not make any difference who uses the savings. The real question is not whether the money is available or whether it can be obtained. The question is: Are we going to obtain the money by giving away ownership, by giving away a say in Telesat and by creating this conflict of interest, or are we going to obtain the money by an issue of bonds and debentures. In other words, we are going to provide a return to investors who wish to invest in Telesat. The question is: In which way are we going to do this? It seems to me that one way is much more effective and purposeful for what we are trying to do as a nation than the other. It is really a question of what kind of terms we are prepared to offer. If the minister is prepared to offer one third of the shares to private investors, and if he is going to get the private investors interested in buying those shares, he will have to offer them a pretty attractive package which will compete with existing investments. There is no reason why he cannot offer them this kind of attractive package in an issue of bonds.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
At some stage in the committee hearings the minister made the statement-and he may correct me if I am not quoting him accurately-that one of his reasons for going to the common carriers and to the public is that he does not want the Canadian people to pay for this venture. Had this statement come from someone without the minister's considerable background and qualifications, I would have shrugged my shoulders and said that it was the response of an ignoramus. But it did not come from an ignoramus. It came from the Minister of Communications and Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans), a knowledgeable economist, and the former president of the Montreal stock exchange. What does he mean when he says that we would have to pay for it if it were financed as a Crown corporation? The Canadian people will have to pay for it anyway, whether it is financed as a Crown corporation or whether it is financed under this arrangement.
Let us consider the situation and the possibilities as well as the reasons for which I say the Canadian people are going to pay for it. If this corporation loses money, it does not
June 5, 1969

make any difference whether it is privately or publicly owned. In either case, the loss will be made up by the taxpayers of this country. It will come out of their pockets either, in the form of higher prices or in the form of higher taxes. So, let us not go along with the pretence that one way you save the taxpayer money and the other way you do not. As Jakubowski said in the book, "Jakubowski and the Colonel", there are two possibilities. The first possibility is that it will do well and make money. In this case, we will have given away a profitable undertaking which would have been of benefit to the Canadian people and to other investors. That would be a pretty pointless situation. You would be giving away an advantage you possess on behalf of the Canadian people. The minister is the initiator and we, as the parliament of Canada, are being asked to approve this program, so we too are initiators. I think it would be a pretty poor business to give away our advantage in such circumstances. Certainly, acting on behalf of the Canadian taxpayers and citizens as I believe we are here to act, we would not want to be put in this position. So, let us leave that possibility for the moment. If the Corporation makes money, then it is too bad that we have not taken it into public ownership.
Suppose it does not make money, which is also a possibility. First of all, if this happens, all the private investors are going to leave. How long do you think the investors would stay in Telesat if their rate of return were not equivalent to other rates of return in the market place? How long would they keep their money in Telesat? They would soon pull out. What would be the result? Would the government of Canada pull Telesat out of the sky and say: "Sorry, Telesat, we cannot finance you any more; the private investors have pulled out"? Of course not, we will have to finance it ourselves anyway. That money will have to be raised in some way because we cannot afford to back down from this program once we are committed to it. It is far too expensive and far too important.
Once we make a commitment to this kind of program, we are stuck with it whether or not it makes money. Obviously, the private investor will not stay in unless the venture is making money and giving him a very good return, the same return as he would get from any other equity on the Canadian, the U.S. or any other market. We have heard all too often about dealings on the international markets and the way in which the investors
Telesat Canada Act
consider the rates of return and invest accordingly. So, let us not be misled about that. It is quite obvious that the government in that case would have one of two choices. It would either have to find some way to satisfy the private investors, such as juggling the books to make it look as though Telesat were making money or else encourage the private investors to put their money into Telesat. This is not what the minister has been saying or leading us to believe and in either case it is the Canadian people who are going to pay for it, whether they will be paying by way of giving investors a large profit or by way of subsidizing the program.
When we examine the common carriers' position we realize that obviously they will not join this present troika arrangement out of charity. Obviously, they are in it first of all to assure themselves a place in the new technology and, secondly, to make money. I do not blame them for that. That is what they are in business to do. Those were the terms of reference. What happens if they do not make money? Do you think they are going to be happy? Do you think they will continue to invest? One of two things can happen. They might pull out and say: "I am sorry, this is a losing proposition. We have a responsibility to our stockholders, so we have to pull out. We cannot go on in this thing". In this case, the minister will have to come to the rescue and dip into the pockets of the Canadian taxpayers to make sure that the project does not collapse. What will most likely happen, despite the objections that the minister raised to this suggestion in the committee, is that there will be some juggling, and if it does not make enough money an adjustment will be made to ensure that it does. In such a position we would be robbing Peter to pay Paul. If you take a look at the common carriers, you find that, first of all, we have Bell Telephone.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
If Bell Telephone invests in Telesat and the venture does not pay off, with the result that the rate of return to its shareholders drops, the company goes to the Board of Transport Commissioners with an application to increase the rates charged to private users of telephones on the ground that the return is not high enough. We practically guarantee this company a specific rate of return, and the rate has been exceeded time and time again. But the point is, they are guaranteed this rate of return, and if they lost money on Telesat the loss would be made up by the

June 5, 1969
Telesat Canada Act
Board of Transport Commissioners permitting increased rates for telephone charges. The telephone users will pay, and since most people in Canada use telephones, this means the majority of Canadians.
The C.B.C. would also be using this system. If it does not make money, what difference will it make? The C.B.C. will simply ask for a larger subsidy next year. What kind of fraud are we being handed when we are asked to believe that by going in with the common carriers and private investors we shall save the taxpayers' money? The Canadian National is also involved. What happens if the C.N. loses money? Will it not be made up one way or another by way of higher passenger fares or in the form of a larger subsidy from the government? It seems to me the argument advanced on behalf of the government that this deal is being split three different ways because of a reluctance to dip into the pockets of Canadian taxpayers is a spurious one. Either we are being misled about this, which is something I do not like to contemplate, or we are finding ourselves in the presence of some very foolish economic thinking. In either case, the proposal should be dismissed. It should be rejected, and the amendment put forward should be accepted as a means of correcting the error.
Having dealt with the financial aspect, I want to indicate that I do not object to the Telesat program itself. My hon. friends and I object to the method of financing which is proposed. We have a few other minor objections; for example, we believe the government is keeping us in the dark with regard to some matters, and being less than forthcoming about the situation. I told the minister that I was not sure whether Telesat was really an economic program, or whether it was really necessary at this time-whether it could be justified in economic terms. But I also said I was prepared to go along with the program. I was even prepared to express some admiration for his willingness to think ahead and take the lead in a technological venture of this kind. I was glad to see Canadians prepared to take some risks. But I was not prepared to see him jeopardize his own program by linking it with a foolish financial and organizational structure.
The minister has told us we need Telesat; that it has a social purpose. We need it for the development of the north. Some in this house will argue that there are very few people living in the north of Canada, that this is

an expensive project and that it might not be wise to spend so much money just to please a few trappers, a few hunters, a few workers on the oil rigs, a few mounties. But I think it is important that we show some vision with regard to the possibilities of the north. It will not always be a wasteland with only a few people living there. A good argument based on the social development of the north could be made; the proposals before us could be justified on the basis of the sound future development of this country.
The minister has indicated there are political implications attached to this. There are. We know that one province in particular is negotiating agreements with a foreign country for satellite programs. Perhaps we can head this off. Perhaps we can strike a blow for national unity. Perhaps we can show we are prepared to be the first in some things, not the last. Telesat can do this for us.
Then again, the development of a satellite may have spill-over effects. The minister has not been able to tell us conclusively what these benefits are likely to be, but no one with imagination and a degree of familiarity with what is going on in the scientific world today doubts there will be worthwhile side-effects which will place us in a position to take advantage of further technological development. Moreover, it will give our scientists an opportunity to participate in extending the frontiers of the new sciences, and for this reason, to, we should be very much concerned with Telesat.
To return to the economic question. It would have been far better for us and, I believe, for the minister, had he been willing to take us into his confidence and give us some idea of the costs involved. We have repeatedly asked the minister to issue the cost benefit studies so as to make this information available. These requests have been refused. We have put down three motions for the production of papers in an attempt to obtain some of the facts as to cost and some of the estimates for Telesat. The refusal to provide this information can only lead to a suspicion that the minister wants to hide something. Surely, this is a bad way to begin such a program, particularly when there are people on this side of the house who share some of his concern, some of his vision for the future, and who would have been willing to support him as we have in the past in connection with projects of this kind which are worthwhile and good.
June 5, 1969

My time is drawing short, Mr. Speaker. I wish once more to address this question to the minister: why is he so firmly opposed to the establishment of a Crown corporation? I have carefully reviewed the minister's statements; I have considered his arguments, and I find them unconvincing. Is the minister afraid to accept responsibility for his actions in this field? If you establish a Crown corporation you stand or fall according to its failure or success. Does the minister feel he has to bring in three parties so that later on he can say: it did not work very well because of the shortcomings of this party, or of that party, but we intend to fix it up. I would hate to think this is the case. If it is technical information the minister needs, this can be made available without the carriers' direct participation.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I find myself in a somewhat unusual and painful position. I agree profoundly with the obiter dicta of my colleague from the New Democratic party, but I cannot go along with him when he comes to making a judgment. I should like to say too that in the broadcasting committee, which had umpteen meetings on this important legislation, his predecessor, the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Schreyer), was, in my opinion, one of the most astute and able appraisers of this legislation. As a one time resident of Manitoba, I am prepared to make the prediction that the hon. member for Selkirk will become the leader of a certain party in a short time. He will also go on to become leader of the opposition and will offer, I think, constructive opposition to a re-elected Weir government which will take over the affairs of the province with a greater mandate than ever before.
I should like to say that the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman), who came here after I became a member, has always seemed to me a man with extremely good economic judgment and a lot of business knowledge. However, when he comes to the real brink of making a judgment, he becomes somewhat more partisan than perceptive and just misses the bus in the matter of making an astute judgment. I must say that there was not too much of what he said tonight with which I found myself in accord.
I was a bit fearful when my hon. friend suggested that there be a little more control by the government in this important matter.
Telesat Canada Act
It seems to me, having looked at the legislation over these past many weeks, as I heard the minister and as I looked upon the minister's pronouncements, that the thing of which the Canadian people might be most fearful was an extension of the ministerial jurisdiction in this important realm of communications. Bill C-184 time after time after time contains these ringing expressions: "except by permission of the Governor in Council"; "with the approval of the minister", and so on. It is not by any means a piece of legislation that indicates there is no such animal as a minister presiding over the destiny of these things.
I am often troubled by people who are fearful of the machinations and operations of the so-called detached corporations, such as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. People worry about what these corporations are doing. The only thing that makes me comfortable when I look at the C.B.C.'s operations is that I would far sooner have Dr. Davidson running its operations than I would the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier).
Therefore, I am not sure that I would want to have the larger imprint of the emanation of government in this very important field of telecommunications. Perhaps it is a good thing to have some utterance and comment from those who are not of the government sector in this tremendously important field. We know that not all corporations are bad, though God knows not all are good. We in this house have checked the estimates and expenditure of money, in regard to which no one would award a gold star for excellence of administration. We have only to recall what previous Liberal governments did with, for and to the railways of this country to know about the plethora of crown corporations and the liberalization of their operations. I think perhaps the governmental sector might benefit from the expertise which the common carriers have developed.
I am no apologist for big business. No one is more ill at ease with big business than a poor, impoverished professor like myself. But I do know that over the years the people in the telecommunications field have been able to provide better service at lower cost, whereas the Postmaster General (Mr. Kier-ans) is providing in his mail operations poorer service at higher cost. Therefore, perhaps a little relationship between him and the telecommunications people would not be all that bad for the people and government of Canada.

June 5, 1369
Telesat Canada Act
I remember attending a meeting of a committee a few days ago-I think this was before Trans-Canada wrote their love letter to the minister-when the minister said to me that I sounded more like Bell every day. I do not hold Bell stock. I would be very ill at ease in their boardroom. Indeed, I would not know how in the world to get into their boardroom. My only fond feeling for the Bell Telephone Company is that since the minister has taken office I have had much better telephone service than mail service.
I have no prejudice against the N.D.P. point of view. I have found that during my 12 years in this house I have more often been in accord with that point of view than with the point of view of the Liberal party. While the N.D.P. may be wrong, I think they are usually compassionately wrong, whereas the Liberals are inclined to be patently wrong.
Having watched the operations of government over a good many years I have grown a little fearful of the extension of governmental operation and administration. I look at the department that the Minister of Communications heads in his role as Postmaster General. I see the labour problems that seem to increase both in emotional content and geographically. I look at the retardation in the transmission of messages from one Canadian to another through the Post Office Department. I try to appraise the efficiency of operation of his department. All of this leads me to conclude that total governmental operation is not all that efficient and not terribly successful.
Therefore, I would be inclined to disagree with my hon. friend from Waterloo that turning over the whole of the Telesat operation to the Minister of Communications would enhance any expedition of messages either from 22,500 miles above us or on the terrestrial plane. I am a little fearful of too much penetration by the government in an area in which others have developed an outstanding degree of expertise.
I have read the minister's speeches. In fact I have had very little time for the classics since the minister came into office because he makes so many speeches, and I read each one of them. But I am just wondering whether he has some burning desire to get into the telephone business. I am just wondering how widely he interprets his communications mandate. I am just wondering, if he has his way, and if in a few years I endeavour to make a phone call on a Saturday or a Sunday, whether I would discover that it would not go
[Mr. Maequarrle.l
through until the following Monday. If that were the case I wonder how my hon. friend for Waterloo would feel, having suggested to the Canadian people in the parliament of Canada that we want more of the Minister of Communications and less of those who have proven their expertise in the field of telecommunications. I wonder too, if the minister really has some deep-seated, psychological yearning to hold the chart when sky writing is in vogue. I wonder what in the name of heaven, not heavens, will be the message to be inscribed in the sky. I am not prepared, despite my great appreciation for what the hon. member for Selkirk has done in this field and the contribution he made in the committee, to say nothing of what the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) has done in the same milieu in following the hon. member for Selkirk, to go along with the suggestion that we should have more in the sector of communications of that which has seemed to produce so many roadblocks as the people of Canada have tried to transmit written messages one to another. So, I cannot support this amendment.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
I do not want to be unkind or critical. That is the last faculty I am prepared to develop, because it has atrophied through disuse. But when I reflect with all kindness on what has happened to the mail I hate to trust my telegrams or telephone calls to the Minister of Communications. I say that because when I pick up the telephone and give the operator a zone number, she knows what that means. If I write to someone in Toronto or Vancouver and give a zone number, the post office does not know what it means. And I have the word of members of the Post Office Department to that effect.
The three digit zone numbers in Toronto were to remain in effect, not in perpetuity, but for thirty years. And thirty years is a whole generation. Now, we find that these are most ephemeral. I would hate to pick up my telephone when we have satellite communication and trust its digital purity to the Minister of Communications. I would wonder if the number dialed would prove to be the correct one. We have hazard and confusion in the mail and I should hate to uplift and translate that confusion to the stratosphere, thereby confusing the people of Canada to the same degree which has been achieved with the mails.
June 5. 1969

I have great regard lor the views expressed by my colleague from the N.D.P. The great problem the N.D.P. has to face in this instance is this. While the concept of having the government own and operate any of our facilities is pleasant, the realities of administration are such that there must emerge some person or minister who is in charge. Having noted what has happened to the transmission of written ideas I would be less than joyous to turn over the whole field of satellite communication to the minister and agency obviously indicated, namely, the Minister of Communications and his department. I admire the minister's speeches and appreciate his wit. I am fully cognizant of his accomplishments. But when considering him as a Minister of Communications I shudder; I hesitate, I wonder and I reflect. I will end by voting against the amendment brought forward by my good friend for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman).


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Will the hon. member permit a question. Does the hon. member not feel that the Minister of Communications, whom he has been eulogizing so eloquently, would be more apt to poke his finger into the pie under the provisions of clauses 8 and 9 of the bill than under the provisions of this clause, as it now stands?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: May I be permitted to answer, Mr. Speaker. I think that the differences with regard to the prospects and possibilities of the ministerial finger poking would be similar to the difference between the figures 100 and 98.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Will the hon. gentleman permit another question, Mr. Speaker? I appreciate his concern about having the Minister of Communications participate in administration. Does the hon. member not agree that if a project such as we are considering here were set up, it would need a separate general manager and board of directors. The project would, therefore, not be managed directly by the minister. It might have some chance of being successful.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, if that happy abridgement could be achieved, and if the umbilical cord could be cut and dissolved, I should reflect with greater sympathy on my hon. friend's suggestion.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie). I appreciate his remarks with respect to the compassion of the
DEBATES	9813
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion New Democratic Party. I appreciate the fact that he considers, quite sincerely, that our heart is in the right place. Actually, I found it rather sad when listening to my hon. friend to hear him suggest that he would not be able to support this amendment. The fact is that the Conservative party has some record in pioneering in communications, particularly in the establishment of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The corporation was established in 1935 by a Conservative government. It is true that there was a lot of pressure from people of various political outlooks. I think it must be said, nevertheless, that our broadcasting corporation was founded by the Conservative government. It was established by that Conservative government to provide a better national broadcasting service to the people of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, it being ten o'clock it is my duty to put 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.

Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, on April 28 I directed a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro). I asked the minister whether he had discussed with representatives of the provinces the possibility of obtaining an exemption for the Old Order of Mennonites from the provisions of the Canada Pension Plan and, if so, what had been the result of those discussions. I wonder whether a representative of the Minister of National Health and Welfare is in the house. I do not see one at the moment. Is someone here prepared to answer on behalf of the Minister of National Health and Welfare?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, there does not appear to be anyone. There may have been some slip-up. We are inquiring to see if someone is to come here. If no one is to come I, as a colleague of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, will be delighted and honoured to convey the hon. member's remarks to the minister.
June 5, 1969
9814	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Max Saltsman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It may be an honour for the Minister of Corporate and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Basford) to convey my remarks to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but I am not here to honour him, nor to bestow honours on myself. I am here to obtain an answer to an important question. Neither the minister nor his delegate is here and to give some answer and I submit, this, constitutes a breach of privilege. There is no sense in my simply putting my remarks on the record. I ask your advice, sir. What should I do in the circumstances ?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: If it is
agreeable perhaps we might proceed with question no. 3.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS-SUGGESTION BY LOBLAW PRESIDENT TO BOYCOTT BEEF PURCHASES

James Aloysius McGrath: 
rise has been an undue demand in the overall beef market in North America. It raises a very serious question. All hon. members are concerned with the rising cost of living and the continuing increase in the consumer price index in Canada. For example, the consumer price index for Canada advanced by 1.1 per cent in April over what it was in March. It continues to rise, notwithstanding the moves that have been made by the new Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
On May 20th, the Minister announced the appointment of the Prices and Incomes Commission. Prior to that, the Consumers' Advisory Council was set up. A white paper was presented to the house last year on the policies for price stability. The minister in a speech to the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, stated, and I quote:
After 18 months in business, we now have the organizational strength and determination to make the contribution which the Economic Council spoke of-to make our impact on the Canadian economy.
In the same speech the minister stated:
By establishing the department in December, 1967, and greatly strengthening it in July, 1968, the government endeavoured to overcome this lack of coordination and to give a common thrust -a common purpose-a common enthusiasm to different agencies that had often been the unloved orphans of other departments.
I would like to hear the minister enunciate this handsome dividend. What, in fact, does this mean to the consumer who is concerned about the way he is being robbed by inflation and about the rising cost of living right across this country? We hope the minister will be able to tell us tonight why the president of a large retail grocery chain would find it proper to make this statement, a most unusual statement for a man in his position, calling upon the consumers of Canada to boycott certain cuts of Canadian beef because of what he claims to be a 40 per cent increase in the last four weeks. Mr. Speaker, this is a serious matter. We would like to know, for example, what the Consumers Advisory Council has to say about this and we would like to know what the minister has to say about it. Perhaps now might be an appropriate time for the minister to say what he has to say.


Stanley Ronald Basford: In the three minutes which are allotted to me to reply to the hon. member's question, I cannot deal with all the points he has raised. I appreciate his having raised this matter. I agree with him and I applaud Mr. Weinstein's suggestion that consumers should boycott steaks and roasts to
June 5, 1969	COMMONS
force down prices. It seems to me this statement is completely in accord with the findings of the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on Consumer Credit and Prices of which I had the honour to be co-chairman. In its report the committee stated:
There are quite acceptable substitutes for many types of food and consumers can affect the prices of any particular items simply by not buying them, if they think the price is excessive.
I should like to emphasize that this is the very essence of a free competitive market economy of which businessmen speak so glowingly. If things are too high in price, consumers should seek substitutes or alternatives. I note with interest a report in today's Globe and Mail to the effect that there has been a reduction in meat prices in Toronto. This is attributed to consumer resistance. I think this is a very healthy market situation. But let me repeat that consumer resistance can best be effective in a freely competitive market. This is not the case at present in the Vancouver area of British Columbia. There are approximately 100 chain stores closed in the Vancouver area as a result of labour-management conflict. There, the consumer market has clearly been disrupted and there have been suggestions by some that appreciable price increases have taken place as a result.
I should like this evening to make a public appeal to the merchants whose stores are still open in the Vancouver area. I am appealing to them to exercise restraint. To be blunt, I am appealing to them to resist taking advantage of this temporary market situation which prevails. I have instructed my regional office in Vancouver to make daily reports to my office. Some 55 inspectors located in British Columbia will be carrying on regular inspections of those stores that are still open in the Vancouver area. As I say, I shall be receiving daily reports of what is happening in this prices situation as long as the labour situation persists. If any gouging should appear as a result of these reports from my inspectors, I give notice now that I shall not hesitate for one minute to name those people who my inspectors find are gouging the consumers in the Vancouver situation.
Let me add that any temporary interruption of market supplies in any part of Canada can cause similar problems. My colleague the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson), and also the hon. member, have alerted me to a situation resulting from transportation difficulties in Labrador. Let me say again that my field
DEBATES	9815
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion staff will be examining carefully any abnormal situations which develop and we will be taking whatever action is necessary under whatever powers we have.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)



CANADIAN CONFEDERATION-MANITOBA- ERECTION OF A MONUMENT COMMEMORATING LOUIS RIEL

Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, on May 7 last, I asked the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) whether he could help Manitoba by granting financial help towards erecting a monument to the memory of Louis Riel.
The hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) asked, as a supplementary question, whether the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and perhaps all hon. members had planned their participation to this important event in the province of Manitoba.
Mr. Speaker, we are now studying the official languages bill. The premiers of Quebec and Ontario have signed cultural agreements. The Secretary of State, for his part, travels across the land and shows interest in all French minorities. To my mind, those are historical facts that create ties between our historical past and the future of our country.
Now, another event is of great current interest. In a year from now, that is on July 15, 1970, we shall celebrate the centennial of Manitoba within confederation.
Manitoba was the first new province in Canada, after 1867. Its constitution respects integral bilingualism, glossing over certain deplorable incidents that occurred in 1890 and 1916. We take pleasure in recalling that the Manitoba constitution, which is so respectful of bilingualism, was the result of very important events. Those events were not understood by the majority when they occurred, and they were often badly interpreted later on.
For a long time, the Metis addressed their complaints to the federal government. But Ottawa was far away. The files shuttled back and forth between Winnipeg and the federal capital, which returned them for an administrative technicality without solution. The least difficulty as to any piece of land gave rise to endless correspondence. That distance, those delays favoured at that time the policies of Sir John A. Macdonald, the great procrastinator. But the Metis were getting impatient. They visualized authority in a more simple way.
June 5, 1969
9816	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Besides, that man for whom we are asking for a monument today, heard one day the following advice from his father: Our people will need a leader some day, an educated man, able to speak to people of your age who now sow in our world the seeds of disorder and sometimes without showing any sympathy for those who suffer hardships.
For years he had prepared himself to become the leader of his fellow-citizens. He now had the required education. Perhaps the day to use it had come.
In 1870, Edward Blake, leader of the Liberal party in that province, had opened his election campaign by setting a $5,000 price on Louis Riel's head. Accusing at that time the Conservative government in Ottawa of having let go unpunished those who were involved in the "deliberate murder of an Ontario citizen", he grossly exploited the popular feeling. Although the question had nothing to do with provincial affairs, it was very useful to the Liberals. They came to power with a great majority and the price of blood offered by Blake went into the provincial legislation not long after that. The news was published outside, arousing great interest, and joy in some cases.
At about the same time, Sir John A. Macdonald's government had to resign on account of what is know in history as the "Pacific scandal".
Today, Mr. Speaker there is unfolding in this land of ours an era that could unite both the French and English-speaking people. The whole thing could put these events in then-true perspective. I will recall three names that will contribute to enlighten us on these facts. They are Messrs. Morton, Stanley and Osier. The latter is a member of parliament.
At the centre of those events, there is the outstanding figure of Louis Riel who was responsible for them and who is the Father of Manitoba. Why call him the Father of Manitoba? Because he fought for the rights of the French and the English people. In our time, as a token of respect for the Father of Manitoba, a monument has been erected to his memory in Regina, Saskatchewan, on the very grounds of the Legislative Assembly.
On the eve of such an important centennial and for the glory of a greater Canada, will there be any Canadian participation in the celebrations now being organized by his beloved daughter in the province of Manitoba? This participation would please the first Canadians, the Indians and their blood brothers, the Metis, and it would commemorate the


first Canadian voyageur, La Verendrye, who travelled to Western Canada, as well as all those young Canadians who would find in Louis Riel a true Canadian hero.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, the Secretary of State, I am honoured to reply to the hon. member.
On answering this question directly, the Secretary of State did not see fit to consider the possibility of a grant for the erection of a monument commemorating Louis Riel on the grounds of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.



CANADA PENSION PLAN-EXEMPTION OF OLD ORDER MENNONITES

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. As the minister is now in the house we will revert to question No. 1.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I received a message explaining the minister's absence, and I understand it was an unavoidable absence. On April 28, I directed a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) asking whether he had discussed with representatives of the provinces the possibility of obtaining an exemption for the Old Order of Mennonites from the provisions of the Canada Pension Plan, and if so, what had been the result of those discussions. My interest in this matter arises from the private members' bill I have on the order paper and from some of the statements the minister himself has made indicating that he is prepared to view sympathetically the request of the Old Order of Mennonites.
I should like to say a word or two about the Old Order of Mennonites. They represent a relatively small number of people in Canada. They are somewhat different from most Mennonites. They are largely an agricultural people and are located in Waterloo county. The question of exemption, and in my opinion justice, for the Old Order of Mennonites goes beyond their own personal circumstances. Underlying the whole matter is the question of freedom in our society and the right to dissent whether it be dissent of the left or dissent of the right. It is a question of the right of people to be different and to have their differences recognized, especially in cases where those differences do not interfere with the rights and opportunities of other
June 5, 1969	COMMONS
people. The Mennonite people have a very special outlook.
There being a power failure in the chamber:


Mr. Munro:: You see what happens, Max?


Max Saltsman: That is what happens when one talks about religion, Mr. Speaker. I hope I receive a very satisfactory answer from the minister tonight in view of the difficulties we are encountering with this adjournment debate. The Old Order of Mennonites religion specifically binds them to help one another. Participation in an insurance program would constitute a violation of their belief. They are different from other people in this respect; they repudiate all forms of insurance whether they be private or public. I know that some people would like to get out of the Canada Pension Plan because they can make more suitable insurance arrangements privately. But this is not the case with the Old Order of Mennonites. As far as their history goes back they have refused to participate in insurance programs because they share their obligations. Their feeling is that if they participate in an insurance program it would in some way infringe upon that aspect of their religion.
As an indication that they are not trying to save money, they have stated they are prepared to give up the benefits of the Canada Pension Plan and to pay into a separate fund the payments they would make in respect of the Canada Pension Plan. On the surface this seems to be a very logical approach to the whole subject. It is not for me to judge whether they-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. The Minister of National Health and Welfare.


John Carr Munro: Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Speaker. I apologize to the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) for my late arrival to answer this question. We are very aware of the problem raised by the hon. member with regard to the Mennonites. The hon. member for Kitchener (Mr. Hymmen)
DEBATES	9817
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion has on several occasions also raised the problem with the government.
The question of exemption from Canada Pension Plan payments by old order Amish and Mennonite communities raises, as I am sure the hon. member is aware, many unique problems with respect to precedent, universality, portability and the handling of survivor benefits for former members of these orders. If they were exempted, it would create a good deal of difficulty in terms of their reentry into the Canada Pension Plan. In spite of these problems, and as a result of representations that I and others have received, it has been decided, in co-operation with my colleague the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cote), that we bring before the government a case for exemption. We will ask that the government make a decision in this respect. If there should be an initial, favourable decision in this case that an exemption is warranted-and I am sure the hon. member is aware of the dangers in making exemptions to the Canada Pension Plan-it will be necessary before any final decision is made to obtain a similar reaction, namely in favour of exemption, from the provinces who are, in a loose sense, partners with us in the Canada Pension Plan.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
I do realize that there may be exceptional circumstances so far as the Mennonites are concerned and that if we do rule in their favour it would not necessarily set a precedent which would start a whole raft of applications for exemptions. We could not very well rule in favour of such exemptions without prejudicing the whole concept of the plan itself. So, with those few remarks, I should like the hon. member to know that we are seriously considering this matter and, subject to the case being reviewed favourably by the government and partciularly by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cote), we would be prepared to take it up with the provinces.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.25 p.m.
9819

Friday, June G, 1969