1969-12-15

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions between representatives of the parties with reference to a number of private members' public bills which deal with the subject matter of the Canada Elections Act, and more particularly with some of the subjects now being discussed before the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. I think there might be general consent to an order being made in the following terms:
That the orders lor second reading of Bills C-14, C-72, C-78, C-97, C-101 and C-120 be discharged and the subject matter thereof be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
I am advised that the members responsible for those bills in each case have given their consent to the orders being discharged and the subject matter of the bills being transferred to the committee. As I say, I understand there might be agreement of the House generally to this procedure.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it so agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that the Canadian Wheat Board today announced the conclusion of a contract with
V/O Exportkhleb, the official grain purchasing agency of the U.S.S.R., for the sale of 3,430,000 long tons of wheat and flour.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Otto Emil Lang: This quantity represents the remaining obligations of V/O Exportkhleb and the Canadian Wheat Board covered in the long term agreement entered in o in June 1966, after allowance for buyers' shipping tolerance provided for in that agreement.
The contract provides that two million long tons, including 260,000 long tons of flour for shipment to Cuba, will be shipped prior to December 31, 1970. The contract further provides that in complete fulfilment of the master agreement of June 14, 1966, V/O Exportkhleb will endeavour to buy the remaining quantity of about 1,430,000 long tons as soon as possible.
Some shipments will commence immediately and the majority of the wheat shipments will be completed prior to the end of the current crop year on July 31, 1970. The contract provides for shipment from all Canadian port areas, including the Pacific coast, Churchill, Lakehead, St. Lawrence and Atlantic ports. The grades will be mainly No. 3 Manitoba Northern and No. 4 Manitoba Northern.
The export dollar value of the two million tons of wheat and flour now programmed for shipment in 1970 will be over $130 million.
To clarify these figures, 3,430,000 long tons is equivalent to about 128 million bushels.
Hon. members will remember that a quantity of 135 million bushels has been commonly mentioned as representing the outstanding Russian commitment. There was, however, a sale of flour last April, not previously announced, equivalent to about eight million bushels, which accounts for the difference. The two million tons programmed for shipment commencing immediately is equivalent to about 75 million bushels. I congratulate the Wheat Board on the successful outcome of their negotiations. I want also to pay tribute to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce for his tactful handling of the outstanding U.S.S.R. obligation over the past
1944	COMMONS
Sale of Wheat and Flour to Russia year. His understanding approach has greatly facilitated the successful outcome of the current negotiations.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
The delivery program for the first 75 million bushels ensures a good movement of wheat to west coast and eastern ports, including Halifax and Saint John, throughout the winter. In fact a number of vessels are presently proceeding to St. Lawrence ports and will be loading before the end of this month.
I wonder whether I might also take the opportunity of calling the attention of all hon. members to the presence in your gallery, Mr. Speaker, of the chief commissioner, the assist-an. cnief commissioner and the chief salesman of the Canadian Wheat Board; Mr. McNamara, Mr. Vogel and Mr. Rowan.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: 
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, it is a sign of the times and an indication of the conditions prevailing in the wheat industry in western Canada when a significant sale like this one is awaited with such anticipation and questions have been asked repeatedly concerning whether the agreement would be brought to a satisfactory conclusion. The statement by the minister today tells us that so many long tons or so many bushels will be moved in the current and the next crop years and that the remainder will be subject to negotiations for purchase if possible.
The other significant factor which should be taken into account is that China and Russia now occupy very important positions as the largest purchasers of Canadian wheat. What will concern many western farmers is whether the trading policies of the government and their orientation will be such that we may expect to continue to sell, trade and deal with these two very important countries
December 15, 1969

and can look forward to an expanding trade. The Wheat Board has done a good job but it operates within the trading policies of the government and will only be as successful as these trading policies allow it to be.
It is not true that there is no longer a market for Canadian wheat. The truth is that the markets are in different places now from where they were 10 or 15 years ago. This sale will contribute substantially to our volume of sales. The total amount that will be reached this year is, of course, idle speculation.
Let us recall that the cash position of farmers on the prairies today is desperate. For the first time in my memory as a grain grower and farmer we have not established a one-bushel quota at any point prior to Christmas. Let us remember that farmers constitute a significant sector of the various industries in Canada and are selling at 1946 prices while they are attempting to cope with 1969 costs. In order to continue to do so the members of any commercial group in Canada would have to be economic magicians. The western farmers would have to be wizards to cope with 1946 prices and 1969 costs when throughout our economy other groups are continually getting increases in wages, salaries or profits.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, we welcome the announcement just made by the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, in the sense that Canada will be able to deliver 128 million bushels of wheat to Russia, under the terms of an agreement arrived at in 1966.
We also recognize that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) must have endeavoured to have that agreement honoured, and we hope that he will keep on working as strenuously in order to negotiate other wheat sales, not only with Russia, but with other countries in need of that staple which we produce in large quantities.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-lings):: Mr. Speaker, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion under Standing Order 43. I base my reasons for obtaining unanimous consent on the following facts:
The Canadian Economy
During November the consumer price index-the cost of living-rose by half of one per cent, which is an annual rate of increase of 6 per cent a year. This shows a very sharply accelerated rise during the past three months and clearly demonstrates that the government's approach to controlling inflation has proved to be ineffective.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
What is particularly alarming is the government's refusal to adopt positive measures to bring prices down such as:
1.	To introduce tax incentives to induce industry to instal the new plant, machinery and production systems necessary to increase productivity, and thereby lower costs and prices.
2.	To require importers to pass on to consumers in their entirety the Kennedy round tariff reductions made effective in the last budget.
3.	The Prime Minister to call a behind closed doors meeting of business and labour leaders to persuade them of the urgent need for keeping prices and wage demands within reasonable limits, and the very serious consequences which will accrue to the economy if this is not done.
I therefore ask for consent to move the following motion:
That this House, comprising the elected representatives of all of the people of Canada, consider and recommend a more effective method of controlling and keeping within reasonable bounds the sharply accelerating increase in the cost of living.


Mr. Speaker:: As hon. members know, under the terms of Standing Order 43 the motion proposed by the hon. member can only be considered if there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will have recognized that there is no unanimity and therefore the motion cannot be put at this time.


George Harris Hees: On a point of order, I should like to point out that the reason the motion cannot be proceeded with now is that the members of the government have refused to give unanimous consent.


Mr. Speaker:: I take the liberty to mention to the hon. member that this is not a point of order. I invite hon. members to read again Standing Order 43 which makes it possible

December 15, 1969
Questions
for hon. members to explain to the House the urgency of the matter, and I think that the comments made by hon. members in support of a motion under Standing Order 43 should be limited to this aspect of the matter.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-173, to amend the Criminal Code (Attempted suicide).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this deeply humanitarian bill is to make it so that attempted suicide will no longer be considered an offence under the Criminal Code but will be relegated, as it should be, to the field of medicine.
Section 213 of the Criminal Code now reads as follows:
Every one who attempts to commit suicide is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.


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

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

Mr. Gilbert: 1.	Which provinces presently have complete control over the administration of housing projects that have been financed by the federal government?
2.	Which provinces in discussions with the Government of Canada are presently considering similar arrangements?
3.	When is it expected that these arrangements will be decided upon?
4.	Is it expected that similar agreements with the provinces will be undertaken in the field of urban renewal projects?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: 1. Public housing projects financed under the federal-provincial partnership arrangements of Section 35A, NHA, are owned and administered jointly by the two levels of government.
The federal government does not participate in the actual administration of public housing projects, low rental housing projects

and student housing projects financed under Sections 35D and E, Section 16 and Section 36B of the Act. These projects are administered in accordance with the requirements of the NHA by the owners.
2.	The arrangements with provinces may vary within the terms of the NHA to suit local requirements.
3.	See answers to 1. and 2. above.
4.	The urban renewal policy, including the administrative arrangements, is currently under review.


PRICES AND INCOMES COMMISSION
Mrs. Maclnnis: 1.	Who are the members of the Prices and Incomes Commission and what are their respective annual salaries?
2.	Who are the research and administrative staff of the Prices and Incomes Commission, and what are their respective annual salaries?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: I have been informed by the Chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission as follows: 1. J. H. Young is receiving remuneration within the range of a DM 3 ($37,000-$40,000). p. Gerin-Jajoie is receiving remuneration within the range of a DM 3 ($37,000-$40,000). G. E. Freeman is receiving remuneration within the range of a DM 1 ($28,000-$33,000). G. V. Haythorne is receiving remuneration within the range of a DM 1 ($28,000-$33,000).
2.	J. Anderson, $6,720; G. A. Berger, $23,920; D. Brazier, $16,944; H. Bubeck, $13,000; J. Cragg, $26,500; W. Dymond, $11,976; J. Hague, $11,300; T. Houston, $10,800; J.-G. Lavigne, $10,857; J. Orr, $6,504; and L. Reed, $20,750.


TASK FORCE ON YOUTH
Mr. Nystrom: Has the government appointed a Task Force on Youth and, if so, (a) what are its terms of reference (b) what is its budget (c) who are its members (d) will a report be published?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: No. The Secretary of State is co-ordinating a study of programs serving youth at present being undertaken by the government, and the role of governmental activity in this area considering the attitudes of youth.


REFUNDING AND ADVERTISING COST, CANADA SAVINGS BONDS
Mr. Saltsman: For the fiscal years 1960-61, 1962-63, 1963-64, 196465, 1965-66, 1966-67, 1967-68, 1968-69, 1970-71 (estimated), what has been the refunding and advertising cost to the federal treasury on Canada Savings Bonds?
December 15, 1969


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minisler of Finance):: With regard to the cost of refunding, it is not possible to establish accurately the extent to which outstanding issues of Canada Savings Bonds have been directly converted into new issues.
The table below indicates, for each issue of Canada Savings Bonds, Series 1960 through 1968-69, Gross Sales, Total Costs of Flotation (including sales commissions, issuing and re-
Questions
demption fees, printing, distribution, administration and advertising costs), and a breakout of Advertising Expenditures.
Inasmuch as total costs of flotation vary with the level of gross sales, it is not possible to provide at this time an estimate for the 1969-70 Series of Canada Savings Bonds currently on sale. The authorized advertising budget for the current series is $1,620,000.
of which
Total Costs of	Advertising
Flotation	Expenditures
Series	Gross Sales ($000)	($000)	As a % of Gross Sales	($000)	As a % of Gross Sales1960	$ 961,049	$ 9,563	1.00%	$ 566	0.059%1961	1,100,284	12,328	1.12	820	0.0741962	1,797,419	18,368	1.02	882	0.0491963	1,245,322	12,815	1.03	924	0.0741964	1,150,171	11,885	1.03	952	0.0821965	968,551	10,049	1.04	955	0.098Centennial	2,421,651	25,023	1.03	1,251	0.0521967/68	1,526,305	16,194	1.06	1,442	0.094Special Replacement	851,455	7,715	0.91	414	0.0491968/69	3,366,762	34,946*	1.04*	1,582*	0.047
^Preliminary


CANADIAN FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION EXPENDITURES
Mr. Rose: 1.	For the 1967, 1968 and 1969 fiscal years, what have been the expenditures of the Canadian Film Development Corporation?
2.	What specific financial grants have been given to various individuals and groups for the production of films?
3.	What specific criteria are used for the Corporation's financial grants?
4.	How much was awarded to Mr. John Bassett's Agincourt Productions for the film 'Flick' and for what reasons?
5.	Did the Corporation believe that there was insufficient private financial backing for the film 'Flick'?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Canadian Film Development Corporation as follows: 1. 1967-nil. 1968-69, Expenditures $203,404; April 1 to September 30, 1969, $105,746.
2. Under Section 10(1); Subsection (c) (primes de Qualite, 1967)-Allan King Associates Canada Ltd., for "Warrendale", $14,450; Arthur Lamothe for "Poussiere sur la ville, $7,500; Camil Adam for "Manette", $4,100; Cooperation et Michel Brault for "Entre la Mer et l'eau douce", $10,900; Les Films J. P. Lefebvre for "11 ne faut mourir pour ga", $14,450; Les Films J. P. Lefebvre for "Patricia et Jean Baptiste", $13,000; Markent Productions Ltd. (Larry Kent) for "High", $9,600; Onyx Films Inc. et Gilles Carle for "Le viol d'une jeune fille douce", $13,700; Quest Film Productions Ltd. for "Isabel", $12,300; Total, $100,000.
Subsection (d) (Grants, 1969)-Jacques Che-nail, $19,000; Don Shebib, $19,000; A1 Sens, $17,000; Michael Snow, $15,000; Peter Rowe, $15,000; Sylvia Spring, $15,000; John Hofsess, 5,000; Tom Shandel, $5,000; Andre Forcier, $3,000; Russel Heise, $3,000; Dan Goldberg,

December 15, 1969
Questions
$2,500; Patrice Massenet, $2,500; Michael Hirsh, $2,000; Robert Zend, $2,000; Total: $125,000.
3.	Grants and awards under Section 10(1) (c) and (d) of the CFDC Act were made on the basis of selection by independent juries representative of the film industry and other knowledgeable persons.
4.	No award was given to Mr. John Bassett's Agincourt Productions for the film "Flick". The Corporation invested in this film under Section lO(lXa) of its Act. The proposed film met the Corporation's criteria of significant creative, artistic, and technical Canadian content. The Corporation's investment represents approximately 50 per cent of the proposed production costs.
5.	The Corporation does not disclose financial details of the film productions in which it invests or towards which the Corporation makes loans.


PROVISIONAL DIRECTORS OF TELESAT CANADA
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Who are the recently appointed six provisional directors of Telesat Canada?
2 What was the criteria used in their appointment?
3.	When is it expected that the company will have its first general meeting to elect regular directors?
4.	What are the financial holdings of each of the six provisional directors of Telesat Canada?
5.	What are all of the specific communication companies associated with each of the provisional directors?
6.	What financial compensation is being awarded to the provisional directors of Telesat Canada?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General and Minister of Communications):: 1. Mr. David Golden was appointed a provisional director and President of Telesat Canada effective September 1, 1969 under Order-inCouncil PC 1969-1566 August 6, 1969. Dr. J. H. Chapman, Messrs. L. Picard, Z. H. Krup-ski, A. G. Archibald, R. D. Southern and A. Ouimet were appointed provisional directors under Order-in-Council PC 1969-1757 September 11, 1969.
2.	Criteria according to sections 3, 4 and 12 (2) of the Telesat Canada Act.
3.	The government is unaware of any definite date as this matter falls within the powers of the board of directors as set out in Section 17 (a) of the Telesat Canada Act.
4.	No requirements are laid down by the Telesat Canada Act with respect of the financial holdings of the provisional directors,

other than the president, and those directors to be elected by the holders of common shares of the company who will be persons fulfilling the statutory conditions, and the government has no knowledge of the financial holdings of any of the provisional Directors, other than the president. In accordance with section 16 (1) of the Telesat Canada Act the president has stated that he does not hold shares of any approved telecommunications common carriers as specified in "Schedule A" of the Telesat Canada Act.
5.	Mr. Z. H. Krupski, President, Trans Canada Telephone Systems. Mr. A. G. Archibald, President and Chairman of the Board, Maritime Telegraph and Telephone Co. Ltd. Not applicable to other directors.
6.	Telesat Canada is not required to disclose this information as it is a matter within the powers of the board of directors as set out in Section 17 (d) of the Telesat Canada Act.


RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF WINTER WORKS PROGRAM
Mr. Rose: Is the Government of Canada giving favourable consideration to re-establishing the federal winter works program on a broader basis with power to apply in particular regions or particular industries and, if not, what special programs is the Government of Canada considering this winter in order to combat increasing unemployment in Canada?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: There is no plan to re-introduce the Municipal Winter Works Incentive Program. It is believed that the Occupational Training for Adults Program is a far more effective and productive measure to counter seasonal unemployment in both the short and long term. The training program is scheduled io provide maximum impact in those seasons and areas in Canada in which unemployment is heaviest. The qualifications of workers are upgraded so that they may obtain employment which is less subject to seasonal fluctuations as well as to enhance their earning capacities. In the current fiscal year, the federal government plans to spend $250 million to provide training or retraining for adult workers. This is a substantial increase over the $190 million spent during the last fiscal year. In addition a total of $80 million will be paid to the provinces under the Capital Grants Program, for the construction and equipping of vocational training institutions. A further $6 million has been allocated for the various kinds
December 15, 1969

of mobility grants which are used to help workers. This is a 41 per cent increase over the $4J million spent during the last fiscal year. In addition, over 300 Canada Manpower Centres, which have extended and improved their services, will be available to assist unemployed workers.


PURCHASE RESEARCH BRANCH STUDIES
Mr. Barnett: 1.	For the fiscal years 1968-69 and 1969-70, what specific research studies have been undertaken by the Purchase Research Branch of the Department of Defence Production?
2.	Who are the individuals involved in these studies and when is it anticipated that these studies will be completed?
Hon. James Richardson (Minister of Supply and Servicesl:	1. The purchase Research
Branch of Department of Supply and Services has contributed to a number of research studies undertaken by the staff of the department. Such studies are directed to meet the internal needs of the department and the government. They are inter-dependent and not identified as individual projects. Examples include development of a purchase quality control system, development of consolidated purchasing by the use of standing offers and development of improved purchasing methods by commodity groups, e.g., automobiles, stationery.
2.	Research studies involve other members of the staff of the Department of Supply and Services as well as those of the Purchase Research Branch. It would not be meaningful, therefore, to name those associated with purchase research studies in the department.


CBC-REDUCTION OF PROGRAM VIOLENCE
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 151-Mr. Mather: (Corrected)
1.	Is the CBC giving favourable consideration to reducing the number of T.V. programs containing violence?
2.	Is the CBC giving favourable consideration to the elimination of violence from children's cartoon T.V. programs?
3.	Is the CBC giving favourable consideration to the scheduling after 9 p.m. of all T.V. crime programs and western and adventure stories which contain violence?
Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:-The reply to part 2 of Question No. 151 (Mr. Mather) which appears on page 1408 of Hansard, December 1, 1969, was incorrect in that it stated in error that one children's TV series would be discontinued as soon as its present contract expires.
Questions
In fact, no program is slated to be discontinued for failing to meet CBC standards regarding violence in programming. The Corporation apolog zes for any inconvenience the original reply may have caused the honourable member and the House.
Revised Reply
1.	The CBC does not consider that it has in the past scheduled an excessive amount of violent programming. The Corporation has, on the whole, successfully applied a policy of restraint in this area of its programming and will continue to do so.
2.	The Corporation is satisfied that its programs for children meet the standards outlined in reply to Question No. 150, Part 1.
3.	Each program must be judged on its own merits and it is difficult to generalize in terms of broad program categories. However, the Corporation will continue to minimize the exposure of programs which could be construed as violent, in keeping with CBC policy as outlined in reply to Question No. 150, Part 1.


CONDITIONS AFFECTING GOVERNMENT BOND ISSUES
Mr. Saltsman: When the government Is about to put a bond issue on the market or when a bond issue is on the market, is it the policy of the Bank of Canada or has it ever been the policy of the Bank to operate on credit conditions to affect the market for the particular bond issue?


Edgar John Benson: When the government is about to put out a new issue of its securities it is particularly desirable from the point of view of both debt management and monetary policy to avoid artificiality in bond prices and interest rates and the Bank of Canada does not operate on credit conditions to affect the market for the particular bond issue. In the after-market, the Bank may enter the market to facilitate distribution of a new issue by evening out temporary distortions, but such action would not alter the main thrust of monetary policy and its impact on credit conditions at that time.


QUEBEC NORTH SHORE AND LABRADOR RAILWAY-TAX STATUS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Did the Government of Canada make representations to the United States Government about the tax or legal status of the Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Iron Ore Company of Canada?
2.	If so, which department was involved and what were the reasons and the nature of the representations?

December 15, 1969
Questions


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1 and 2. In 1966 the then Minister of Finance and the Canadian Ambassador to Washington pointed out to the U.S. government that the Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway Company had had to be incorporated in Canada-a fact that was relevant to the U.S. income tax position of the company's parent, the Iron Ore Company of Canada. (The Iron Ore Company of Canada is incorporated and resident in the United States, but carries on business in Canada.) It was explained to the U.S. authorities, as only the government of Canada was in a position to do effectively, that although there was no specific requirement in Canadian law that the Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway Company be a Canadian corporation, the long-established and consistent policy and practice of the Canadian Parliament as it affects the incorporation and operation of railways made it necessary that this company be incorporated in Canada if it was to obtain authority to construct or operate a railway in Canada that crossed the boundary of two provinces.


TELESAT-FINANCING AND LAUNCHING DATE
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Has there been a change in the government's plans regarding the launching of a Canadian communications satellite late in 1971 and, if so, is the delay due to a firm decision on how to finance the satellite project between the federal government, the communications common carriers and the private investor?
2.	Will the Government of Canada reconsider and transform Telesat into a Crown corporation?


Eric William Kierans: 1. The decision on launching date is the prerogative of Telesat Canada Corporation, an independant company; the corporation has not yet informed the Minister of its proposed launching date.
2. This action is not envisaged by the Department of Communications.


CBC-PRODUCTION COSTS OF &quot;BEVERLY HILLBILLIES&quot; AND &quot;DON MESSER SHOW&quot;
Mr. Peters: 1.	What is the reasoning behind the CBC decision to schedule the American program "Beverly Hillbillies" six times each week?
2.	What is the weekly cost in producing this program for six times each week?
3.	What would be the estimated cost in producing the Don Messer show six times each week?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. The reason for scheduling "The Beverly Hillbillies" in the same time period on consecutive weekdays was to develop a successful lead-in for the early evening programming block and thus increase revenue potential in terms of network and local advertising. Also, by purchasing the series in quantity and scheduling it in this way, the over-all package price was reduced.
2.	and 3. It has not been customary to require the CBC to disclose specific program costs since such details would affect the Corporation's competitive position. However, "The Beverly Hillbillies" was procured for much less than it would cost the CBC to produce the Don Messer show.


LABOUR CONDITIONS-WINTER WORKS PROGRAM
Mr. Broadbent: 1.	What action has the government taken on the recommendations by the Canadian Labour Congress that the winter works program be revised?
2.	Is the government studying alternative measures to reduce seasonal unemployment in Canada this winter and, if so, what are these measures?


Yves Forest: 1 and 2.
See answer to question No. 125 answered this day.


CYSTIC FIBROSIS
Mr. McCleave: 1.	How much money does the federal government put into research in cystic fibrosis?
2.	How much, by province, is made available for help to victims of cystic fibrosis and what is the formula?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. (a) National Health and Welfare-Nil. (b) In so far as the Medical Research Council is concerned, research grants for the studies on cystic fibrouses amounted to $60,700 for the fiscal year 1969-70.
2.	The Department of National Health and Welfare, under its Health Grants Program, makes federal funds available to the provinces, on the basis of project submissions, to assist in cystic fibrosis treatment programs.
For the fiscal years 1968-69 and 1969-70 (to date) the following funds have been provided:
December 15, 1969

Federal Assistance
Province	1968-69	1969-70 to dateQuebec	$192,560	-Ontario	25,279	-Saskatchewan	32,883	-Alberta	10,000	$10,000Total	$260,722	$10,000



SUPPLY AND SERVICES-PROJECT TENDERS, CONTRACT AWARDS

['Insofar as the Department of Manpower and Immigration is concerned: 1. Yes, since September 1, 1969 the federal government approved contributions for the construction of four comprehensive schools located in the following constituencies: Lapointe, Saint-Hya-cinthe, Gaspe, and Beauharnois.\n2. Yes; (a) Mr. P. A. Fournier, Administrative Secretary, Federal-Provincial Agreements, Quebec Department of Education, Quebec; (b) Yes. It has been the policy of the department to notify the provincial departments of education about the approval of capital project submissions before issuing any public statements. The provincial departments of education are parties to the Agreements under whose authority such grants are approved.']
Hon. James Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: In so far as the Department of Supply and Services is concerned: 1. The announcement of major contract awards is issued to inform the general public about the contracting activities of the department. When interested parties require additional information on specific contracts, it may be obtained from the Secretary, Canadian Government Purchasing Service. It is felt then there is not sufficient general interest in the complete details of each tender to justify the administrative cost of preparing, publishing and distributing such a list.
2. The department does not keep statistics in such a form that the cumulative totals of the value of contracts placed with each of the department's suppliers (approximately 50,000) can be readily obtained. When automation of the department's records is completed such information can be provided.



Mr. Siewari (Cochrane): 1 How many people have immigrated to Canada from the United Kingdom since the new Canadian Citizenship Act was adopted?
2.	Of these how many have taken out Canadian citizenship?
3.	How many of those who do not yet possess Canadian Citizenship have made application for it?


Yves Forest: 1. 814,048.
2. This information is not available because Citizenship Registration Branch records do not indicate the country of origin for British Subjects who have acquired Canadian Citizenship.
Questions
3.	No record is available because the number of citizenship certificates granted to British Subjects is not recorded until after the certificate is granted.


FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO RELIEVE SUFFERING IN BIAFRA
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg: North Centre):
1.	How much money has the Canadian government contributed toward the relief of suffering in Biafra (a) from the beginning of the Nigeria-Bi-afra conflict until December 31, 1968 (b) during 1969?
2.	What forms have these contributions taken, to what agencies have they been made, and for what purposes?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. (a) Contributions until 31 December, 1968, total $974,628.26, composed of the following: (i) To Biafra through Santa Isabel November, 1968, $312,218.80; (ii) To Nigeria for Refugees: August, 1968, $63,720.00; November, 1968, $538,699.46; Total, $602,419.46. (iii) By cash to International Committee of the Red Cross, $60,000. (b) Contributions during 1969 total $1,719,103, composed of the following, (i) To Biafra through Santa Isabel, $752,201.55; (ii) To Nigeria for Refugees, $926,901.45; (iii) By cash to I.C.R.C. $40,000.
2. Contributions to December 31, 1968: (i) To Biafra direct through Santa Isabel, 1262 metric tons dried fish; (ii) to Nigeria for Refugees, 4 metric tons medicaments and 1267 metric tons dried fish; (iii) $60,000 cash contribution to International Committee of the Red Cross for use in the Nigeria/Biafra areas for refugees. (No breakdown of actual use available.) 1969 Contributions: (i) To Biafra direct through Santa Isabel, 927 metric tons dried fish and 40 metric tons potato granules;
(ii)	To Nigeria for Refugees, 1183 metric tons dried fish and 600 metric tons potato granules;
(iii)	$40,000 cash contribution to International Committee of the Red Cross for use in the Nigeria/Biafra areas for refugees. (No breakdown of actual use available).


SALE OF AIRCRAFT TO BRAZIL
Mr. Saltsman: 1.	Was the sale of 24 Canadian aircraft by de Havilland to the Government of Brazil given official approval by the Department of External Affairs or some other government department?
2.	Do such sales by private industry within Canada which might have military implications have to be approved by the Government of Canada and, if so (a) was there any discussion on an informal or formal level as to the use to which these planes would be put (b) would such discussions be a part of Canadian policy in the case of such sales?

December 15, 1969
Questions
3.	What information does the Canadian Government have about the extermination of Indians on valuable lands in Brazil?


Yves Forest: I am
informed by the Departments of Industry, Trade and Commerce and External Affairs as follows: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes (a) and (b) Yes.
3.	According to information available to the Department of External Affairs, the attacks against Indians in Brazil, which were widely reported in the world press in 1968 and 1969, took place on the initiative of Brazilian landowners with the compliance of certain officials of the Indian Protection Service of the Brazilian Government. This state of Affairs was discovered and made public by the Brazilian Government in March 1968 and the responsible officials of the Indian Protective Service were brought to trial. The Protection Service itself was dissolved. At no time have their been any allegations that the Brazilian Air Force was in any way involved in these attacks.


PUBLICITY AND ADVERTISING, PRICES AND INCOMES COMMISSION
Mrs. Maclnnis: How much money has been allotted to the Prices and Incomes Commission for publicity and advertising purposes?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I have been informed by the Chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission as follows: On November 18, 1969 Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1970 were tabled in the House of Commons. These estimates include an amount of $626,000 for the Prices and Incomes Commission. Included in this figures is an amount of $38,000 for object of expenditure 3-Information.


CANADA PENSION PLAN CONTRIBUTIONS AND PAYMENTS
Mr. Hobinson: 1.	Are Canadians who will never be able to obtain benefits under the Canada Pension Plan required to contribute and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Will the Canada Pension Plan be broadened to include Canadians other than those who contribute such as those permanently disabled, widowed or orphaned?
3.	Is it the government's intention that Canada Pension Plan payments will be paid to recipients according to need or according to contribution made?


John Carr Munro: 1. Virtually all employees and self-employed persons, except in the province of Quebec, are required to make contributions to the Canada Pension Plan. There will, of course, be a number of persons now contributing to the Plan who will not live to obtain a retirement pension. However, a lump sum death benefit will be payable in almost every case upon the death of those who do not live to receive a retirement pension, as well as upon the death of those who do, and survivors' benefits will be payable in almost every case where there are qualified survivors.
2.	When it was introduced, the Canada Pension was not designed to cover persons who were permanently disabled, widowed or orphaned unless such persons were contributors to the Plan or survivors of contributors. Any change in this aspect of the program will be announced by the Government in the usual manner.
3.	This is a matter of Government policy and any change in this area will be announced by the Government in the usual manner.


CANADA PENSION PLAN PAYMENTS TO ALL CANADIANS
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 410
Mr. Robinson:: Will the federal government consider if it would be actuarily sound on the basis of present contribution to pay Canada Pension Plan payments to all Canadians 65 years of age or over?


John Carr Munro: The Canada Pension Plan was not designed to pay benefits to all Canadians who were age 65 and over at the time the Plan began. Rather, it was designed as a contributory social insurance program under which retirement benefits, disability benefits and survivors benefits would be payable to contributors who retired or became disabled and to certain of their dependents and survivors. Any changes would be a matter of government policy and would be announced in the usual manner.


BANK OF CANADA EMPLOYEES
Mr. Fortin: 1.	How many persons employed in the Bank of Canada earn $17,000 or more?
2.	Of that number, how many are there whose mother tongue is (a) French (b) English (c) other?
3.	How many are bilingual?
December 15, 1969

4.	How many persons are there on the Board of Directors of the Bank of Canada and, of that number, how many are bilingual?
5.	(a) Who are the auditors for the Bank of Canada (b) who appointed them (c) how much are they paid?


Edgar John Benson: 1,	2 and 3. It has not been the practice nor is it considered appropriate to answer questions regarding the internal administration of the Bank of Canada.
4.	In addition to the Governor, Deputy-Governor and the Deputy Minister of Finance there are twelve directors appointed to the Board of Directors by the Minister of Finance with the approval of the Governor in Council. There are two of these directors whose mother tongue is French.
5.	(a) Jacques Rene de Cotret, C.A., of Rene de Cotret, Ostiguy, St-Arnaud, Beauchemin & Cie. T. Clark Kinnear, F.C.A. of Price Waterhouse & Co., (b) The Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance. (c) $50,000 each.


AMOUNT PAID FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS FOR CASHING COUPONS
Mr. Hales: 1.	What was the total amount of money paid by the federal government to each of the chartered banks, trust companies or credit unions of Canada for the past fiscal year for (a) cashing coupons (ownership certificates) from government bonds or securities and, what department pays this charge (b) cashing or redeeming Canada Savings Bonds, and what department pays this charge (c) all other servicing charges (d) cashing or redeeming the 1968 series of Canada Savings Bonds?
2.	Will the federal government request free servicing for above services similar to the cashing of government cheques at par?


Edgar John Benson: 1.	(a) Payments are made semi-annually in arrears to cover the cost of cashing coupons from Government bonds. The amount paid during fiscal 1968-69 was $731,283.10. Payments are made by Department of Finance, (b) Payments are made quarterly in arrears to cover the cost of redeeming Canada Savings Bonds. The amount paid during fiscal 1968-69 was $2,182,052.37. Payments are made by Department of Finance, (c) No other servicing charges were paid in respect of Government of Canada securities during fiscal 196869. (d) Of the amounts paid to cover the cost of redeeming Canada Savings Bonds (see answer to (b) above) in fiscal 1968-69, $83,424.31 was paid in respect of the 1968-69 Series and $30,954.16 in respect of the Special Replacement Series dated May 1, 1968.
2.	No.
Questions


INLAND TERMINAL ELEVATORS, MOOSE JAW AND LETHBRIDGE
Mr. Skoberg: 1.	Have the United Grain Growers purchased the federal government inland terminal elevator at Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan.
2.	Is the government contemplating the sale of the inland terminal elevator at Lethbridge, Alberta?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. No.
2.	This is a matter of government policy which would be announced in the usual way.


APPLICATION OF CANADA TEMPERANCE ACT
Mr. Fortin: 1.	In which areas does the Canada Temperance Act (R.S.C. 1952, c. 30) apply?
2.	Is it intended that this Act be repealed?


Gérard Pelletier: 1.	The Canada Temperance Act is not in force in any area in Canada.
2. Consideration is not being given at the present time to repealing the Act.


BRUCE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION
Mr. Harding: 1.	Was the Atomic Energy Control Board aware of (a) the original building plans of Ontario Hydro in connection with its proposed construction of the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station (b) the original building site chosen for construction of the plant?
2.	When were the new regulations, which resulted in Ontario Hydro moving the site of the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station for safety reasons, issued by the Board?
3.	What were the reasons for the new regulations being laid down?
4.	How long had Ontario Hydro been working on the site prior to the close-down?
5.	Had any warnings of impending changes in the regulations been transmitted to Ontario Hydro prior to the new regulations being laid down and, if so, when were these warnings transmitted to Ontario Hydro by the Board?
6.	Has the move caused any change in the proposed completion date of the project?
7.	What was the estimated expenditure by Ontario Hydro for the original site prior to the change in regulations?


Mr. R. J. Orange (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: 1. (a) The Atomic Energy Control Board was informed of a proposal for a 3,000 MWe nuclear power generating station in April, 1968, but at that time Douglas Point was not suggested as the site. The announcement that, subject to Board approval, Ontario Hydro proposed to construct this generating station at the Douglas Point site was made on

December 15, 1969
Questions
December 11, 1968. (b) At the time when Ontario Hydro formally applied to the AECB for permission to construct the Bruce Generating Station, on March 10, 1969, a site plan was provided, indicating the relative locations of the existing Douglas Point Generating Sation, the Bruce Generating Station, and the Bruce Heavy Water Plant.
2.	No new regulations were issued by the Board. Following the announcement on December 11, 1968 of the intention to construct the Bruce Heavy Water Plant, AECL, the owner of the plant, was informed by the Board on December 24, 1968 of requirements to be fulfilled before operation of the plant would be authorized. In this letter, and in communications to Ontario Hydro as well as to AECL during the safety review of this plant, the Board expressed concern about the proximity of a large labour force engaged in construction of the Bruce Generating Station. It was pointed out that special precautions would be necessary to protect these workers against an accidental release of hydrogen sulphide gas from the heavy water plant. After considerable discussion, Ontario Hydro decided that it would move the site of the Bruce Generating Station and its associated construction camp farther away from the heavy water plant, in order to reduce the precautions required for the protection of the workers.
3.	No new regulations were issued by the Board.
4.	When Ontario Hydro applied to the Board for permission to construct the Bruce Generating Station at the Douglas Point site, it was stated that construction would not begin until 1970, and that only preliminary site clearing and foundation test boring would be carried out in 1969. In reply, the Board reminded Ontario Hydro that an extensive safety review would be required prior to the issuing of a construction permit. No construction permit has yet been issued by the Board, and only preliminary site clearing and test boring have been carried out by Ontario Hydro at the original site.
5.	No new regulations were issued by the Board.
6.	Ontario Hydro has stated in a press release that the move should not cause any change in the proposed completion of the project.
7.	There was no change in regulations.


CROWN CORPORATION FOR GRAIN ELEVATORS
Mr. Fortin: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to place all Canadian Government grain elevators under a Crown corporation?
2.	What are the assets of that operation?
3.	What has been the yield on invested capital for each of the past three years?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: 1. This is a matter of government policy which would be announced in the usual way.
2.	$13,760,682.
3.	Fiscal year ending March 31, 1967: loss of $222,359. Fiscal year ending March 31, 1968: profit of $273,558. Fiscal year ending March 31, 1969: loss of $24,670.


DOGFISH CONTROL
Mr. Crouse: Is the government taking any action to reduce the number of dogfish on the West Coast and, if so. what type or control methods are proposed and what is the total amount allocated for this project?


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: The
reduction of predation by dogfish on the West Coast is a matter of serious concern for the Department. Several approaches to the problem are under consideration with a view of establishing a program with the highest possible degree of financial self-support by the participants in the catching and harvesting of the fishery resource as a whole. No funds are allocated as a government expenditure at this time.


FORESTRY LABORATORY, UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to cut back the work of the Canadian Forestries Laboratory located on the University of Manitoba campus and, if so, what is the reason?
2.	How many personnel are involved and, what has been the annual expenditure of funds on this project?
3.	Was the decision reviewed by the Department of Regional Economic Development and, if so, what conclusions did it reach on the matter?


Eugene Whelan: 1.
Yes. The Government decision to hold 1970-71 expenditures to 1969-70 dollar levels necessitates rather severe reductions in programs of the Canadian Forestry Service. Some of the staff reductions required can most logically be effected by consolidating the Forestry Service research program for
December 15, 1969

the three Prairie Provinces and the Northwest Territories in new laboratory facilities under construction in Edmonton, Alberta. It is proposed that a liaison office will be maintained in Manitoba, but the present Forest Research Laboratory on the University of Manitoba campus will be phased out.
2.	The 1969-70 approved establishment at Winnipeg provides for 128 continuing employees and 20 man-years of casual employment. At October 31, 1969, the staff consisted of 123 continuing employees. Expenditures of $1,311,400 on operation and maintenance and capital equipment have been approved for 1969-70.
3.	No.


ROYAL NAVAL SERVICE
Mr. Forreslall: Has the Department of National Defence ceased to count Royal Naval service time for members of the Canadian Armed Forces and, if so, on what date was such a decision made and for what reasons?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: As a result of integration all former individual service regulations and orders have been reviewed and republished over the past five years. Certain previous entitlements to count service in Her Majesty's Forces have had to be amended. Insofar as Royal Navy service is concerned, current policy on some of the principle areas involved, is as follows:
(i)	Royal Navy Service (Regular) may be counted towards the award of the Canadian Forces Decoration (CD) as long as the recipient has spent the last five years service in a component of the Canadian Forces referred to in the National Defence Act as the regular forces or the reserve forces of Canada and no long service, good conduct, or efficiency medal has been awarded for the same service.
(ii)	There has been no change in the admissibility of certain types of service in the Royal Navy for pension purposes under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act (CFSA).
(iii)	Personnel enrolled in the Canadian Forces after 1 February 1969 who have former service in the Royal Navy will no longer be entitled to count such service towards the granting of rehabilitation leave on release from the Canadian Forces, (iv) Royal Navy wartime service can be counted as qualification for leave travel points by Canadian Forces' personnel.
Questions


INCENTIVE GRANT, McCAIN FOODS LIMITED
Mr. Burton: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, under the Regional Incentives Act, authorized or provided an incentive grant to McCain Foods Limited and, if so, what is the amount of the grant?
2.	What is the total estimated capital cost of the project for which the grant was provided, and what is the nature of the project and its location?
3.	Who are the directors and chief executive officers of McCain Foods Limited?
4.	To what extent is McCain Foods Limited nonresident or foreign-owned or controlled?
5.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?


Mr. Martin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1. An incentive has been offered, and accepted, at a rate of 25 percent of approved capital cost and 5,000 per job created.
2.	(a) $4,100,000; (b) frozen french fried potatoes; (c) Grand Falls, N.B.
3.	H. H. McCain, President; G. W. F. McCain, Vice-president and Secretary-Treasurer; R. R. McCain; A. H. McCain; J. H. Sutherland.
4.	All shares are Canadian owned.


COMPETITIVE TENDERS, R. L. CRAIN CONTRACT
Mr. Skoberg: 1.	Was there a competitive tender for the five-year contract awarded by the Post Office Department to R. L. Crain Limited regarding the introduction of a new money order system and, if so, who were the other bidders and what were their respective bids?
2.	What were the specific reasons if no competitive tendering was offered?


Eric William Kierans: 1. Yes. See statement following.
Note: Suppliers were invited to submit proposals both on a three and five year basis. They were also invited to include in their tender any concept, development and/or technology that was likely to ensure a better form set than detailed in our minimum specifications.
The suppliers bid combinations of form sets designated by number or letter as per attached.
2. Not applicable.
1956	COMMONS	DEBATES December	15, 1969Questions Prices Tendered	for Supply	of Money Order Form Sets	price per thousand (including Federal Sales Tax)	Three Year Contract	$	Five Year Contract	$Rolph Clark Stone (3.25")	4.463	R. L. Crain-B	4.57R. L. Crain-B-(3.25")	4.63	Rolph Clark Stone (3.25")	4.692Rolph Clark Stone (3.25")	4.663	Canadian Bank Note Company	4.7936Canadian Bank Note Company	5.0176	Rolph Clark Stone (3.4")	4.878R. L. Crain-D	5.69	R. L. Crain-D	5.62R. L. Crain-C	5.70	R. L. Crain-C	5.63R. L. Crain-A	5.93	R. L. Crain-A	5.87R. L. Crain-A1	6.06	R. L. Crain-A1	5.99International Business Machines -13A-(3.25")	6.5184	International Business Machines -13A-(3.25")	6.4736International Business Machines -13A-(3.4")	6.7424	International Business Machines -13A-(3.4")	6.6864International Business Machines -1-(3.25")	6.7648	International Business Machines -1-(3.25")	6.7088International Business Machines -1-(3.4")	6.9776	International Business Machines -1-(3.4")	6.9328International Business Machines -8-(3.25")	7.1456	International Business Machines -8-(3.25")	7.0896Moore Business Forms-2	7.29	Moore Business Forms-2	7.20International Business Machines -8-(3.4")	7.3696	International Business Machines -8-(3.4")	7.3136Moore Business Forms-1	7.72	Moore Business Forms-1	7.63Moore Business Forms-4	8.00	Moore Business Forms-4	7.91Moore Business Forms-7	8.19	Moore Business Forms-7	8.10Moore Business Forms-6	8.37	Moore Business Forms-6	8.28Moore Business Forms-3	8.50	Moore Business Forms-3	8.41Moore Business Forms-9	8.75	Moore Business Forms-9	8.66Moore Business Forms-8	9.00	Moore Business Forms-8	8.92Moore Business Forms-5	9.51	Moore Business Forms-5	9.42Burroughes	10.3936	Burroughes	10.3516Ditto (Bell & Howell)	11.26	Ditto (Bell & Howell)	12.21R. L. Crain-E	12.53	R. L. Crain-E	12.36


STATUES, R. B. BENNETT AND ARTHUR MEIGHEN
Mr. Macquarrie: X. Is it intended to erect statues of former Prime Ministers R. B. Bennett and Arthur Meighen and, if so, when?
2.	Will the Maquettes of Elford, Cox and Marcel Braitstein, judged artistically worthy by an advisory committee in 1967 be the models for the statues?
3.	Who was the sculptor for the statue of former Prime Minister Mackenzie King and what was the total cost of this statue?
St-Hilaire, P.Q.; the date of installation has yet to be established. There are no immediate plans for the statue of the former Prime Minister, R. B. Bennett.
2.	See Part 1.
3.	The Mackenzie King statue, which was executed by Mr. Raoul Hunter, Quebec City, P.Q., entailed a total cost of $49,107.49.


CAR FERRY CONSTRUCTION, BORDEN-TORMENTINE SERVICE
Gérard Pelletier: 


Mr. Macquarrie: 1. A statue of the late Arthur Meighen is	J . When were tenders called for construction of
being sculpted by Mr. Marcel Braitstein, car-ferries for the Borden-Tormentine service? 
December 15, 1969

2.	From what firms were tenders received and what was the amount of each tender?
3.	To what firms were contracts awarded?
4.	When is it expected that the ships will be in service?
5.	What is the capacity in passengers and automobiles of each ferry?
6.	What shipbuilding firms in the Maritime Provinces are regarded as competent to build ships of the type referred to in Part 1 above?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. Tenders issued July 31, 1969, closing September 30, 1969.
2.	Tenders were received from the following firms:-
Tender Amount Firms	for Two Ships

Port Weller Dry Docks Limited 10,206,200. Canadian Shipbuilding and Engineering Limited, Collingwood,
Ontario; Davie Shipbuilding Limited	10,479,840.
Marine Industries Limited	12,873,450.
Hawker-Siddeley Canada, Limited Halifax Shipyards Division 13,618,908. Saint John Shipbuilding and Dry
Dock Company, Limited	14,685,550.
3.	Port Weller Dry Docks Limited awarded a contract for two (2) vessels.
4.	The vessels are to be in service for the Summer of 1971.
5.	The design capacity of each ferry is: 487 passengers, 150 automobiles.
6.	Hawker-Siddeley Canada, Limited, Halifax Shipyards Division; Saint John Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company Limited.


PILOT TRAINING EXPENDITURES
Mr. ForresJall: 1.	What amount of funds were spent in 1968 and up to the last figures available in 1969 on pilot training in order to upgrade the ratings and experience of Canadian licensed pilots in an effort to make them more readily employable?
2.	How many pilots received this training and what was the nature of the training?
3.	By province or other defined area, what were the number of pilots?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: In so far as the Department of Manpower and Immigration is concerned the following applies: 1. $110,833.50.
2. Three hundred and three. Ground school training, including Link and Simulator training, was provided to 283 pilots to help them to qualify for Instrument Flight Rules en-
Questions
dorsement to their Commercial Pilot Licences. Air time, which included float endorsements, bush flying familiarization, running maintenance for pilots and instrument training for northern conditions, was provided to 20 pilots.
3.	Ontario, 26; Manitoba, 101; Saskatchewan, 11; Alberta, 90; Northwest Territories, 5; British Columbia, 70.


CAPITAL COST TAX DEDUCTIONS FOR AIRCRAFT
Mr. Forreslall: 1.	In light of the continuing substantial growth in the use of aircraft by employees in the normal course of their business activities, will the government give consideration to amending that section of the Income Tax Act which provides claims of capital cost for automobiles used in the course of employment with a view to including aircraft?
2.	What criteria did the government follow in distinguishing between automobiles and aircraft for such capital cost deductions?


Edgar John Benson: 1 and 2. This is a matter of Government policy. If the Government should decide to propose an amendment to the Income Tax Act to make the suggested change it will be announced at the appropriate time.


BURIAL POLICY, ARMED FORCES
Mr. McCleave: 1.	By year, how many members of the Armed Services of Canada have lost their lives on military duty outside the territorial limits of this country, since 1956?
2.	Were all such deceased given burial abroad and, if not, for what reasons were exceptions made?
3.	Does the same burial policy apply to members of the Armed Services who have died while not on military duty abroad?
4.	(a) What is the basis of the policy of foreign burials for Canadian service personnel (b) when was such policy conceived (c) how often is it reviewed?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. 1956, 38; 1957, 53; 1958, 38; 1959, 55; 1960, 33; 1961, 31; 1962, 22; 1963, 38; 1964, 25; 1965, 47; 1966, 32; 1967, 25; 1968, 22 and 1969, 27.
2. All were buried abroad with the following exceptions: (1) Twenty-seven were buried at sea. (2) Twenty-five were presumed dead, the bodies were not recovered. (3) Nine died in the United States of America and were returned to Canada for burial in accordance with Queen's Regulations and Orders Article 24.17. (4) One serviceman who drowned in England was returned to Canada for burial due to an administrative error, contrary to the provisions of Queen's Regulations and Orders Article 24.17.
Questions

December 15, 1969
3.	Yes.
4.	(a) In 1919 all Commonwealth countries agreed not to return the remains of deceased service personnel to their home country for burial, on the principle of "equality for all" who gave their lives in World War I. (b) This policy has been reviewed on the average of once every three years since 1940 and is under active review at this time.


*POST OFFICE CLOSURES-ALTERNATIVE FACILITIES
Mr. McCleave: What is the policy of the Post Office Department with regard to ensuring that alternative opportunities to purchase stamps and money orders are available when small post offices are closed?


Eric William Kierans: When
small post offices are closed and alternative service is provided by rural route, stamps may be purchased from the rural route contractor. Similarly, the contractor will accept an application for a money order from the customer and the order will be prepared by the distributing office postmaster.
If alternative service by rural route is not provided, customers may purchase money orders and stamps at the post office where they pick up their mail.


EMPLOYEES WITH RELATIVES IN PRESS GALLERY
Mr. Nielsen: Are there any employees of the government employed by Offices of Ministers of the Crown or in other sensitive employment who have spouses or other relatives who are members of the press gallery and, if so, how many of such employees are employed and in what position and capacity?
M~. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council): It is
not within the administrative responsibility of the Government of Canada to know who belongs to the Press Gallery.


GRAIN SHIPMENT FREIGHT ASSISTANCE
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Has there been a reduction of two dollars per ton in freight assistance on grain shipments and, if so, were the grain merchants and co-operatives of eastern Canada notified in advance?
2.	Does the government intend to pursue this course of action in the future and, if so, what reduction in freight assistance on grain shipments is envisaged for next year as compared to this year's allocation?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: 1. An adjustment in the rates of assistance

paid under the Feed Grain Assistance Regulations was announced by a press release on October 16. Details of these rate adjustments, which became effective November 1st, 1969, were announced by the Canadian Livestock Feed Board, to the trade, on October 22, 1969. To generally equalize the balance of cost to livestock feeders in Eastern Canada it was necessary to correct iniquities in cost and therefore adjustments were not uniform in all areas. Adjustments ranged from zero to $2.40 per ton, but there was an increase in the total dollars provided for the program.
2. The situation this year was caused by a heavier than anticipated demand on grains moving under the program. Any rate adjustments necessary next year will depend upon many variables including crop conditions in Eastern and Western Canada and market price relationship for western Canadian grain compared to substitute ingredients.


DVA EMPLOYEES, N.B., UNDER TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT NOTICES
Mr. MacRae: How many employees In the New Brunswick District of the Department of Veterans Affairs, including Canadian Pension Commission, War Veterans Allowance Board, etc. are now under notice of termination of employment?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: None. However, 26 employees in New Brunswick were notified that they are surplus to staff requirements, that the Department and the Public Service Commission would endeavour during the ensuing three months to find suitable alternative positions in the Public Service and that in the event that these efforts should prove unsuccessful they would be laid off.


TOTAL DVA EMPLOYEES, NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. MacRae: What was the total number of Department of Veterans Affairs Employees (including Canadian Pension Commission, War Veterans Allowance, and others engaged in veterans' work) employed in New Brunswick on (a) March 31, 1965 (b) March 31, 1966 (c) March 31, 1967 (d) March 31, 1968 (e) March 31, 1969 (f) April 30, 1969 (g) May 31, 1969 (h) June 30, 1969 (i) July 31, 1969 (j) August 31, 1969 (k) September 30, 1969 (1) October 31, 1969 (m) November 30, 1969?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: (a) 638; (b) 644; (c) 638; (d) 609; (e) 593; (f) 592; (g) 585; (h) 580; (i) 576; (j) 575; (k) 573; (D 567; (m) 562.
December 15, 1969


GOLD SOLD ON OPEN MARKET
[Stage Direction]
Question 603-Mr. Roy (Timmins):
1.	How many ounces of gold were sold by the federal government on the open market between April 1. 1968 and March 31, 1969?
2,	What was the gross amount paid by the purchasers for this gold?
Edgar John Benson: 1.
Between June 6, 1968, when the first sale was made, and March 31, 1969, 1,529,621 ozs.
2. ($U.S.) 62,081,100.


* SUBSIDIES FOR QUEBEC COMPOSITE SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Ricard: 1.	Did the federal government recently grant subsidies for the construction of composite schools in the Province of Quebec and, if so, in what federal constituencies?
2.	Did the Department of Manpower and Immigration communicate this information to any persons before making it public and, if so (a) what are the names and addresses of such persons (b) is it the Department's intention to pursue this policy in the future?


Mr. Rosaire Gendron (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Insofar as the Department of Manpower and Immigration is concerned: 1. Yes, since September 1, 1969 the federal government approved contributions for the construction of four comprehensive schools located in the following constituencies: Lapointe, Saint-Hya-cinthe, Gaspe, and Beauharnois.
2. Yes; (a) Mr. P. A. Fournier, Administrative Secretary, Federal-Provincial Agreements, Quebec Department of Education, Quebec; (b) Yes. It has been the policy of the department to notify the provincial departments of education about the approval of capital project submissions before issuing any public statements. The provincial departments of education are parties to the Agreements under whose authority such grants are approved.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mrs. Maclnnis: 1. Which agreements have been signed between the Department of National Health and Welfare and private organizations in Canada regarding projects and programs to improve social assistance? 21545-53
Questions
2. For the fiscal years 1962-63, 1963-64, 1964-65, 1965-66, 1966-67, 1967-68, 1968-69, 1969-70, what have been the expenditures of the Department of National Health and Welfare in providing grants and financial assistance to private organizations in social assistance plans?
Return tabled.


AIRCRAFT-DE HAVILLAND AIRCRAFT OF CANADA LIMITED
Mr. Peters: 1.	For each of the years 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, what have been the federal government financial grants and subsidies to the De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Ltd.?
2.	Is De Havilland a Canadian or non-resident owned company?
3.	Is the Government of Canada presently considering financial assistance to De Havilland regarding STOL aircraft?
4.	If so, what amounts of expenditures are involved?
Return tabled.


SALE OF AIRCRAFT TO BRAZIL
Mr. Barnett: 1.	What was the reply of the Prime Minister, if any, to the letter of protest sent by a Swedish group opposed to the Canadian sale of aircraft to Brazil?
2.	Has the Canadian Government obtained assurances from Brazil that there is no validity to the charges that these aircraft will be used against Brazilian natives?
3.	In the course of arranging the sale, was the purpose for which these aircraft were required disclosed and, if so, what was that purpose?
Return tabled.


CBC-WAGE INCREASES OF PERSONNEL
Mr. Lambert (Edmonton: West):
1.	What was the date of the last general salary and wage increase granted to all major categories of CBC personnel prior to April 1, 1963, its effective date, and what was the percentage increase?
2.	From April 1, 1963 to date, what have been the dates (both of publication and coming into force) of any general salary and wage increase for all major separate categories of CBC personnel and what was the average percentage increase for each such increase?
3.	What cumulative average percentage increase does the salary and wage level of CBC personnel as at present date reflect when compared to the relative salary and wage level of April 1, 1963?
Return tabled.


FOREIGN TAKEOVERS OF CANADIAN BUSINESSES
Mr. Salisman: For the years 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, and 1969, what and how many foreign takeovers of Canadian businesses have been recorded by the Combines Investigation Branch of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?
Return tabled.

December 15, 1969
The Canadian Economy



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 THE CANADIAN ECONOMY CONSIDERATION OF POLICIES TO AVOID HIGHER PRICES

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for York South, to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the rise in the consumer price index reported this morning to an unprecedented high level of 127.4 and consequen.ly the need, particularly in view of the seriousness of the situation as reflected by the questions about price increases which are being asked by members day after day, for parliament, prior to adjourning for the Christmas recess, to consider policies to avoid even higher levels of prices in Canada. This subject has already been alluded to by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member and remind him of the provisions of the Standing Order which only allow the hon. member to quote for the benefit of hon. members and for the consideration of the Chair the terms of the notice which is filed with the Chair under the provisions of Standing Order 26.
As I have just poinfed out, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, acting under the provisions of the rule, was good enough to send me notice of his intention to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26. In the meantime I have had an opportunity to consider the motion and the Standing Order, as well as precedents. I think I can do no better than refer hon. members, and particularly the hon. member who has proposed this motion, to the decisions given by the Chair on past occasions when motions of a similar nature have been raised.
Hon. members will agree that the most serious problems raised by the motion has been regretfully, a continuing one. That being the case, as hon. members will know there have been and will be many opportunities provided under our rules for discussions on this admittedly very important topic. On July 11, 1969, in deciding a similar proposed motion to

adjourn the House I said, after much consideration, that I would have to rule, along the lines of a previous decision made when similar motions were proposed by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands and the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings, that this type of motion based on such circumstances is not normally accepted by the Chair or by the House. I might also refer hon. members to a similar decision made on May 11, 1969 and to a motion of no confidence in the government which was decided by the House on October 31 last to the effect that "the government ignores the fact that the high level of the cost of living at the present time falls with tragic and increasing severity on pensioners and others who can least afford it."
It appears to me that the several aspects of the matter having been raised and debated on several occasions in the present session and more particularly during recent weeks, the Standing Order would not make it possible for the Chair to put the motion to the House. I regret very much that I have to reach this decision and I would hope that perhaps an early occasion might be provided for the House again to consider in detail the very important matter raised by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, particularly in light of the circumstances to which he has referred and to which the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings also referred earlier today.
Taking everything into account I must rule that the hon. member's motion cannot be put to the House at this time.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether, in view of the harmful effects which the chaos evident in the Company of Young Canadians, particularly as indicated over the weekend, can have upon other youth programs in the country, is it the policy of the government to continue the Company of Young Canadians?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I shall not prevent the question from being asked or answered at this time but I should remind all
December 15, 1969
hon. members that, hopefully, there will be a debate on this very matter later on this day, if I am advised correctly on the program for this day. Therefore it might be unwise to embark upon a debate before the item is called. This having been said, I certainly would not prevent the Leader of the Opposition from asking the question.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, the answer is quite simple. As you said, I hope I shall have the opportunity to give a more detailed answer later this afternoon. However, the government had already set its policy and drafted bills regarding the Company of Young Canadians before the events of this past weekend which change perhaps the light in which the problem appears but not the nature of the problem itself.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In the elaborate answer that the Secretary of State is going to give later this afternoon, which will be most welcome on this side of the House as we do not know what the devil he is going to say, will he inform hon. members whether there will be further legislation brought into the House at a later date to try to clean up this mess?


Gérard Pelletier: I am very happy, Mr. Speaker, that the members of the Opposition should be so eager to hear me. The answer is yes.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-and I do not usually abuse privilege too much-the minister may not be aware of it because he was not in the House on Friday as it was not his duty day, but it so happens that the Prime Minister was asked questions about this very subject and he told us that we would have to wait until today for answers. As a member of the committee and one of the participants in the hearings, I would have thought we would learn of the government's intentions prior to reading about them in the newspapers, but nothing has been said. I will be more than interested to hear what the minister has to say this afternoon in view of the answer we received on Friday.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would think that the question of privilege raised by the 21545-531
Inquiries of the Ministry hon. member indicates clearly that we are engaging in the debate which I thought was scheduled for some time after the question period. I would suggest to hon. members that perhaps they might be a little patient and wait for the opportunity which will come in just about 30 minutes. Then they can ask questions or ask for statements.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to accept that suggestion on the assumption that the debate will not be kept within the very narrow compass of the bill to come before us. If I may say so, I asked the question because the bill before the House is on a very limited aspect of this question and I therefore directed my' question to the Secretary of State to see whether the recent developments had changed the policy of the government. I would ask whether the minister will make a full statement. In the circumstances perhaps you will permit him to go beyond the normal latitude of the bill and inform the House as to what members, if any, of the Company of Young Canadians have resigned in recent days and whether in the view of the government the Company of Young Canadians can continue to function effectively with the board it has left.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I intend to remove all the anxieties the members of the opposition are now expressing. Perhaps the simultaneous interpretation did not work well, but 1 replied to the member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) that in the statement I was going to make, substantive legislation greatly changing the structure of the Company of Young Canadians would be brought before the House.
However, I will be able to answer the question of the Leader of the Opposition when the bill designating a financial comptroller is introduced in the House. In accordance with our Standing Orders, hon. members will not be able to talk of anything but the bill before them. Nonetheless, they are assured of an opportunity-


Some hon. Members:: Ah, ah, ah!


Gérard Pelletier: -before the Christmas and New Year's recess, to examine the essence of the matter.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would therefore ask the minister whether, in view of recent developments, it is the government's intention to accept the recommendation of the

December 15. 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry standing committee and appoint a trusteeship for the CYC? If so, when can parliament expect such legislation?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, the appointment of a financial comptroller is surely, in my opinion, a form of financial trusteeship.
As for the other questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition, to wit who has resigned and who has not, I must honestly reply that I am experiencing as much difficulty as he is to keep count.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In order that we may determine our policy toward the bill which is to be discussed, can the minister say from his own knowledge whether the reasoned, orderly and rational policy will now be pursued by the present CYC administration with respect to the Company of Young Canadians?


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to pre-empt what the Secretary of State may say this afternoon and for that reason perhaps I ought to direct my question to the Prime Minister. Has the government given thought to the qualifications of Miss Charlotte Whitton as generalissimo of this organization in order to channel its revolutionary tendencies in the right direction?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I know this question ought normally to be addressed to the President of the Treasury Board but since, according to the roster, it is not his turn to be in the House and since the matter is of some urgency, may I address this question to the Prime Minister. Is he aware of an exchange of telegrams between the Canadian Association of Air Traffic Controllers and the President of the Treasury Board? Can he inform us about possible meetings following upon the conciliation board report? Also, can he inform the House whether such meetings have been arranged and when they are to take place?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, at this stage I can only say that the President of the Treasury Board has

informed me that he has invited the parties to such a meeting following upon the unanimous recommendations of the conciliation board. As of now I do not know whether a meeting has been definitely arranged; all I can say is that the invitation by the President of the Treasury Board has been sent out.


David Lewis: May I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Inasmuch as it is public knowledge that the air traffic controllers have by a large majority rejected the conciliation board's report, has the government given consideration to appointing a mediator of experience and status in order to assist the parties in arriving at a settlement which might then be reached if only Treasury Board would become less rigid in its attitude?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, at this stage we have sent out the invitations for a meeting. I have nothing further to add.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breion-The Sydneys):: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Since tests conducted in the United States have shown that air traffic controllers exhibit stress-related illnesses on a scale between one and a half and four times greater than in the case of a similarly tested pilot group, does the government consider it unreasonable to conduct a study of the stresses affecting air traffic controllers in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as asked is not in order. The hon. member is asking whether the government considers it reasonable to come to a certain conclusion. I think, considering the importance of the matter, that the question might be asked in another way.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, may I rephrase my question. May I ask the right hon. gentleman if the government will give consideration to conducting a study of the effects of stresses on Canadian air traffic controllers? Also, in light of the evidence of the effects of stresses upon air traffic controllers and in light of current policy which restricts a pilot's flying hours to 120 hours a month while permitting controllers to work for 160 hours per month, will the government undertake to modify its stand on this issue in the current contract negotiations?
December 15, 1969


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport is having these general questions considered. As to the present negotiations, I can only say that the report of the conciliation board was unanimous and that we are acting on one of its recommendations, that of bringing the parties together again.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the Prime Minister discussed this matter with any of his ministers in order to obtain some assurance that aircraft will be operating during the Christmas holidays? This matter affects very many Canadians right across the country.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the minister and the government have this matter under consideration.


David Lewis: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the Prime Minister's emphasis on phrases like "unanimous report" and so on, can he tell us whether the government is prepared to make any concessions beyond those contained in the report? Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, there obviously will not be a settlement.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot indicate that to the House.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasler):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the seriousness of a possible strike, will the Prime Minister ask the Minister of Transport to be in his place in the House every day this week rather than just being here on his appointed days?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour.
I should like to ask him whether he intends to offer his services as mediator, in order to prevent that prospective strike before the Christmas holidays.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member knows that when the Act was brought in two years ago it was done in such a manner as to make it unnecessary and undesirable for the Minister of Labour to express publicly any bias in favour of management or labour in public service disputes. For that reason I prefer not to answer questions that are di-
Inquiries of the Ministry rected to me on the subject of the air traffic controllers' dispute.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmoulh-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can he advise the House whether he has had discussions with the federal aviation authorities of the United States on the matter we are now considering. If so, has that authority sought assurances about our international obligations? If the minister has had discussions about overflights, can he indicate what reply he has given to those United States authorities and other international air carriers?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have had no such discussions.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question relates to the Prime Minister's previous answer. Will he assure the House and an anxious nation that the Minister of Transport will be in the House tomorrow to make a statement on motions about the air traffic controllers' dispute?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the minister plans to be in the House tomorrow and will make a statement if he thinks it is to the advantage of the country that he make such statement.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Will he ask the Minister of Transport to avoid making statements outside the House which are straining relations between the negotiating bodies?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Howard Lundrigan: The minister has been in the habit of talking outside the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Now that we have fully debated the subject, we may as well go to another matter.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State.
1964	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry
Would the Minister responsible for the National Film Board tell the House whether the number of lay-offs within that body, to comply with the government's austerity measures, stands in fact at 90, as he stated in November last, or whether this number has been changed?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I said in the House last week that I was expecting an up-to-date report on the matter by today. As I had to be in Montreal this morning to sign an agreement in an altogether different field, I have not yet read this up-to-date report, so I unfortunately cannot give an answer to the hon. member.



WHEAT-STATUS OF REMAINING 53 MILLION BUSHELS UNDER AGREEMENT

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio who reports for the Canadian Wheat Board. Would he clarify the statement he made on motions? As I understood his statement, some 75 million bushels of wheat are to be sold to the Soviet Union in the next calendar year and then the Soviet Union will endeavour to buy the remaining 53 million bushels. Is there a firm agreement with the Soviet Union under which it will buy the 53 million bushels, or is this merely an expressed hope that they will buy that additional amount at some future date?


Otto Emil Lang: The current agreement is a continuation of the previous agreement under which a commitment to buy the total amount already existed. The principal distinction is that the complete programming with regard to price and delivery dates is firmly fixed with regard to the first 75 million bushels but remains to be. fixed with regard to the other portion.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Will the initiative with respect to taking the additional 53 million bushels lie with Canada or the Soviet Union? In other words, will the latter determine at what rate they will take the balance, or will it depend on transportation facilities?


Otto Emil Lang: It will depend on a number of factors. It will be determined as a result of further discussions between the Canadian Wheat Board and Exportkhleb.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The minister told us the price was firmly

DEBATES	December 15, 1969
fixed. What was the price at which this grain was sold, the price for the first portion and the price for the later portion mentioned by the leader of the New Democratic Party?


Otto Emil Lang: It is not customary for the minister responsible for the Wheat Board to quote prices in the House with regard to specific transactions.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Further to the statement the minister made on motions concerning the shipment of 250,000 long tons of flour destined for Cuba, can the minister advise us whether sufficient facilities are available and committed to effect the milling and delivery of this quantity of flour in the time specified? Can he give an undertaking that no flour mill will be permitted to refuse to mill flour for Cuba because of the United States Trading with the Enemy Act or because of instructions from parent companies in the United States?


Otto Emil Lang: I think the hon. member will appreciate that the second part of the question is well outside the area of immediate concern to me. As to the first part of the question, I should like to assure him that not only are the mills able to handle this quantity of flour but this shipment will be very important indeed to the mills.


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Can the
minister tell us whether the price agreed upon with the Soviet Union in respect of the first part of the contract was near the minimum level provided under the International Grains Arrangement? Was there any discussion or has there been any discussion in the immediate past as to the possibility of the Soviet Union entering the International Grains Arrangement?


Otto Emil Lang: It is obvious that if I undertook to comment on how close to or far from a particular point the prices were I should be acting in contradiction of my earlier statement of policy. Let me say, though, that the agreement is in line with statements made both in and out of the House. I am satisfied we have achieved a significant degree of stability in price among world exporters and that any future changes are likely to see moderate, though steady increases, rather than the reverse.


Mr. Rod Thomson (Bailleford-Kindersley):: Notwithstanding the greatly appreciated wheat sale to Russia, would the minister consider favourably the presence of a Canadian bread baking display at Expo '70 in Japan?
December 15, 1969	COMMONS



PENSIONS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether, in view of the increase in the cost of living and, in particular, of the one point increase in the cost of food, he can assure the House that he intends to introduce legislation in the next few weeks to adjust old age pensions in accordance with the extent of the actual rise in the cost of living? It is not very pleasant, at Christmas time especially, to think of old people being hungry.


John Carr Munro: As the Leader of the Opposition is aware, the government has announced in the Speech from the Throne that there is to be a white paper dealing with this subject.


Gerald William Baldwin: You cannot eat white papers.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: This is a white paper government with red covers.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Does the minister believe that the old people can live on white paper.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: My
question is for the Secretary of State, Mr. Speaker. In view of the announced impending lay-offs of employees of the National Film Board and the change in the board's policy which would result in the imposition of charges for the use of films by libraries, schools and community adult education groups, with effect from January 1, would the minister make a statement this week setting out the intention of the government in respect of the services to be provided by the board to the Canadian public?


Gérard Pelletier: have already said, Mr. Speaker, that following the study of that problem and of some others with which the National Film Board is faced, I did not rule out the possibility of making a statement before the Christmas recess.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Can
the minister confirm the statement that as of
DEBATES	1965
Inquiries of the Ministry today 104 employees of the National Film Board, amounting to 10 per cent of the staff, have either been laid off or given notice?


Mr. Speaker:: The question as asked is not in order.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: May I
ask whether the government is reviewing the change of policy by the National Film Board and whether the minister would use his good offices to persuade the commissioner that the free distribution of films to community groups should be reinstated? I do not know whether the minister heard my question. Perhaps the translation service from English into French was not good. The question asked by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris was in two parts-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member ask his supplementary in one part?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I will, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister use his good offices to request the film commissioner to change the policy of charging rental for films used by community groups?


Gérard Pelletier: The question came over beautifully, Mr. Speaker. The answer is that the report I have requested on all aspects of the changes taking place in the Film Board is intended precisely to be the basis for review and examination by both the Film Board and my department with regard to all these changes.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Can the minister tell us what timetable has been set for this report and review?


Gérard Pelletier: There is no timetable fixed. I have asked that the report be ready today; if I understand correctly, it is already in my office. Talks will be conducted without delay. I do not know-and this is why I say no timetable can be established-how long they might last.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Would he be prepared to ask Mr. Marcel Masse, Quebec Minister without Portfolio, for help in introducing bilingualism in Canada, as Mr. Masse has expressed confidence in being able to rally the United States to the cause of bilingualism?
1966	COMMONS DEBATES	December 15. 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry



EDUCATION


Mr. Colin D. Gibson (Hamillon-Wenlworlh):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. In the spirit of EXPO Canada and in the interest of national unity, will the Prime Minister consider planning for next summer a Young Canada train to take young Canadians across this nation from coast to coast with the cooperation of the railways and the provinces?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has made a representation and he has to assume it will be given consideration.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. Prior to the Christmas recess of Parliament, would the Secretary of State undertake to make a statement on motions setting out the minimum qualifications required and the criteria generally followed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in selecting public affairs commentators on CBC broadcasts? I ask the question particularly in view of this morning's program, "Preview Commentary", in which the qualifications of the speaker seemed to be non-existent, other than an ability to make an attack that was clearly libelous on the present-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the minister's announcement on October 21 that the use of cyclamates in soft drinks would be outlawed on November 30, could the minister now say for what reason the ban has not yet been put into effect?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the period was extended by one month to allow many of the soft drink products to be removed from the market. It was felt by the Food and Drug Directorate, and I concurred, that the extension of one month would in no way be prejudicial to the health of Canadians.


Winona Grace MacInnis: A supplementary question. When does the minister propose officially to ban the use of cyclamates in ice cream cones and biscuit wafers?



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State whose television performance I watched over the weekend. My question concerns the CBC program "Weekend" in which the comments of other participants were terminated at the flick of a ministerial finger. Could I ask whether this Orwellian gimmick is a CBC innovation, or is it the new formula for ministerial participation in Information Canada managed news?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.


Mr. Aiken:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest a new question be asked. I doubt whether a supplementary to the question just put can be asked.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Two questions have been asked the Secretary of State. I asked a question which did not seem to arouse much enthusiasm on the government side, and now a question has been asked by my colleague. I think the Secretary of State would like to answer these questions, and we should have answers.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary or related question for the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister now settled with the Postmaster General whether the progress in constitutional reform is slower than the delivery of mail?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. I wonder whether the minister is in a position to answer the question I asked in his absence last Thursday.
December 15. 1969

Can the minister tell the House whether during this session he will introduce either amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act or a completely new Unemployment Insurance Act for Canada?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne indicated that a proposal to amend or to change the Unemployment Insurance Act could very well come forward at this session. As I said a week or two ago, this will depend upon just how fast the legislation now before the House is dealt with and, frankly, on just how much progress the Minister of Labour makes with his proposed amendments.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Could the minister now indicate whether he had any recent success in his negotiations wi;h his United States counterpart with regard to the procedure respecting lay-offs at U.S. bases in Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have
answered this question on a couple of occasions. I did not have any success; the United States government decided to follow its policies.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. This is the third occasion on which the minister has indicated he has not had success. May I refer the House to page 1895 of Hansard for Thursday, December 11 last, where there is a statement by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence in response to a question on the late show. The Parliamentary Secretary said:
The Canadian government was made aware of these reductions in advance and, incidentally, made a successful representation to the American authorities to improve the lay-off procedures for the affected personnel.
My question of privilege is this, that one or other of the hon. gentlemen is not giving the House the information which he has available, or he is giving the House information that is not in accordance with the facts. Somebody is committing what I believe Winston Churchill referred to as a terminological inexactitude. I think that as members of the
Inquiries of the Ministry opposition we have the right to have the minister clarify this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the minister might reply to the question of privilege, but I have to bring to the attention of hon. members that we will soon be running out of time.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege, I think the confusion perhaps arises over the form in which the question was asked. Perhaps I misinterpreted the question. The hon. member asked it in the most general form and I thought he was referring to the question which had concerned me previously. If there is any difference between the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence and myself, then I certainly would want to clarify the situation. We did make representations; on some points we were successful but not on the point on which I thought my hon. friend had been questioning me.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the minister checked with the U.S. government the very disconcerting rumours that are prevalent to the effect that the United States naval authorities will be withdrawing their forces from the naval station at Argentia in June next year?


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


James Aloysius McGrath: May I rephrase my question, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Since hon. members obviously have a very serious question they wish to ask the minister, I wonder whether it might not be advisable to have a conference with the minister outside the House to decide exactly what question it is that they are asking. I am not saying this in an unkind way, but we do appear to be getting nowhere on this point. Perhaps we might try to start again tomorrow when both hon. members have had more time to consider their point. May I say I will not charge the House for the minute I have just taken to try to make my point.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, with the greatest respect, this is a very serious question that affects the jobs of 800 Canadians. The minister may not be in the House tomorrow.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: He will not.
December 15, 1969
1968	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


James Aloysius McGrath: I am advised that according to the roster he will not be here, so he will not be able to answer my question.
Since this is a very serious matter, may I rephrase my question. Has the minister checked with the United States government to see whether there is any truth in the rumour that the United States government will be closing its naval base at Argentia, Newfoundland, in June of next year?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, both the Minister of National Defence and I have been following these developments. The Minister of National Defence will be in the House tomorrow. I will see that this matter is brought to his attention and he can answer it then.



ASSISTANCE TO CANADIAN SKI PATROL

Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare which I have held back till today at his request. Is the minister now in a position to inform the House what consideration has been given to extending financial assistance to the Canadian Ski Patrol?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. The department is now in the process of reviewing the application for financial support made by the ski patrol. I will be in a position in the next week or so to give a definite decision on the outcome of that review.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Since the Prime Minister and I often require the services of this excellent body, the ski patrol, will he lend his good offices to seeing that the assistance requested is made available?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs, now that the Greek question seems to be have been settled within the Council of Europe,


whether the government of Canada has decided what position to adopt toward Greece and the participation of that country in NATO?


Mitchell William Sharp: As I indicated in reply to a similar question the other day, Mr. Speaker, what we have to determine is whether such action would weaken NATO or whether it would help the cause of democracy in Greece. It does not necessarily follow that the expulsion or withdrawal of Greece from NATO would either strengthen NATO or help democracy in Greece.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, it was indicated to me previously that the government of Canada was waiting for the matter to be settled by the Council of Europe, and it now appears that that was just an excuse for delay.


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, did I understand the Secretary of State for External Affairs to say that if, in the government's judgment, it would weaken NATO to expel a non-democratic member he would not favour such action?


Mitchell William Sharp: I should think that would be a doubtful proposition. I understand that the hon. member would like to weaken NATO but I had not understood that the official opposition would-[DOT]


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There should be just one question of privilege at a time. The Leader of the Opposition is recognized.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege relates to the fact that the Secretary of State for External Affairs took a different position in respect of this matter today than he took in reply to my questions previously. I simply point out that he cannot have it both ways.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman will look at my answer to this question I think he will find that it was exactly the same as the answer last time.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he thinks
December 15, 1969
the time has come to revise the provisions of NATO which call for respect for fundamental human rights as basic to the treaty?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think this is the question. The question is whether the expulsion of Greece from NATO would help in restoring democracy, which he and I and everyone else want, or whether it would act in the opposite direction and have the effect of weakening NATO itself.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the confusion about the government's position on Greece, would the Secretary of State for External Affairs be in a position to make a statement on motions on this subject some time before the Christmas recess?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the confusion is in the mind of the questioner.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, will the minister assure the House that he will be prepared to make a statement on motions regarding this question?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, when the question becomes a real one I would certainly be prepared to make a statement. The question of whether Greece should remain a member of NATO will not arise until the next meeting of the NATO council.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion indicate whether discussions between his departmental officials and the Grumman Aircraft Company in respect of the takeover of the Fairey Aviation Company have broken down and, if they have, could he indicate whether his departmental officials are actively in conversation with any other interest in this connection?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I believe there has been a meeting of the board of directors of one of the companies which were interested last week in buying the assets of that company. I have had no news but probably will have some shortly, and we will then see whether other proposals can be made.
21545-54J
Company of Young Canadians Act [English]


POST OFFICE
Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (Soulh Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General brought about by the fact that a letter took four days to travel a distance of 2.8 miles or at a rate of 0.8 miles a day, a snail's pace.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member should not use that as a precedent for his question. He should ask it a little more quickly than that.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Speaker, would the minister kindly report on his progress in trying to obtain faster service, particularly in view of the Christmas rush?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member send me a copy of the envelope in question?


An hon. Member:: You would never get it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Send it by hand.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs a question in respect of the cost of implementing the Woods Committee Report and an interim increase in pensions. Would he explain the discrepancy between the estimate of the government and that of the Council of Veterans?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Gérard Pelletier: that Bill C-171, to amend the Company of Young Canadians Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.

December 15, 1969

Company of Young Canadians Act
He said:

Mr. Speaker, on October 22, 1969, in a statement on motions, the government suggested that the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts make a thorough study of the Company of Young Canadians. In view of the specific structures of the company, as adopted unanimously by the House in July 1966, and following allegations concerning certain activities of the company, any exhaustive study on the company's activities had to be carried out by the House.
The Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, was therefore requested to consider and make a final report... upon the legislative framework, organization and operations of the Company of Young Canadians.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am wondering whether the minister is reading from a prepared statement and, if so, perhaps it would be possible to supply copies to hon. members so they may follow the minister's remarks more easily.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts was therefore requested, as I said, to consider and report on the legislative framework, organization and operations of the Company of Young Canadians. The committee went to work with impressive haste and eagerness; it held 34 sittings and presented its report on December 5.
I want to stress, Mr. Speaker, that the committee made known its agreement with the original objectives that Parliament had in mind when the Company of Young Canadians was established. The committee believes that these concepts and objectives could be achieved and deserved to be maintained and developed. The committee also put forward some real achievements and successes that are attributable to the Company of Young Canadians.
At the same time, however, the committee felt very much troubled by the gross weaknesses in the organization and operations of the Company of Young Canadians. In particular, a lack of administrative procedures resulting in almost chaotic conditions, and questionable and unconventional financial procedures gravely disturbed the committee. The latter could only conclude that it was necessary to protect public funds and to con-

trol all illegal activities by a few members of the Company. Finally, the committee recommended that the Company should immediately adopt adequate financial policies, accounting methods and controls to ensure financial accountability not only within the Company but also of the Company to parliament as the representative of the people of Canada.

As I noted in my testimony before the committee, Mr. Speaker, the Company of Young Canadians is not an agent of the Crown and, as a consequence, subsection (2) of section (81) of the Financial Administrative Act does not apply to it. The result is that, short of an act of Parliament, the Government cannot control or assure public control over the moneys allocated to the Company of Young Canadians.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
We, as a government, are committed to the principle of the Company of Young Canadians, as stated in the Act, and we are committed to help people participate in the development of the laws and structures of our society. The Company of Young Canadians can play an important role in encouraging citizen participation. We also insist upon efficient operation and, in particular, financial accountability of the moneys collected and utilized on behalf of the Canadian people by this government. The committee's report noted the need for substantial changes in the legislative framework of the Company of Young Canadians. It is the intention of the government to present for first reading, prior to the Christmas recess, a comprehensive series of amendments to this Act. In the meantime, it is imperative that full control be established over all public funds allocated to the Company of Young Canadians. Considering the deficiencies which have been revealed in the financial operations of the Company, the government is concerned with the need for interim control until such time as the detailed amendments can receive study by this House.
We, therefore, recommend immediate passage of a bill to appoint a financial comptroller of the Company of Young Canadians. The government realizes this bill is not the sole change required in the legislation governing the Company of Young Canadians. However, it will provide means of responsible control until such time as the necessary changes can be made. I, therefore, respectfully request, Mr. Speaker, passage of this bill with the least possible delay.
December 15, 1969	COMMONS


Mr, Stanfield:: You have a fat chance.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I am more than interested in the general statement made by the minister in respect of Bill C-171 but am certainly amazed at the last sentence of this statement in which he expressed the wish that passage of this bill proceed as fast as possible. Actually, this is the desire of members on this side of the House. If this is the case, then why did not the minister decide to consult with someone on this side about what he intended to do and indicate his intention to bring in a comprehensive bill prior to the Christmas recess. Many times in this House the government House leader and the opposition House leader have bemoaned the progress of legislation in this House. Sometimes both sides have had justification for their complaints about the progress made in respect of legislation. Here, we have a bill which on the face of it would seem to be a concise bill containing an amendment which is perhaps better drafted than the section in the original Act.
The amendment to section 10 sets out the format for the appointment of a comptroller and yet there has been no discussion at all between the minister and anyone on this side of the House concerning what the minister intends to do. It certainly would have been helpful to members on this side of the House if they had known what the government's intentions were in this regard. Surely, what the government intends to do in relation to this bill C-171 is not sacrosanct.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Tell us what you are going to do.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: When the minister says the government wishes the co-operation of all members of the House, I would have thought it would have been academic to have some advance discussion with members on this side of the House rather than a system of ambush because we still do not know what is intended.
Before I proceed any further I should like to ask the minister right now if the statement he made, as I copied it down, that the other bill will have first reading prior to the Christmas recess means that will happen before Friday?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member knows the rules of the House will not allow him, in the middle of his speech, to ask a question of the minister. I suggest to him that he could follow the normal course
DEBATES	1971
Company of Young Canadians Act and indicate he would like the minister to make a statement when he replies or give this information.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Your Honour is perfectly right. Although I cannot speak for the other parties the progress on this bill today will be determined by the extent of the legislation referred to by the minister and what it will include. I think, if necessary, perhaps the House might well consider giving unanimous consent to waiving the rules to permit this very important issue raised by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan), to be dealt with by the minister, if he is able to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I thank the hon. member for his assistance and for the suggestion he has made. Perhaps it might have been better for the hon. member to have asked the question while the minister still had the floor. At the same time, however, if there is unanimous consent, and if hon. members wish to suspend the rules to allow the minister to make a second statement followed by a second speech by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley, then we could invite the hon. Secretary of State to make another speech.
The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres on a point of order.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Speaker, I only wanted to suggest, in compliance with Standing Orders, that the minister be asked whether he is prepared to give this information.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is there agreement that the Secretary of State might give the information requested by the hon. member?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
In my opinion, other members might wish to ask questions to the minister and enjoy the same privilege as the one we seem willing to grant the previous speaker, who wants to know whether the minister would answer immediately his question before taking the floor at the end of the debate.
If the hon. member is allowed to ask his question and the minister is allowed to
1972	COMMONS
Company of Young Canadians Act reply right away, in my opinion the same privilege should be granted to other members who might want to ask questions and would like the minister to answer them.
As tor me, I am prepared to give my consent for the minister to answer immediately.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I gather there is some difference of opinion concerning whether the minister should make any further statement about what this government intends to do. I was going to ask the minister, frankly, while he was making his statement but I was overcome by the brevity of the statement. He sat down still leaving, basically, the whole question of the Company of Young Canadians in the air. My point is the basic point that so many times we become involved in protracted debates in this House and I do not think the minister appreciates how volatile and explosive this question is, especially after the activities over the weekend. This House might well become bogged down for several days of debate.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Six, seven, eight.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: If there had been any prior discussion between the minister and members of the committee from this side of the House-and perhaps with my good friends on the left-about the fact that the minister intended to bring in a second bill containing substantive changes in the Company of Young Canadians Act, then, because of the urgency the minister mentioned in connection with the financial control we might very well have passed this bill in a very few minutes. Since I was a member of the Committee, I can appreciate the necessity for this. Now, however, not having any substantive words from the minister concerning what he intends to do, and not knowing what the further bill will contain, we must ask some basic questions relating to Bill C-171. If the minister intends to bring in a further bill before the Christmas recess, the very first question is why do we have this bill when the committee made no reference whatever to a financial comptroller.
The amendment to section 10 provides for the appointment of a financial comptroller with no time limit whatsoever. The way the till reads at the moment, the financial comptroller could continue to exercise powers from now until Doomsday. Before we progress any further, I give notice to the minister that we will move an amendment to tie down any such comptroller to a time limit, so that the
[Mr. Prud'homme.l
DEBATES	December 15, 1969
government will be forced to take some further action.
Certainly, we on this side of the House are handicapped, as perhaps are hon. members opposite who may be interested in this matter. I see that the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid), is seated close to the minister. For the greater part of the committee's deliberations on the CYC, party lines were crossed and there were no party positions during the debate so there is no need to take one here. But I am afraid that the minister, who perhaps has no more experience in politics than I so far as length of stay in the House is concerned, unfortunately has not sat on the opposition benches. Perhaps that would have been the best lesson he could have had to really appreciate the significance of working by consultation and co-operation instead of by day-by-day confrontation in the House of Commons.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Perhaps some of the by-products of the CYC philosophy of confrontation rather than consultation or co-operation have rubbed off on the minister and he decided to bulldoze his way through. Perhaps, to give him the benefit of the doubt he did so unwittingly without fully appreciating what might happen here. Possibly he failed to realize that we might get involved in a prolonged debate on the CYC because, in the view of opposition members, we should be dealing not only with the financial control of the party but should amend the Act substantially. This is the time to consider fully the recommendations of the committee, and what should or should not be done with the company. To repeat the statement that we have made before, we think that the company is bruised and battered enough and that it cannot be resurrected. It would be more realistic to call a spade a spade, to start from square one and establish another social agency.
We agree with the minister that no one has a monopoly in this field and we on this side of the House are just as interested in the existence of a social agency or some type of vehicle whereby the federal government can participate with youth in social action at the community level. No one has a monopoly on the original concept behind the bill establishing the CYC which was passed on July 11, 1966, Unfortunately, it is evident that between the time the committee report was issued and today, a monopoly on the authorship or the birth of the company has been
December 15, 1969

claimed by this government. It, therefore, feels it has to protect and conserve the Company beyond all reason. In fact, the government refuses to see the real facts. You can still maintain the ideals and the objective of the CYC, but you will pollute the ideals and pervert the objective if you try to continue the existence of an organization which I say has lost credibility in the country through no fault of its own. I say that it cannot be blamed for this because, being the creature of the former government, it received no direction or leadership from its inception. According to the committee report, the CYC has lacked adequate policies and administrative, financial and evaluation procedures. This is not an apologia; it is a sad confession and an abdication of responsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Yet, today, in trying to head off this debate which none of us want right now, we agreed that the government had not had sufficient time to consider the committee's report. They may not want to follow the committee's recommendations and that is their prerogative. Surely, however they should at least have consulted hon. members opposite and given them some warning of their intention so that we would not become involved in a protracted debate, as we will today, with the minister sitting silent across the way.
We on this side of the House are completely against appointing a financial comptroller of the CYC, and I even question the minister's statement that right now there is no one to control the financial procedures of the company. We know that there is an executive director who must be there when the cheques are signed. I gather that his appointment was approved by the council, but the minister was sufficiently candid earlier that he admitted he was not sure of the state in which the council is today. Surely, on a matter that has involved the time of so many members these last few weeks we should not be treated as if we were in effect, voiceless members. The "Perils of Pauline" do not start to match some of the weird and wonderful things that have happened in the CYC recently. The minister has not consulted, co-operated or spoken to the opposition House leader or to any of the responsible members. Perhaps he has not even spoken to his own members, so that they do not know what is in the minister's mind.
It is an insult to this House to be faced with this proposal with no preliminary explanation or background when such knowledge would help to pass the bill expeditiously. If
Company of Young Canadians Act the situation is as acute as the minister said it is, then it certainly should be passed expeditiously.
We on this side of the House are not in favour of appointing a financial comptroller and we are not in favour of hearing the CYC story by instalments. We do not know what is in the Minister's mind right now. Perhaps he will change his mind and something else will come up by the end of the week. There is nothing on which we can base an opinion on this bill, except for the committee report. The minister knows full well that the committee did not recommend the appointment of a financial comptroller. Its fundamental recommendation was the establishment of a trusteeship. The minister's recommendation therefore is an insult to the House. He did not explain the government's policy with regard to the CYC or the government's views on the recommendation of the committee.
I believe that hon. members opposite should be as irritated as are some hon. members on this side. The minister should at least have treated his own members to some consideration and a rationalization of the government's decision not to proceed along the lines of the recommendations in the committee's report. The minister did not even use the excuse of lack of time.


An hon. Member:: That is participatory democracy.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Yes, so it is. We on this side of the House complain, but I am sure that some hon. members opposite have real doubts about the CYC as it is presently incorporated and I wonder whether the minister has taken them into his confidence. I am sure that the minister does not appreciate Parliament at all but, what is perhaps more fundamental is that the CYC is dead in fact if not in law, no matter what the government decides.
I am not asking for good manners; I am asking for common sense from the government. If the minister wanted to get this bill passed today, first of all he should have realized how volatile the situation is and recognized that the events over the weekend did not help the CYC or the minister today. He should remember that last Friday we cooperated by waiving the 48 hours notice so that we could have a debate on the CYC today. We fully expected some communication between Friday and today but all we got were rumours from the newspapers. We are starting to wonder whether they are correct
1974	COMMONS DEBATES	December 15. 1969
Company of Young Canadians Act in view of the CYC activity over the weekend; the dismissals, the qualified resignations, and the de facto resignations. This whole sad story cannot help but adversely affect the purpose and ideals of youth taking part in social actions in communities across this country. This is the government that is justifiably being criticized for using the constitution as a defence for not taking action in cities through social agencies of the federal government to help the youth do good works.
Since the minister will not say, we do not know whether he intends to do a patchwork quilt resurrection job. In his wisdom, perhaps he will come up with something the night before Christmas. At least we know what will happen the night before Christmas so far as Santa Claus is concerned, but we do not know what the minister will say. What he has said so far with regard to a company which has been found to be in a chaotic state and which has become even worse over the last week end is an insult to the House. The minister proposes the appointment of a financial comptroller of the CYC. That would be just the same as applying a tourniquet to a man's hand when his leg has been battered and perhaps he is bleeding to death. It is like turning off the tap while the house is burning down.


An hon. Member:: That is great.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I'll be greater once I get going.


An hon. Member:: You have a long way to go, Pat.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: There is a lot of ground to cover when we are faced with this type of attitude from the minister. I feel sorry for him because I do not think he really appreciates what he is doing here. I think he may have good intentions but I cannot fathom his motives. The sad thing is that he does not appreciate what is happening. If there is a chance to rescue the CYC in the way the government intends, he will kill that chance if he does not start to take the House into his confidence. His failure to consult with anyone on this side of the House will have this result.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, that we are against an open-ended appointment for a comptroller. What would an open-ended appointment accomplish, Mr. Speaker? Let us take a look at the record as it stands to date. In effect, what we have here is another insult to Parliament in a general way. Under the

amendment proposed by Bill C-171, one man will be appointed by the government on a practical basis. This one man is going to control the purse, and he may completely reform the CYC as long as he stays on the job. He will be able to do so because he will have all the control over all the money. It must be remembered that the bill establishing the CYC was passed unanimously by Parliament. It is now a general insult to Parliament to introduce this bill today, without any real explanation of what lies behind the government's intention.
The government in effect is saying, "Give us a blank cheque; things are in a mess." If things are in such a mess why didn't the minister come to us, consult us, and possibly we could have helped him out by passing this bill in five minutes. Instead the government says, "Things are in an absolute mess. We are going to appoint one man as comptroller." Because of the practical power that this man will have he could in effect rewrite the whole CYC Act.
We on this side of the House are not willing to give one man power to rewrite a statute unanimously passed by Parliament, particularly when we have been given no real explanation and the minister has not taken the House into his confidence by telling us what he has in mind. Perhaps the minister will bring in a more comprehensive amending bill before Christmas. But he has not told us he will. If so, will the comptroller stay in office? Will he continue to exercise full power? I do not know, and the minister has not told us. As I say, Mr. Speaker, we are completely against an open-ended appointment for a controller, and against the insult to Parliament that such an appointment represents because in effect such a comptroller could rewrite the CYC Act.
We in* end to move a couple of amendments, if necessary, Mr. Speaker. One will propose a time limit on the comptroller's appointment. In summary, we believe that the concept of the CYC is still valid, but it will not remain valid long if we try to revise the CYC charter in a haphazard way. At present the CYC, as a social development agency, has lost its credibility, in large measure through no fault of its own. We should recognize that reality, terminate the CYC and get the government to use the experience of the past three years in such a way that a constructive agency can develop and become credible across the country.
If there was any doubt about this alternative, surely the weekend's activity must have
December 15, 1969

corrected it and must have clearly illustrated this blind tunnel vision. On September 29, the minister issued a statement when he appointed five members of the first permanent council of the CYC. I am sure he knows what I am going to read. After setting out the names of the appointees as Lloyd Axworthy, Jeannette Corbiere, Michael Kirby, Shawn Sullivan and one other, the report of the minister's statement read:
"The formative period of the Company is over," said Mr. Pelletier... "These appointments are proof of the government's confidence in it."
That is a pathetic statement to confront the minister with today in view of the fact that, according to the press, three of the people he appointed have written him to say that the governmen' should take over the whole CYC council, and that there should not be just a comptroller appointed. What is the minister's reaction to that suggestion from three of his appointees? It is a sad commentary on his judgment that he could say on September 29 that the formative period of the company was over.
We have only to look to one other person to see the reality of the situation that exists. To support the argument that we should not have a patchwork quilt approach, or a stopgap procedure to amend policies that should have received attention two or three years ago when this matter first bubbled and simmered, we have only to look to a man who is a friend of many hon. members opposite, a great Canadian, Mr. Duncan Edmonds. He has as much faith in the concept of a social agency working through young people as anyone else, including the minister or any members on this side of the House.
Mr. Edmonds, who in the past was quite active in politics and who has not been a friend of my party, said at a press conference in Ottawa, as reported by John Walker in the Ottawa Citizen of December 6:
-the proper thing to do is what the Tories suggest: Stop it (the CYC), use the lessons learned and find other ways and means of harnessing youthful energies for social action.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: It so happened that Mr. Edmonds and I issued statements on the same day. This was not the result of consultation between us, but we both urged the same thing. In the Conservative party statement on December 5 we maintained that certain members of the Privy Council office affected the CYC concept in its very beginning, and this was one of the reasons the whole thing went

Company of Young Canadians Act on the rocks. I do not want to quote too much from Mr. Edmonds' statement, but once more I refer to the minister's statement that the company's formative period was over. I suggest it is time for the minister to have a realistic look at the CYC in its present state, and as minister of the Crown responsible for public funds he should call a spade a spade and phase out the company so that its objectives can be achieved by another viable agency.
Also in our statement of December 5, we said that in addition to the failure of the previous administration to follow the direction of Parliament there was the difficulty that the Company of Young Canadians was run by a provisional council from its inception on July 11, 1966, to October 4, 1969. This three-year period of stewardship was the incubator for the present problems of the company. The government cannot escape its responsibility for failure to provide sufficient support to the company at that time. We also said:
A quick perusal of the shortcomings, as set out in the report, reveals as sad an indictment of mismanagement and lack of control in a federal agency, rarely seen, if ever admitted.
While the minister says it is not a federal agency he cannot avoid this description through semantics. The Company of Young Canadians was formed by Parliament. The minister makes appointments to its council. Therefore, it is some type of agency under the auspices or aegis of the government.
I do not want to go over all of the points that we made in our statement in December. Perhaps we shall make them later when we debate the bill, if ever we debate it. But the report by the House of Commons committee is a sad commentary on the lack of direction and leadership given to this challenging agency. We believe therefore, and for a variety of reasons, many mentioned in the report, that the company is no longer a credible creature for social action at the community level and, since fundamental legislative changes are necessary, that the company should be phased out and the federal government employ an independent body to review the experience of the past three years. It should consult with those involved and with other agencies regarding the original concept of social action and youth in government to give voice to concepts to be carried out by that organization without the liabilities of the old. If there is any question about the liabilities, surely that doubt was removed by the activities of the weekend. Even yet, we do not

December 15, 1969
Division
know what state the council is in or who is actually in control.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Although the minister made no mention of this today, we understand that he has a 12-man task force reviewing the whole concept of how youth can be involved in government processes. This is obviously a national study to integrate all the studies of the Company of Young Canadians to see how youth can be involved. Perhaps at a later stage the minister is going to take us into his confidence and tell us more about it. For all these reasons nothing is more naive, more idealistic, than to think that a parliamentary committee which only sat intensively for three or four weeks can right the wrongs and recommend policy changes which others more intimately involved for the whole period, failed to recognize.
Despite the good intention of many volunteers, the company has a bad reputation and this will not be corrected by legislative changes. It will be feared that a comptroller, labouring with the present problems of the company, could pollute and pervert the original concept. It is time to be realistic, not idealistic. Call a spade a spade, that is what we have to do.
Because of the unsatisfactory explanation given by the minister of the reasons he wants a comptroller and even though he says there is going to be a further bill by the end of the week, I should like to put him on notice now that there are several amendments to Bill C-171 which I should like to move later. Perhaps this will give the minister an opportunity to consider making a more satisfactory and detailed statement of the intentions of the government. I should therefore like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) that the debate now adjourn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. It has been moved that the debate be now adjourned. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All 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.

And more than five members having risen:


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, it was indeed a queer speech we heard from the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) when he spoke on this bill. This is a subject which has captured the interest and the attention of the Canadian public. The newspapers have been filled with articles about it and the press gallery had five or six times as many people in it when members were speaking about this company than it
usually has. The committee met for three weeks, morning, afternoon and evening in order to complete its work. What we got from the minister was a five minute statement in
which he rejected any attempt to explain what the government's position was on those basic issues which have been raised on the
supposed incompetence of the CYC, to say nothing about the more serious charges against this organization.
to co-operate with the minister and the Government in this regard.
One might think when listening to this debate here today that the Company of Young Canadians is on trial. In my opinion, it is not the Company of Young Canadians which is on trial here today because of its incompetence or other alleged misdeeds, it is the Government of Canada which is on trial for the way in which it has mishandled this matter right from the beginning.
When the original legislation was brought in establishing the Company of Young Canadians there was not too much debate. There were fewer than two dozen speeches made by members of all four parties. Those speeches, almost without exception, were 100 per cent in support of the idea and the principles incorporated in the legislation. There was no recorded vote when this measure was passed. There were some interesting things said on that occasion. This is what the then Prime Minister, Mr. Pearson, said about the Company of Young Canadians:
-it is my hope... that the Company will have a useful, exciting and innovating role to perform... the bill embodies that principle... the need for the Company to have the maximum degree of independence and flexibility.
Speaking for the official opposition, the then hon. member for Qu'Appelle, Alvin Hamilton, said:
I believe that great good both at home and abroad can come from this kind of legislation.
My colleague the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) endorsed the idea and indicated that our party had supported this from the beginning.
I think the record is now clear that the reason for bringing forward this legislation to establish the Company of Young Canadians was not as simple and not as ideallistic as indicated by the then Prime Minister. Along with the idealism there was a good deal of cynicism and political opportunism. The then
In bringing in this bill, the minister implied it was a relatively minor measure. I should like to point out later that it is much more serious than that. What the minister has asked is that the members of this House and the public should buy a pig in a poke on the basis that sometime before Christmas the Government will ask for first reading on legislation dealing with substantive amendments to the act which established the CYC. In view of this, the minister suggests we ought to let this bill go through very quickly. We on this side of the House are not disposed
Government of Canada recognized the tremendous appeal President Kennedy had generated when he proposed the war on poverty, the establishment of the Peace Corps for external services and the VISTA organization for service in the United States. The Government, and the people behind this idea, thought that this was something from which they could gain because it was something the young people might accept. In any event, the Government brought in legislation to establish this company.
December 15, 1969

Company of Young Canadians Act The Government had not decided precisely what it thought this organization could do. It had not thought through the functions it would perform and had not set the qualifications of the volunteers who would be taken on staff. As a result, this company has been in trouble ever since its establishment. The fact that it was politically close to the Prime Minister and the Liberal party can be proved very simply by considering the original board of directors. This board functioned right up until a few months ago. On this board from the Prime Minister's office and the Privy Council was Mr. R. J. Phillips. I believe he was the person who originally thought of this idea. Also on the board was Mr. Lalonde, one of Mr. Pearson's principal advisors and now the principal advisor for the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). Mr. Tim Reid, a member of the provincial parliament of Ontario and a Liberal was also a member of the board of directors. These people were on the board from the beginning and most of them served until the end.
Right from the beginning, complaints were made public and privately about the difficulties the company was experiencing. There were also complaints about problems regarding organization and a lack of a spelling out of company programs and concepts. One of those who expressed the earliest reservation was Douglas Fisher who, in a column which appeared in the Toronto Telegram some years ago, said that this was a group which rejected structure organization and discipline, expertise and professionalism. He went on to say.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
It seemed to me that this could be a pooling of ignorance in the magic name of youth, using the critique of society and the methods of the New Left.
That was on August 4, 1966, more than three years ago. That was said publicly. Privately, the government had the same information. On the original provisional board was a representative from Halifax, Mr. Lloyd Shaw, whom I am sure most members from the maritimes know. He came to Ottawa in early 1966. He visited me and expressed in some detail his disillusion with the way in which the company was operating. Because I, like other members of my party and all members of Parliament, believed that the idea of establishing the company was a good one and because I did not want to make the information he gave me part of what might be considered to be partisan politics, I did something which for me is not usual. I arranged to meet With Mr. Phillips who is now in the Privy
[Mr. Orlikow.l
Council and was then on the board. We spent more than two hours discussing the things Mr. Shaw had told me and things which someone who had come from Winnipeg to be on the staff of the Company of Young Canadians had told me. Mr. Phillips listened to me and told me that some action would be taken. No action of course was taken.
Again, Mr. Shaw came to see me in January or February of 1966. He came with the intention of resigning from the board because of its incompetence. I suppose I made a mistake; in retrospect, I am sure I did. I persuaded him not to resign at that time in the hope that Mr. Phillips and others could get some action taken. Mr. Shaw waited. No action was taken and he resigned in, I think, July of 1966. His letter of resignation to the Prime Minister, in which he spelled out his reasons for resigning, was marked confidential and I have no intention of quoting from it, but when he spoke to me first I did make some notes of the difficulties he saw. I have those notes and I should like to put them on the record to make clear that the things which the committee dealing with this problem heard last month were known or should have been known to the government three years ago. It is an insult to the Canadian people that the government took no action to straighten out matters concerning things which were known about the company at that time.
Here are some of the things Mr. Shaw told me. He said that very few of the projects which had been established were successful. He mentioned that many at that time had already folded up. Many more of course have folded up since then. He said there was no method in choosing the projects. Members of the committee will, I am sure, agree, having heard a great deal about that almost three years later. He said the project organizers were being asked to function in unstructured situations. If they were to be successful volunteers were required who had a great deal of experience and training, which experience none of these volunteers had. In other words, the projects were doomed to failure almost from the beginning. He discussed the continuous deadlock between the staff, the volunteers and the central staff, meaning the directors. Does that sound sincere to the members of the committee? Three years later the situation was still the same. He pointed out that when the permanent council was set up the appointment of 10 of the 15 members
December IS, 1969	COMMONS
of council from the volunteers would compound the difficulties of the company. The warning was there.
What happened? The government really paid no attention to Mr. Shaw's criticisms. Having established the Company of Young Canadians, as I say in a political way in order to get political advantage from the idea, the government as I pointed out put Mr. Phillips, Mr. Lalonde and Mr. Reid, who resigned somewhat earlier, and the other two on the board. I presume correctly that they were to hold a watching brief and to report to the Prime Minister who was then responsible to the cabinet. If they did not report, then certainly they were derelict in their duty. But I know these gentlemen and know they are competent, so I suggest they did report to the government. I say that if the company has made mistakes and has been to a large extent ineffective, the government is responsible more than anybody else because the government could have and should have taken steps to change the situation.
As I mentioned at the beginning members of this party supported the principle of establishing the Company of Young Canadians. We still support the original principle. There has been a good deal of criticism. We heard it from the President of the Executive Council of the city of Montreal, Mr. Saulnier, who complained particularly, among other things, about the fact that the company was helping organized groups in some of the urban renewal districts in Montreal fight the administration. Of course he did not like that. I believe this was a worthwhile objective. I said this before the committee and I say it again here. I repeat that this is something which should be done in every city, including a city like Toronto which also has urban renewal projects and has people who feel they need somebody to speak for them and help organize them. Even though the city of Toronto has a mayor who is a member of the New Democratic party, I think this is something that is needed in that city and I will fight for it.
Certainly, I say we need to blame the government. All the charges which we heard in the evidence before the committee were old hat. There was really nothing new except the charge of Mr. Saulnier that in the city of Montreal some of the volunteers were carrying on activities which, if not subversive, were pretty close to it. The remainder of the complaints were criticisms such as Mr. Shaw made and which others have made publicly almost from the beginning. The government should have acted.
DEBATES	1979
Company of Young Canadians Act
As I say, we support the principles on which the company was established. We support the idea of an agency with volunteers independent of Parliament and independent of government which can do worthwhile work both in servicing and helping establish agencies for social action or, as they call it in Quebec social animation, in order to help people enunciate and express their difficulties to government and other agencies. I am all for that, Mr. Speaker.
What I object to about the Company is the type of thing which arose, which Mr. Phillips, Mr. Lalonde and Mr. Reid could have stopped had they supported members of the provisional board such as Mr. Shaw. The principle evolved over the years. It was not just that the company was independent of government policy and the minister but that the volunteers by themselves were independent of the board and the director. The volunteers did not have to account to anyone. I do not have time to go into the detail, but the minister knows about the resignations which took place over this past weekend from the board because two volunteers involved in two projects in Toronto did not feel the board had a right to arrange for their projects to be evaluated, even though the evaluator himself was a volunteer.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I say that under those circumstances, in view of that kind of Alice in Wonderland organization, it is not surprising that there had been criticism of the company and of the fact that the company has had a new director virtually every year. In fact, I am surprised that the company has functioned as well as it has. I want to state for the record that in my opinion, while there is a good deal wrong with the company, it has done a number of effective jobs. I will mention just a few of them. I am sure that other members can speak about their own areas. In Montreal there was the ACEF project which still exists today. A large number of volunteers have worked there with low income families on problems of budgeting and financing for the last couple of years. This project was initiated by former associates of the minister in the CNTU in Montreal, and it has been a very worthwhile one.
In Calgary, there was the NOW project which began by one volunteer organizing citizens in a redeveloped area. This resulted in a city wide organization concerned in welfare, education and housing for poor people. It is the kind of project which I would like to see duplicated in virtually every big city in Canada.
December 15, 1969

Company of Young Canadians Act
In the Great Slave Lake area, volunteers have worked in a number of communities providing the native people with research capabilities into treaties and native rights. In addition, they established an Indian school run by the Indian School Board to meet the needs of native children.
These was the housing project in Vancouver where volunteers have been working with the tenants' association developing a number of programs and working in particular with mothers on welfare, assisting them to become less dependent through training.
These are just a few of the projects. But having said that there are some good projects, we also have to face up to the fact that a large number of projects were ineffective, were poorly conceived and had no real supervision or effective evaluation. In my own city of Winnipeg we have had three or four projects, not one of which is in existence at present. There is little or no evidence that any of them really accomplished anything, because, as Mr. Shaw warned back in 1966, the volunteers simply did not have the background or the experience to carry on effectively in the kind of unstructured project in which they were put.
If the company is to survive, and we in this party believe that it can play an effective role, its role, the kinds of projects, the qualifications of the volunteers, and the supervision and the evaluation of the projects, have to be specified because the volunteers cannot be blamed if they are not.
The role of the director needs to be clarified. What right has the director to supervise the projects, to arrange for the evaluation of the projects, or to stop a project if he feels, on the basis of the information he has, that it is not working the way it is supposed to work? The committee looked through the minutes pretty carefully and all the evidence shows that time and time again volunteers have said in effect to the director: "We do not have to take any advice or orders from you". When the director tried to exercise his authority, the volunteers ran to the permanent council and got it to revoke the decision and the recommendation made by the director.
I admit that, to the extent that I voted for the original legislation like other members of parliament at that time, I am responsible for permitting a permanent council to be established, 10 or 15 members of which are elected by the volunteers. I have been told by some people closer to the government than I

am, that the original thought of the government was that the volunteers would elect as members of the council people active in the community or leaders of the projects. I do not know whether or not that is true, but I know what the volunteers did. Of the members elected by the volunteers, six are volunteers and two are ex-volunteers. Think of what has happened, of the log rolling that has been going on; the "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours"; the business of "you support my project and I support your project and both of us will cut the director's throat". That is precisely what has happened, and we can document it.
There was, for example, the project in Montreal called the communications workshop which the present director wanted to phase out and which the permanent council vetoed. There was the Toronto development project, to which I will come back in a few moments, to work among the Italian immigrant community which the present director wanted to either phase out or curtail and which the permanent council has continued. This is the kind of thing that has been happening.
I say seriously to the minister that we will continue to have problems unless and until the minister says to the members of the House and to the public: "I know what is going on from information which I have received from various sources, including information which the committee was able to get in the short period when it held hearings. I know what is wrong, and in the legislation which I propose to bring in, and which should be given first reading before Christmas, I propose that the following things be done".
I am not saying that we need to see the legislation word for word. I am saying that the minister should have told us today what his general intentions are; how he intends to change the organization of the council; how he intends to spell out the role of the council and how he proposes to define the function of the director so that we, the volunteers, and the council of the company would know what its role and functions are. The minister should not have come here today to ask us to buy a pig in a poke.
Having said this about the general principles which I think are important in connection with how the company should function in the future if it is to fulfil a useful role, I want to deal for a few moments with the provisions of the bill which the minister proposes. However, Mr. Speaker, I see it is five o'clock.
December IS, 1969



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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 Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent)-Regional Economic Expansion- Hawkesbury-Grant to Duplate of Canada- Loss of jobs by Oshawa employees; the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski)- National Film Board-Reconsideration of order levying charges for use of films; the hon. member for Darmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall)-Labour Conditions-Fairey Aviation lay-offs-Income maintenance benefits.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, Notices of Motions.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. Murray McBride (Lanark and Renfrew) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should give consideration to the advisability of including the counties of Renfrew and Lanark as a suitable and necessary extension of that portion of North-Eastern Ontario which is now a designated area under the provisions of The Regional Development Incentives Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this motion is to provide an opportunity for me, along with the hon. member for Renfrew North (Mr. Hopkins) to say publicly what we have been saying privately for many months. The target of our exercise is the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Mar-chand) and the officials of that department who determine what areas of Canada should be included as designated areas under the Regional Development Incentives Act, and what areas should not be included.
I have tried for many months to find out just how the final decisions were determined. The answer to that question, I am sorry to say, depends upon the person to whom you
Regional Development
talk in the department or in the minister's office. For example, I was told some weeks ago that the province of Ontario was considered on the basis of the ten large economic areas already established by the province and used for most studies and considerations of regional needs. As such the whole of eastern Ontario was considered, for the purposes of the Regional Development Incentives Act, as one single unit. This unit is commonly known in the publicity of the Eastern Ontario Development Council as the "Golden Triangle," a term that may seem a misnomer in lieu of the fact that too much of the gold in "them thar hills" is still strictly in "them thar hills" in spite of the articulate planning and boundless efforts of the Ottawa Valley leaders who seek to liberate some of those nuggets.
I was told by one official of the department that in terms of the measurable indices used to determine what areas should qualify under the Incentives Act, all of eastern Ontario, that is, an area bounded by the Ottawa and St. Lawrence Rivers and extending west to a north-south line just west of Kingston and east of Mattawa, averaged out at 105 and 106, just slightly above the national average. When I attempted to get the figures used I was further informed by the minister's office that areas were designated as a matter of judgment in the final analysis; that no new studies were done, and that cabinet decided what areas should be in and what should not be in, to the extent that money allowed. Mr. Speaker, such explanations are not good enough.
Such actions and designations should not be a matter of decisions made without serious studies of the facts, but rather decisions made after serious and appropriate analysis that will stand the scrutiny of any reasonable citizen of this country, to say nothing of being able to stand up to the scrutiny of any member of this House and of the thousands of Canadians for whom he is the spokesman.
The counties of Renfew and Lanark do not constitute a bleakly hopeless and depressed area. Let me set the record straight on that. We are not hopelessly poverty stricken, and there are valid reasons why we are not. We have some magnificent assets. Chief among them is the fact that we have people who are willing to work, and work hard for industrial and economic development. I want to illustrate this by quoting at some length from the "Final Report and Recommendations for

December 15, 1969
Regional Development
Industrial and Economic Development in Renfrew County," prepared by a special study committee and published in May, 1969.
The committee strongly suggests that the need for economic development in Renfrew county is obvious. Present and past activities in development of the county bear absolutely no relationship to any realistic appraisal of need.
The common objective of the development programs should be to obtain from internal and external sources-
In other words, we are willing to help ourselves.
-the calculated decision to invest capital in the identified potentials within the area.
The identified potentials such as manufacturing, resource industry, commercial, residential or recreational must be marketable.
The report continues:
This must be a "self-help" program. Even if the county had a million dollars a year to spend on development, it could not hire men capable of making the contributions that an active, alerted county and its citizens could make-
And I might add are making, and will make.
-through a county development organization.
All that I have said concerning Renfrew county applies equally to Lanark county and the mood of most leaders there. The hon. member for Renfrew North and I are not the spokesmen for a population that refuses to do anything for itself. These people are working. They look to government, both provincial and federal, to help but have received no help from the Incentives Act. When Mother Hubbard went to the cupboard it was all too bare.
I want to present the House with some facts that bear directly on the area referred to in this motion. In the province of Ontario there has been a rather marked shift in population, going back even to 1901. From 1901 up to the most recent figures available, the population of the province of Ontario increased by 186 per cent. In the county of Renfrew it increased by only 70 per cent, a growth rate of only about one-third the provincial average.
Recent figures show a marked decline in farm population which is now only about 12 per cent in Renfrew county, a county traditionally known as an agricultural county. Technological advances in agriculture are forcing the smaller farmer into other work, but what work, and where can it be found when in such a situation we have no incentives for industrial development forthcoming from the federal level?
At the Eastern Ontario Regional Development Association Conference held in Ottawa

in the fall of 1965 it was predicted that Carle-ton county's population would double by 1986; that Renfrew county's population would increase only very slightly, and that Lanark county's population would probably decline. As long ago as 1965 the percentage of the labour force engaged in mining, agriculture, fishing and trapping was experiencing serious declines of between 20 per cent and 40 per cent. This just bears out what I was saying earlier, Mr. Speaker, that new and suitable industrial development is needed, has been needed, and will be needed.
In particular, this means industry that can provide employment for the labour force which is already resident there, that can take advantage of the good water and good land resources, and use the main product that is available, namely, forest cover and forest stands from which the higher quality tree species have already been logged out. The labour is in eastern Ontario, and the will and the resources are there. But we are somewhat off the main transportation arteries, and we are somewhat remote from markets. In addition, the required aid at the federal level has not been forthcoming.
There are only about 60 per cent as many high wage earners in Lanark and Renfrew as there are in the province of Ontario on average. One survey a few years ago found that 10.4 per cent of all workers within the province made more than $6,000 a year. Only a half of that, only 5.7 per cent in Lanark and 6 per cent in Renfrew make more than $6,000.
I have in my hands here the actual map which delineates the areas that were included under the Incentives Act this year. It would seem to me that the area designated in Quebec follows for some distance the Ottawa River from Pembroke to Fort Coulonge, and goes up to Mattawa before it enters the province of Ontario. There was great concern on the department's part to draw straight and definite lines, but the only place where the map shows straight lines is in the maritime provinces, where the whole region is designated. It would therefore seem to me that what I am really fighting for could have been accomplished by using the Madawaska River instead of the Ottawa River as the original line of demarkation. The regulations under the Regional Development Incentives Act lists some 15 exceptions; that is types of work to which the act does not apply. Included are things such as transportation, farming, primary production, construction, grinding, mixing, etc. Many of these are the very concerns that we have in Lanark and Renfrew
December 15, 1969

but there remain some important industrial needs which could have been aided by this incentives act but for which we did not receive any aid at all. We were left out.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
As you well know, Mr. Speaker, the area of Sudbury-Copper Cliff is included, as is Sault Ste. Marie. The latter is on the seaway, of course, but unlike Renfrew and Lanark both Sudbury and the Sault Ste. Marie areas are high wage areas and all are remote from the large consumer centres. Sudbury and the Sault of course, already have large industries established there.
Next, I would draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the Saguenay area in Quebec. This is a designated area where like the Sault and Sudbury, corporations have been established. No doubt the Saguenay needs help but we in Lanark and Renfrew have no corporations and we have a lower average wage rate than Sudbury, the Sault or the Saguenay and an agricultural base that is being rapidly phased out. Yet, in the judgment of some unknown persons, we did not merit designation. The incentives act gives people of initiative the opportunity to help themselves. In our area we have the people of initiative and we want this opportunity.
That portion of eastern Ontario which lies beyond the immediate environs of Ottawa has all the problems of the north but is denied the remedies. It does not have the population nor the industrial base of southwestern Ontario but, for the purposes of this act, for some strange reason it is considered in the same class. According to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, this region is too wealthy to be considered poor. I would suggest that it is too poor to be considered wealthy. In fact, most of eastern Ontario is like an abandoned wife. If she is to have any dignity she must create it on her own; having neither the husband of an industrial base nor the assistance of being a designated area, she is numbered amongst the forgotten.
Agriculture is in a state of revolution; the big get bigger and the small get smaller. Marginal farms in counties like Lanark and Renfrew are suffering the most. Our agricultural population is down to 12 per cent. Agriculture will go from 7 per cent to 3 per cent for the nation and probably equal the United States where about 1 per cent of the population is now involved in primary production. In situations like the one existing in Lanark and
Regional Development
Renfrew, large numbers of Canadians run faster to make less.
In eastern Ontario we have the labour; water and land supplies are there. We even have houses in many areas, the lack of which we hear decried many times in this House. We have lots of housing; there are rural farm houses standing empty because of lack of population. We have the houses but we do not have the work.
The whole situation is well summed up by a poet who has become famous as a champion of the underdog. In this sense, I should like the House to recognize that in our area we feel very much the underdog. The poet is Langston Hughes and he writes:
What happens to a dream deterred?
Does it dry up
Like a raisin in the sun?
Or fester like a sore-
And then run?
Does it stink like rotten meat?
Or crust and sugar over-
Like a syrupy sweet?
Maybe it just sags
Like a heavy load.
Or does it explode?
For those determined officials in Lanark and Renfrew counties it is not so much a case of explosion as it is being burdened by an unduly heavy load. It is not so much that there is no dream to develop our potentials but rather that we are sick and tired of having this dream deferred, deferred and deferred again. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the indulgence of the House to give favourable consideration to this notice of motion.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin by expressing my sincere regret that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) has not found it possible or necessary to be here to listen to this very eloquent appeal, to which I am going to add my own remarks in connection with the adjacent area lying within the same regional boundaries as those mentioned by the hon. member. I regret that even the Parliamentary Secretary does not appear to be present. It makes one feel that our pleas for reconsideration of the boundaries laid down under the Regional Incentives Act are falling on deaf ears. I am rising to speak in this debate because I have a great deal of sympathy with the motion made by the hon. member.
The Parry Sound-Muskoka region, in common with the Renfrew-Lanark area, has the geographic misfortune to lie somewhere

December 15, 1969
Regional Development
between southern Ontario and northern Ontario. It seems that we get the disadvantages of one at the same time as the disadvantages of the other. We never seem to come within the charmed circle of being called northern Ontario or southern Ontario. When northern Ontario is referred to we are ruled out because the line is drawn to our north; when southern Ontario is referred to we are ruled out again because the line is drawn to our south. This is just one of the problems that our regions have to deal with and is particularly apparent in connection with establishing the lines for the incentives plan.
When a delegation was here recently, Mr. Speaker, in connection with a request to include the Parry Sound district under the regional incentives program, it was very obvious that the minister either had been badly misinformed about the situation in central Ontario or that the figures provided him were incomplete. Incidentally, I am referring this directly to the motion because it lies in the same area and immediately adjacent to the one now under discussion. The minister said to the delegation which came from Parry Sound, "You have not got too much to complain about. I have the figures here and you people have had 17 new industries in that area, creating 400 new jobs so what are you complaining about?" It just happens, Mr. Speaker, that the area he was referring to was not anywhere near the location of the people in the delegation. In fact, the whole of the Parry Sound district had not received any benefit under the previous plan.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Having based his conclusions on faulty figures, as the minister undoubtedly did in this connection, he ignored his having received false or incomplete information and said, "Well, this is too bad, but we have drawn our fines and must abide by them. If I make one change, I am dead and the expansion program will fall to pieces." I do not think this is the case. Though the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion may have drawn these lines, that should not make him intransigent on the question of reconsidering them. Cases involving difficulties will be put to him, although I do not think there will be as many as he thinks. Nevertheless, certain areas contiguous to the ones which have been spoken about could logically be included in the program. I think it is bad policy, bad politics and bad public relations for the minister to adopt his present attitude and say, "I am not going to change; I do not care if your argument is

good or bad because I have made up my mind and I am not going to change these lines for three years. I do not care if Lanark, Renfrew, Parry Sound or the Muskoka region can show me that there is a real need: That is not important. What is important is that I have drawn my lines, and there they shall stay."
That is a bad attitude and has already begun to work to the disadvantage of those regions the hon. member mentioned. I say that because our rate of economic growth in those regions is very slow. The rates of unemployment were high enough, the wages of workers low enough and the volume of industry within the area was such that this region, and I refer particularly to Parry Sound and Muskoka, was designated under the previous plan. The previous formula might very well be adopted again. As one crosses what I call the central Ontario band of country which lies south of the Mattawa and French rivers and north of the Severn river and the Trent waterway, one will find the situation does not improve. This region is as underdeveloped as most regions which have been included. We think it ridiculous that North Bay, which is near the ridings of both hon. members involved in this debate, should be designated, while Parry Sound district is not. That city has all kinds of industry. Sudbury, which is adjacent to the north end of my riding, is very well developed industrially. The city's entire economy is based on the development of the region. It has full employment and there is no real need for this plan in that area.
As one goes farther east, one comes to Montreal and Quebec City. I do not think they should really be classed as underdeveloped, yet the area lying between those two cities in Quebec, as well as the region immediately around Montreal has been designated. This is a bitter pill for the people of central Ontario, and particularly for the people of Parry Sound, to swallow. Just two weeks ago Parry Sound lost a $15 million glass factory. We had heard the announcement in July that the Glaverbel Glass Company of Belgium was to come to Parry Sound. At least, it was to be established within this central Ontario region near the town of Parry Sound, and we all thought that the decision was final. Unfortunately, after the new regional incentives fines were drawn, the company found that for a number of reasons it preferred to establish an industrial plant near Quebec City. Of course, we are glad that this plant has come to Canada and that Canadians will benefit by being employed in
Decembei 15, 1969

[DOT]it. But I do not feel that the federal government, through the medium of federal plans, should be responsible for redirecting an industry from one area of the country to another. In this case, the consequences have been particularly difficult for us.
As you are no doubt aware, Mr. Speaker, my remarks have been almost out of order because the hon. member's notice of motion refers particularly to the counties of Renfrew and Lanark. I nevertheless felt that the subject ought to be discussed because the people of my riding told me they did not see why they should be left out when other parts of Central Ontario are included in the plan. They felt particularly that the counties of Lanark and Renfrew had benefitted because Liberal members represent them in this House. Of course, I was able to assure my people that politics did not enter into the matter to that extent because all of us, no matter on which side of the House we sit, have been clobbered and that the minister will continue clobbering us because he will not change his attitude. At least the people of my constituency feel that others are keeping them company in their misery.
I will conclude my remarks by urging the minister, who is not here, to read the official record and reconsider his decision of not changing in any way for three years the lines he has drawn. If he does change them, I do not think he will be in as much trouble as he imagines. I do not think, just because one region of the country puts forward a good case for assistance and another region does not, that anyone will howl. Many regions will be disappointed, as we are now disappointed. Nevertheless, I think the minister should give Lanark and Renfrew a chance to prove their case and also give Parry Sound and the Mus-koka area generally a chance to prove their case.


An hon. Member:: And Cornwall.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Cornwall should have a chance to prove its case. All the figures should be looked at, because only in that way can the Department of Regional Economic Expansion be made to function properly. I will put my region's case alongside any other region's, and argue the matter. Otherwise, if we are not allowed to do that, the prospects for the central Ontario region will be bleak indeed for the next three years. I hope that the minister, his parliamentary secretary or someone in the department will read my remarks as reported in Hansard and pay some attention to them.
Regional Development


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew Norih):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity of speaking on this notice of motion. I congratulate the hon. member for Lanark and Renfrew (Mr. McBride) for bringing this matter before the House.
Some time ago I read in a book, the title of which I do not remember, a sentence that goes something like this: "Something that we must always remember is that our nation's future prospects are far greater than its problems." Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that if this nation's prospects are greater than the problems we face in the Upper Ottawa Valley, its prospects are golden indeed because we shall enter a golden age.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Several years ago I began working as a rural school teacher in Renfrew county. I know this area from one end to the other. When I began teaching I taught children whose parents were not earning more than $1,000 a year. Today there are many people in Renfrew County Who are not earning more than $1,500 annually. I obtained some pertinent statistics from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics a short time ago. They showed that the town of Pembroke, which is the county seat, had the third lowest average weekly income in 1968 of any community in Canada west of the New Brunswick border. At the same time, municipal taxes in Pembroke were the third highest in the province of Ontario; only in the cities of Cornwall and St. Thomas were taxes higher. It is worth while making the comparison here: the third lowest income in Canada west of New Brunswick and the third highest tax rate in Ontario. It is no wonder we in the Upper Ottawa Valley feel frustrated and somewhat discouraged. I have another statistic which will strengthen my case. The DBS figures show that Pembroke is the only town in this whole area of central Canada whose population declined between 1961 and 1966; and I am speaking of the county seat of the county of Renfrew.
A short time ago one of the leaders of a municipality in this area came to see me and we had a meeting with officials of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. He told us what was the main employment source in his area. He was then asked to name the second largest employment source. He replied that it was welfare. These are damning statements. This is why my hon. friend from Lanark and Renfrew (Mr. McBride) and I are bringing this matter to the attention of the House.

December 15, 1969
Regional Development
I should like to complete the record by quoting more of the statistics to which I referred a while ago. Victoriaville, Quebec, comes first on the list of communities with the lowest incomes in Canada west of the New Brunswick border. St. Hyacinthe is second, Pembroke is third, Midland is fourth, Moose Jaw is fifth; Granby, Quebec is sixth; Drummondville, seventh; St. Jerome, eighth; Magog, ninth and St. Jean, tenth. Yet some of these communities, which are lower on this list than Pembroke, have been classified as designated areas.
Members of this House will recall that three months ago I rose to criticize the CBC for taking a one-sided view of the forest industry in the Algonquin Park area of Ontario. It is obvious to many why I did so: forestry is one of the mainstays of the industry which at the present time provides us with employment. If people move in on us and apply pressure to destroy our basic industry at a time when we are getting nothing new, where will it leave the entire upper Ottawa Valley? I think it is time for people to stand up and be counted in connection with this effort to attract industry to eastern Ontario. I should like to mention that for the purpose of wage zoning in connection with the Public Service of Canada, the area of Pembroke, Pettawawa, Chalk River and Foy-mount falls between North Bay and Ottawa and has the lowest wage level of the three. In my opinion this is wrong, because it is merely perpetuating low wage rates and slow economic growth.
People travel from our area to places such as Kitchener to find employment. I believe the hon. member from Kitchener told me that less than one per cent of the work force there is unemployed. Many people travel from the upper Ottawa Valley to Kitchener, Toronto, Ottawa and North Bay to find work. This supports the argument put forward by my hon. friend from Lanark and Renfrew when he said we were not representing people who were unwilling to go out and help themselves. These men and women have proved they are willing to put forth an effort. Every week end people telephone me looking for jobs. Some of them have large families. It becomes depressing, Mr. Speaker, when as many as 20 people call at one's home on a Saturday morning and one does not know quite what to do for them.
I suppose one could walk off and forget about it, but I cannot. I can say in all sincerity that as long as I am a member of this House representing an Ottawa Valley constituency, 
come what may I shall be fighting the battle for designation and improvement plans for this area.
My hon. friend from Lanark and Renfrew said he could not quite pin down responsibility for the decision that Renfrew county should not be designated. This is the sort of thing that becomes a political football. Perhaps I was looking into the future when on June 25 last I made the following statement in a speech in the House on an opposition motion having to do with urban renewal. I was arguing that some of our industrial capacity should be diverted from large urban areas to smaller communities across Canada; that financial and other inducements should be offered to promote such development and to take the heat off the too rapid expansion in the urban centres. Let me quote what I said in my speech on June 25 last, as reported at page 10630 of Hansard:
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) introduced a bill which would have the effect of spreading out the economic development of Canada. What must the minister do to see that the program is effectively carried out? He must obtain agreement from the provinces because the hands of the federal government are tied.
When the announcement of this legislation was made, I clearly stated in an interview that although this decision had obviously been worked out by federal and provincial civil servants, the final decision had come from the cabinet. As a member of the House-my constituents feel the same way as I do-I am nauseated by the fact that provincial civil servants, and indeed some of our federal civil servants, are making such drastic and basic decisions which affect rural and other areas of Canada. I feel very strongly that the politics of this nation must be returned to the hands of the politicians and not remain in the hands of the bureaucracy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear hear.


Thomas Miller Bell: Another one will be going.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: The hon. member says another one will be going. Notwithstanding this remark, I have a theory on this question. Let me tell the hon. member that if I ever cease being a member of the Liberal Party I will not cross the floor.


Mr. Peters:: Is that a promise? We do not like all this switching around.
December 15, 1969


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Let me just answer that comment. There was a big switch from Liberalism to a minority Conservative government in 1957. In 1958 there was an even bigger switch. In 1962 there was a partial switching back, followed in 1963 by a big swing back to Liberalism. These were the years when the people who were the establishment in Ottawa gained headway, and they did so because members were not left in Ottawa long enough to gain experience, to get their feet solidly enough on the ground to fight their political case. I think it is a mistake suddenly to make big switches of the 1958 kind in the House of Commons. It is bad for the government, and it is bad for Canadian history. I hope I have clarified my original statement and I still stand by it.
In Renfrew county there is a need for forestry development. It is an excellent area for the promotion of tourism. I refer to the townships of Nipissing, which are south of Algonquin Park, and the town of Pembroke, where the municipal taxation level is already high. If many new industries were brought to the area they would suffer a heavy tax burden in order to pay for the services they would require.
Having studied this legislation I have come to the conclusion that the measure best fitted to our situation in Renfrew county, in the district of Nipissing, and in Lanark county is the legislation that passed the House on March 24, 1969, known as Bill C-173. Clause 24 of that bill dealt with special areas, which is what I am talking about, and provided:
The Governor in Council, alter consultation with the government of any province, may by order designate as a special area, for the period set out in the order, any area in that province that is determined to require, by reason of the exceptional inadequacy of opportunities for productive employment of the people of that area or of the region of which that area is a part, special measures to facilitate economic expansion and social adjustment.
The beauty of this legislation is that not only do its sections relate to the development of tourism and the promotion of reforestation projects, but also to the provision of money to build up the infrastructure of a community, the burden of which normally falls entirely on the taxpayers of the municipality. This type of legislation will do a tremendous amount of good in areas mentioned by the hon. member for Lanark and Renfrew and myself today.
As I have mentioned, although the groundwork for this decision was done by federal and provincial civil servants, the decision was
Regional Development
ultimately one for cabinet. When the announcement was made, one of the provincial MPPs in my area, who is one of Mr. Robart's cohorts in Ontario, said that the Ontario government had tried to get eastern Ontario designated, particularly Renfrew county, but that the federal government had its mind made up even before consultations took place.
I have before me a clipping from the Pembroke Observer dated September 3, 1969, which I forwarded to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. When I demanded an explanation, the department first of all asked me who Mr. Yakabuski was. I explained that he was the provincial member for Renfrew South. This article reads in part:
Mr. Yakabuski said he went to all levels of government in Ottawa to find out just what happened.
"A civil service source found that consultations had been made and included a suggestion to put eastern Ontario on the map for industrial incentives, but no agreement could be reached."
I have been informed that at no time did the Ontario government officials ever put forward a case for the designation of Renfrew county. No Civil Servant in Ottawa had ever been contacted.
Turning now to another matter, my area was designated under the ADA program for a short period of time. In 1963, when the government of the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson took office, the number of unemployed listed in the town of Pembroke was over 3,000. We were placed on the designation list at that time. I remember speaking during the last Parliament following the designation of Pontiac to the east, Nipissing to the north and Parry Sound-Muskoka and Haliburton to the west. In that speech I referred to Renfrew county as the Gulf of Aqaba stretching up into the sea of designated territory.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


An hon. Member:: Carry on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I have almost concluded my remarks, because I know the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) wants to speak. Looking at the map which was distributed as

December 15, 1969
Regional Development
a result of the new decision, I referred to it as a camel's back. As the hon. member for Lanark and Renfrew mentioned, the line goes up the Ottawa River, over to Nipissing and up into northern Ontario.
In closing I thank the House for its indulgence. Let me once again congratulate the hon. member for Lanark and Renfrew for sponsoring this motion.


Mr. Blair:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member who has just spoken permit a question? I wonder whether he shares my view that perhaps designation in this area should be reviewed in depth with the idea of looking at the whole of eastern Ontario, including Grenville and Dundas counties.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, we in the upper part of the Ottawa Valley are not biased in any way. I should be only too glad to go along with the hon. member's suggestion so long as we all get something for the benefit and good of our communities.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, coming from the upper, upper Ottawa Valley I am pleased to note the support by the hon. member for Renfrew North (Mr. Hopkins) of the motion by the hon. member for Lanark and Renfrew (Mr. McBride). Let me inform those hon. members that there is something they can do about this matter if they have perseverance. Timiskaming was not designated under the old concept, but was so designated after a great deal of fighting. Hon. members should remember that these areas depend for designation on the contents of the monthly reports. A report is made every month, but there has been no notice of any plant establishment with the exception of one in New Brunswick. It was assisted by the federal government. The company involved was financially successful and probably would have built the plant in any event. It was assisted in an attempt to prevent the company moving to the United States. I think that was worth while.
I would be the first to agree with the hon. members for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken), Lanark and Renfrew, Renfrew North, and Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair). Grenville is just outside Ottawa and is not doing badly. It has one hell of a good industry, namely, the National Capital Commission. That organization has been very prolific in this area.
Under the new program we follow the growth centre concept: The designations that have been made have certainly not been good
(Mr. Hopkins.]
and should be reviewed. The designation of areas such as Montreal and Quebec City is not in keeping with the idea of growth centres, in relation to other parts of Canada. I see no reason why areas like Lanark, Renfrew and Renfrew North should not be subject to this growth centre concept. They have problems similar to those which exist in other areas. They are losing industry because industry has in the past been related to natural resources. The Renfrew Valley area was well known for its lumbering and forest industry. It has lost a great deal of growth impetus because of decline in that industry, and is in need of secondary industry.
The sponsor of this measure should also consider the role played by provincial governments in respect of designation. The province of Ontario is much more interested in following its own incentives program than in cooperating with the federal government's scheme. This is very obvious because the provincial government has moved its program to within five miles of Toronto. It is almost impossible to consider the growth centre concept when pitting any area against the city of Toronto.
I have had an interest in this matter for a long time because my area is desperately in need of secondary industry. Let me put this point to interested hon. members other than those from the northern part of the province. There is an argument to be made for the principle of nationalizing industry. The only industry we have been able to assist in a designated area of northern Ontario is one that intended to move into that part of the province in any event. I have in mind a resource-based industry which wanted to take advantage of the government's bonus offer. The incentive provided that industry was not the deciding factor; I suggest it would have developed in the area without such assistance.
I am not interested in this type of program and I am sure the hon. member for Renfrew North and the hon. member for Lanark and Renfrew are not interested in that type of assistance. We are interested in developing industry in these areas with the assistance of the government. If the government indicates a willingness to help industry, I am sure companies will make an extra effort.
I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) announce on television that he is going to Europe to encourage companies there to move to Ontario. If he is successful in his search for new industry, and I hope he is, he will be
December 15, 1969	COMMONS
elected to this House for a long time. If he is successful in his venture, I will want to know what good this program is and why we should continue it. We hire people at salaries of $40,000 or $50,000 per year to run the program. If they cannot bring in industry, and an untrained member can, I wonder why we should continue this program. Perhaps the hon. member for Lanark and Renfrew should travel around the world in search of industry for his area.
If any designation plan is to work, it must provide incentives which will encourage industry to move to growth centres. I highly recommend that the two ridings in Renfrew county and Parry Sound-Muskoka be supported, because they are in a position to take advantage of this type of program.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pelletier that Bill C-171, to amend the Company of Young Canadians Act be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, in the time I had before five o'clock I tried to set forth the basic principles which members of our party feel are important in respect of the establishment of the Company of Young Canadians. My colleague and I, the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose), who acted on the committee found the task extremely difficult and extremely heart-breaking because we heard a great deal which we felt was legitimate criticism of an ideal which we had supported from the beginning. We therefore came to the reluctant conclusion that we would have to go along with the committee's report that it might well be necessary to establish a temporary trusteeship to supervise
DEBATES	1989
Company of Young Canadians Act the activities of the Company of Young Canadians.
I wish to make clear that some of my colleagues, members of the New Democratic Party, possibly because they did not have the opportunity to hear all the evidence we heard, are not completely satisfied with our approach. We were not very happy either. We agreed, with a great deal of reluctance, to the proposal for a trusteeship. We had two basic objections to the proposal for a trusteeship. First of all, the committee heard a great deal about the real or alleged wrongdoings of the various volunteers. Because of the deadline under which it was operating, it did not give an opportunity to the volunteers or volunteer organizations to answer the charges, if they could, which were made against them. It seems to us that justice must not only be done; it must appear to be done. In our opinion, that could not be done if we did not give the opportunity to the volunteers to reply to the charges made against them. Second, the committee did not have the time it ought to have had to visit at least some of the projects which are in operation. We did agree, however, with the recommendation of the committee that a three-man trusteeship be established for the company.
The bill introduced by the minister today would have the effect of appointing a one-man trusteeship. This trustee will not only be able to supervise the accounting procedures which are necessary, and to which I shall return, but he will have the authority to make sure that no contract which the company board or the company director wishes to make with a volunteer can be put into effect without the approval of the financial administrator. We cannot accept that. Unless the minister agrees at a later stage to withdraw this provision in the bill, we cannot vote for it. I am a very harsh critic of the company, but I will not be able to vote for this bill because I cannot agree to a one-man trusteeship for an indefinite period, particularly when the minister says that in the very near future he intends to introduce legislation which will bring about substantive changes to the organization and policies of the company.
It seems to us completely superfluous to have anything more than a temporary financial administrator who will make sure that the money expended is expended and accounted for properly. We believe the officials in the minister's department who have been looking into the accounting practices of the company ought to be asked to make
December 15, 1969

Company of Young Canadians Act recommendations to the minister on which he would base proposals tor legislation changing the set-up of the Company of Young Canadians. Without that we do not believe any changes would be useful and would permit the company to operate in the spirit in which it was established and under which it has not operated until now. So, as I say, we could support a temporary financial administrator. I say that without any hesitation in light of the evidence presented to us during and since the committee hearings.
I should like to place on the record a few examples of the sort of things we heard which I think are inexcusable, cannot be justified and which provide me with reasons for voting for a temporary financial administrator. There were reports of a number of incidents. For example, at Halifax office space was rented in a new building for a period of six months, at a cost of $2,500. According to the information we received, those offices were never used. In northwestern Ontario a film about Indians was made. It was never authorized, but $3,600 was spent by the Company of Young Canadians for that film. The people who made the film have now left the company. They walked off the job and took the film with them. That should never have happened. Legal action should have been taken against those involved. We understand charges have now been laid. Not only was it proved that they took the film, but they also took filing-cabinets and other property belonging to the Company of Young Canadians.
There was another project involving work with the Indians in northwestern Saskatchewan in respect of which I believe $31,000 was funded. The volunteers running the project have refused to account for the money to the staff and the director of the company. We think that is completely unacceptable. The Toronto development project which was to work with the Italian immigrant community was funded $60,000. When the committee had Mr. Vidal, the director of the company, before it, he told us that about half the money had been spent, and I presume another $5,000 or $6,000 has since been spent. He could not tell us how many volunteers were on the job. In other words, he did not have proper direction of the project.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
I am sure Members of Parliament have read the news stories of the week end meeting of the company's council. It is reported that the volunteer who was instructed to

evaluate the project could get no real information or co-operation, and in fact thinks that the project should be wiped out; that there are better places and more deserving organizations in Toronto which should be assisted by the company.
Then, of course, there is the Toronto youth project for which apparently two so-called volunteers of the company are getting in the neighbourhood of $1,000 to $1,500 a month between them. As far as anybody can find out, nothing useful is being accomplished by that group except the subsidization of the printing of one of the so-called underground newspapers, which is not a company publication. Yet during the week end the council refused to take any action to close down that operation.
These are just a few of the illustrations of misuse of funds about which we heard and which are completely inexcusable and unexplainable. We should not condone them for one moment. Therefore, I have no hesitation in telling the minister that I am prepared to support the appointment of a financial comptroller, provided it is just a temporary measure and that he is a comptroller of the funds only and does not have the power of veto on projects which I think come under the jurisdiction of the council, with all its faults, and the director.
Unless the minister agrees to that kind of change, we in our party will vote against second reading of the bill. Because of our reservations about this bill as it is drafted, I propose to move an amendment, seconded by my colleague, the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) as follows:
That Bill C-171 be not now read a second time, but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this House the government should give consideration to the introduction of a measure to provide for an interim financial administrator having general supervision of the expenditures of the Company of Young Canadians without the power to interfere with the program of the company as determined by the council and the executive director.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do I take it that Your Honour receives the motion without adjudicating on its admissibility?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have examined it, and in my view it is in order. However, if there are objections I will certainly be prepared to hear them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: course it is in order.
December 15, 1969


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, especially since the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) introduced Bill C-171, I have noticed that he seemed to have much difficulty. I almost feel sympathy for him because he inherited a situation for which he is not directly responsible. Considering how reluctant he and the government were to take action, even before the press conference by Montreal's Executive Committee Chairman, we are inclined to believe, as regards previous statements, that the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the government were aware of the activities of certain members of the Company of Young Canadians.
For these reasons, we must censure the government for not having acted vigorously enough in this situation.
I still remember quite clearly the time when the Company of Young Canadians was set up, and the objectives that were laid down for it. These were outlined in a statement delivered by the Secretary of State on October 22 last, and I quote:
According to the act adopted by parliament in 1966, the basic objective of the Company of Young Canadians is to support, encourage and organize programs for social and economic community development in Canada through voluntary service. The Company may engage in community development work, in urban and rural areas in Canada, and it may organize programs designed primarily to widen the social and economic opportunities of Canadians. The result is that inevitably the Company of Young Canadians works with urban renewal, rural poverty, and other less privileged groups of society.
And I wish to emphasize a few words in the minister's statement:
*-rural poverty-
He therefore admits a weakness on the part of the government which has failed to give all Canadian social classes the place they are entitled to. I feel that when a sovereign government, such as we expect in our Canadian democracy, creates agencies and exerts no control over their activities, it is a sure sign of general inadequacy.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
In order to solve the poverty problem, the government finds nothing better than to rely upon unexperienced young people, by granting them a more or less considerable budget, depending upon one's own point of view. As a matter of fact, they are given a free hand without any guidelines as to their terms of reference.
Company of Young Canadians Act
The bill under study provides for the appointment of a comptroller of the Company of Young Canadians and an amendment has already been moved. I prepared one myself that I am going to move if the rules allow me to propose a subamendment. In any event, I shall come back to this later on.
As regards the guidelines that the government should have given this company when it was first created, no reference is made to them.
I have here the minutes and proceedings of the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts, which following Mr. Saulnier's statement, looked into the activities of the CYC. The hon. member for Temis-camingue (Mr. Caouette) asked Mr. Vidal the following question, and I quote:
Mr. Vidal, according to your answer, it is quite obvious that the Company do not know too well where they are going. Besides your statement says:
1.	There is no definition of volunteer and the very concept of volunteerism.
2.	There are no clearly-defined lines of authority and responsibility within the Company of Young Canadians.
4.	There is no clear definition of the relations between the three levels in the Company.
5.	The Company has never set a program objective from which priorities and criteria can clearly emerge.
6.	The Company has never had a full set of policies. For instance:
1.	There are no guide-lines for the setting-up of new programs.
2.	There is no rule as to the duration of a project.
3.	There is no organization policy.
It would be hard to say whether we are centralized, regionalized or whether the organization is set up at project level.
7.	The concept of participation has never been sufficiently explained or indeed, resolved.
Finally,
8.	The role of the director is not defined.
This is the very statement made by Mr. Vidal to which the hon. member for Temis-camingue referred, and Mr. Vidal never denied he had made that statement. This is exactly how things went within the Company.
The committee report brought before the House on December 5, reads as follows, and I quote:
v. Your Committee has evidence that the Executive Director of the Company is seriously hampered in the performance of his duties. This situation results from the following factors, among others:
(a)	The Company has no policies on the qualifications required of volunteers nor any definition of their exact role and functions;
(b)	There is no policy on the recruitment of volunteers;
(c)	There are no policies on the training of volunteers;
1992	COMMONS
Company of Young Canadians Act
(d)	There are no evaluation procedures with respect to the performance of volunteers and staff;
(e)	There Is no adequate procedure to deal with the grievances of volunteers or staff;
(f)	There are no adequate policies for the suspension and dismissal of staff and the suspension or cancellation of volunteer contracts.
vi. The Company has no policies for the research, selection, evaluation, modification and/or termination of programs or projects.
Mr. Speaker, how can you expect an organization, made up of either young people or adults, subject to so few instructions and regulations, to be able to give the results expected of it at that time it was established, in 1966?
Therefore, it is not surprising that, left to itself, that Company started to turn towards purposes other than those assigned to it and that, for lack of control, some provocative or subversive agents anxious to take over, had managed to infiltrate into it.
The government must bear the responsibility of having failed, right at the beginning, to demand the right to control the activities of this Company, particularly their way of spending public funds.
The charges laid against them and the evidence submitted to the committee prove that money was shamefully wasted by several members of the Company.
Fortunately, they had only a limited budget though it amounted to $2 million a year. In spite of this, can such a fantastic leakage be explained? Some crown corporations, for instance, the CBC, have a budget of some $100 to $125 million a year. The government has no say in the way the CBC spends the taxpayers' money. How can we not occasionally wonder about those corporations and ask for explanations from the responsible ministers?
If inquiries in depth could be made into the operations of the various crown corporations, we would probably be amazed at what goes on.
Accusations were made. The minister admitted it himself in the House when the matter was made public at a press conference given by the chairman of the executive committee of the city of Montreal. I have here an account of that conference which was televised.
I shall read a few excerpts to demonstrate the gravity of the accusations. I quote:
We now know that in Canada individuals and groups are working actively to implement a plan which will carry the destruction of freedom, of our
tMr. Laprise.]
DEBATES	December 15, 19S9
form of democratic government and, in this plan, the people's will, as expressed in the ballot box, is excluded.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
These individuals and groups are inspired and financed, in many cases, by foreign political powers related to on "International" that does not share our nation of man's fundamental liberties.
And Mr. Saulnier made that statement immediately after the unfortunate demonstration which took place in Montreal not long ago.
And I now resume my quotation:
In other cases, the same ideas and the same plan of action are supported by the government of Canada through the Company of Young Canadians.
For many months now, we have seized a substantial quantity of documents which justify me to put forward the previous assertions, and with the greatest certainty. It is enough today, and it is my duty to do so, to raise publicly a corner of the veil.
The partial disclosures to which I will limit myself today are but a small example of the things I know and which I have privately informed the Prime Minister of Canada a few times.
The Prime Minister of Canada was thus informed of the activities of some members of the Company of Young Canadians as well as of others who were jeopardizing our freedoms and our democratic system.
I go on with the quotation:
These facts justify me to request formally and publicly a public Royal Commision of Inquiry on the clearly subversive activities of the Company of Young Canadians.
This is clear. Mr. Saulnier is not requesting a royal inquiry on just anybody or anything but on the clearly subversive activities of the Company of Young Canadians.
Moreover he states further, and I go back to the quotation:
The same facts justify the Prime Minister of Canada, while this inquiry is going on, to cut short and without delay any supply of public funds to this organization.
The same facts justify the citizens of Canada to ask their government to prohibit the use of public funds to support activities of the type which follows:
We know that after this statement by the chairman of Montreal's executive committee, many other municipalities of the province of Quebec and elsewhere where the Company of Young Canadians was active then also requested from the government a royal inquiry, by means of resolutions.
December 15, 1969

Mr. Saulnier indicates the facts that justify such a request, and I quote:
1.	To agitate and organize marches in the educational institutions which bring forth the interruption of academic pursuit;
2.	To publish and distribute the names, addresses and phone numbers of industrial workers, thereby identifying them as targets;
Mr. Speaker, I should like to come back for a moment to the first point, namely, the facts that justify an inquiry as indicated by the Chairman of the Executive Committee of the city of Montreal, and to refer to the Company of Young Canadians Act, under the heading Objects and Powers, paragraph (c) Section 15, and I quote:
(c) organize and carry out programs to assist young people who are economically or socially handicapped to obtain greater benefits from their schooling and to reduce the number of young people who leave school before completing their schooling;
That was one of the objects of the Company of Young Canadians. But, on the contrary, what have they done? They have stirred up strife, agitated and organized marches in educational institutions, public disturbances that have only resulted in holding up the progress of students, that is, exactly the opposite of what was required in the act creating it.
I go on reading the reasons set forth by Mr. Saulnier, and I quote:
3.	To infiltrate situations which can develop into major conflicts;
4.	To promote social and political strife by teaching the methods of defining inaccessible demands with the admitted purpose of shaking the present social system from its roots;
5.	To encourage methods of action (and I quote) "which rapidly develop into a revolutionary test of strength";
6.	To encourage the occupation of industrial plants during strikes in order to create "head-on-collision";
7.	To distribute written information on communist activities in other countries.
Those are the seven main points that Mr. Saulnier indicated to justify his request of a royal commission on the activities of the Company of Young Canadians. All those points were substantiated during the investigation held by the Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, in October and December last.
Therefore, to me, there is no doubt that the government must, as soon as possible, establish a royal commission to look fully into the activities of the Company of Young Canadians.
21545-55}
Company of Young Canadians Act
I go on quoting from the statement of Mr. Saulnier:
We also find on the premises officially occupied by the Company of Young Canadians and paid for by the Canadian taxpayers, newspapers and pamphlets showing how to fabricate molotov cocktails, paint bombs, flasks and vials devised to disrupt police work in the maintenance of public order.
These documents recommend fighting men, dogs and horses with pepper, ball-bearings and slings and even promote the use of potassium cyanide by way of injection and these recipes are printed and distributed by the thousands.
Is this what the government expected of the Company of Young Canadians? Section 15(c) reads as follows and I quote:
-organize and carry out programs to assist young people who are economically or socially handicapped to obtain greater benefits from their schooling and to reduce the number of young people who leave school before completing their schooling
Is it to make the best possible use of the schooling of our youth to teach them every possible method of starting a revolution and of causing disturbances in our cities and rural areas? On the contrary, they have run counter to the mandate assigned to them by the government.
Mr. Saulnier continues, and I quote:
Its paid or volunteer organizers who call themselves "social animators" roam the Montreal region in motorcars owned by the Canadian people and use them to sow dissension and panic and to participate in destructive demonstrations.
We know at least that in the city of Montreal alone twelve Volvo cars have been bought and paid for by the Company of Young Canadians with the taxpayers' money to enable those young people to drive from one point to another in order to protest, to throw confusion and to foster terrorism.
The chairman of the Executive Committee of the city of Montreal was right in asking for an inquiry into the activities of the Company, and at the end of his press conference he added, and I quote:
-it is essential that the terms of reference of this Royal Commission of Inquiry include the mandatory deposit of all orders of payments authorized by the Company since its foundation with the names of the organizations and individuals which have cashed these payments.
Therefore, it has been clearly established that the city of Montreal was not claiming a superficial but an in-depth inquiry into the dealings of the Company of Young Canadians.
In a subsequent statement following up other troubles in Montreal, in connection with
December 15, 1969

Company of Young Canadians Act the passing of a by-law, the chairman of the executive committee said again, and I quote:
I say it again that it is absolutely indispensable for the government to order the tabling before this committee-
The government had then decided to refer the matter to the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts. The chairman of the executive committee asked again, and I quote:
-for the government to order the tabling before this committee of all the payment warrants issued for the purposes of the Company by any government agency, because I am convinced that the government has realized, as we have, that it must protect our country and its inhabitants, a task which will be easier when Canadians are aware of the perils they face.
Mr. Speaker, neither these statements nor the reports submitted to the Secretary of State, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) and the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) have succeeded in alarming the government, in urging it to action. Why? Just because the Secretary of State did not have full confidence in the authors of the reports. Here are the very word he used in his statement of October 22:
However, usually responsible sources, without producing evidence, have alleged the utilisation of the Company of Young Canadians to cover the furtherance of subversive activities.
He mentions "usually responsible sources". This would seem to indicate that the Secretary of State considered Mr. Saulnier's utterances in the presence of TV cameras as unjustified.
Since very little credit is given to the statements of people as important as the Chairman of the Executive Committee, as well as to those of the inspectors of the RCMP, of the Quebec provincial police or of the Montreal police, and since this is not enough to prompt the government to look fully into, through a royal commission, the activities of this Company, it is high time, in my opinion, that something were done. The necessary steps must be taken to stop such activities.
With regard to the appointment of a comptroller to prevent the possible wasting of money that still belongs to the CYC, I have been informed, but I am not quite sure, that there are still approximately $900,000 left. In order to prevent these funds from being used again for subversive purposes and certain members among the Company's top officials, who might be less scrupulous than others, from disappearing with them, I think a comptroller should be appointed.

However, when this bill was introduced last Friday, I asked myself: why could the government not act by order in council, in a case of necessity and emergency?
Mr. Speaker, if this had happened during a recess, for instance, I do not feel the government would have called an emergency session in order to pass such a bill, nor would it have run the risk of waiting a few weeks, so that the House would reconvene for that purpose. It would have undoubtedly proceeded by way of an order in council, which is within its powers if the need arises.
We do not oppose the appointment of a comptroller, but I wonder whether the rules of the House would allow me to introduce an amendment, since there is already one before us, or if the first one must be dealt with before another is moved.
An. hon. Member: Yes.


Gérard Laprise: Someone said yes, Mr. Speaker. Therefore I move, seconded by the member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin):
That the said amendment be amended by replacing by a comma the period following the words "Governor in council" in line thirteen of the amendment, at subsection (1) of section 10A, and by adding after the said comma the following words:
"and whose term of office shall not exceed three (3) months following the coming into force of this section or the period of time required for an investigation by a Royal Commission ordered by Parliament, particularly into the uneasy administrative circumstances of the Company of Young Canadians, the charges made by the Chairman of the Executive Committe of the City of Montreal in relation to subversive manoeuvres by certain members of the Company of Young Canadians and, generally, the various aspects of the activities of the Company of Young Canadians."
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I
assumed that the hon. member was moving a subamendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). I suggest the amendment moved anticipating the committee stage of the bill, and it would be more appropriate to move this subamendment at that stage of our proceedings. Furthermore, I am advised that citation 394(1) of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition is relevant to this point.


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, the comments of hon. members have been pertinent and useful.


Mr. Crouse:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, should not the minister be in his own seat when addressing the House?
December 15, 1969


Mr. Sianbury:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If hon. members will permit I shall comply with the rules and move to my own seat.


An hon. Member:: I thought he was in his own seat.


Gerald William Baldwin: The minister will sound much better there.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, one could say that I have been put in my place. I certainly would not pretend to be the government House leader.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I hope not.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, the government might have waited until a full package of proposals in response to the committee's report could be presented to the House. However, I hope that hon. members consider, as we do on this side of the House, that we are bringing before the House today a matter of some urgency. We do not want to ask this House to rush through proposals which would perhaps have the effect of destroying what has been built up over the past years or would change fundamentally the statutory framework of an organization which has performed good work.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
If that is the opinion of some hon. members, there should be sufficient time in which to consider such proposals. But the government feels that in the interim there is a requirement for action to protect public funds; it feels there has been an indication from the hearings before the Parliamentary Standing Committee that Parliament should act promptly to protect public funds in this situation.
The Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) has stated, and I am pleased to reiterate, that the government does intend to present detailed proposals in a more fundamental response to the recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee before the House adjourns for the Christmas recess. We would hope that these proposals in the form of another bill would go to the standing committee for consideration and possible amendment; and that by the time the bill comes back to this House we shall have carried out a carefully considered review of the legislation.
The bill now before the House is acknowledged to be an interim measure. We can appreciate the difficulties expressed by hon. members in dealing with the bill in isolation,
Company of Young Canadians Act but I hope they will appreciate the good faith of the government in wishing to put this forward as an urgent matter while awaiting the due process of the amendment of the law in a more fundamental way.
Hon. members have expressed varying views about this bill. Amendments have been suggested, and perhaps there will be more. One point which I thought was valid was that there could perhaps be a time limit imposed on the mandate of the comptroller. The committee suggested a time limit of one year. I do not think this would be an unreasonable limit although I hope a comptroller will not be necessary for nearly that long. I hope the new legislation will supersede this arrangement very quickly. In any event, such amendments would be seriously considered by the government. I hope hon. members will put them forward and allow them to be dealt with tonight so that in the House and in Committee of the Whole we can come to a decision on the details of the bill and thus meet our responsibility for protecting the public funds which are in the hands of the Company of Young Canadians. This is the nub of the measure which is before us now, and I trust that whatever may be the views of hon. members they will agree with this objective and proceed promptly to resolve the issues put forward by speakers who have preceded me.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to hear the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Stanbury) make what I might refer to as his maiden speech in the House since his elevation to such high rank. Our party is agreeable to the suggestion which was made by the hon. gentleman, to the effect that this measure should go to the Committee of the Whole in order that we might deal with it as expeditiously as possible. We would like the government and our friends in the NDP to know that we can be responsible in this regard.
We must also note what the minister stated with respect to the recommendations of the committee, indicating that trustees should be appointed for no longer than one year. We take the same view with respect to the comptroller, except that we think the time limit should be even shorter. We must, of course, be responsible for this organization and for seeing that the $900,000 which is still available is administered properly and to the satisfaction of those to whom we have to report.
We suggest that the time limit be set at March 31, 1970, which is, of course, the end of the company's fiscal year. I hope that the
December 15. 1969

Company of Young Canadians Act government in its wish to expedite this matter will conclude, in light of the events which have occurred over the week end, that we cannot allow ourselves to sit still while there is every possibility that such actions will continue.
I listened with amazement to the motion which was moved by the New Democratic Party. With all respect to them, I do not know where they have been during the time the actions of the company were considered by us and evidence was adduced.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Unless something has happened which is outside my knowledge, a comptroller has been appointed through the intervention of the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier), and has been functioning since 1968. So there is somebody looking after the money, in any event. How the NDP can have its cake and eat it too is beyond me. They are trying to say, "Let us have an interim financial administrator with no time limit set." What really astonishes me is the implication that this interim administrator is to have no powers whatever. We on this side certainly take issue with them on that point.
Mr. Speaker, if I had been here in 1966 I would probably have voted for the bill. After all, it set out principles which were admirable in themselves; it was in keeping with the theme of youth, with the need for the poor throughout the nation having a voice, for action on behalf of the Indians, the blacks in Nova Scotia, the Metis, the poor in the Atlantic provinces and in the urban centres. We wanted youth to be involved in these things. I would have voted for the legislation for another reason-the involvement of youth in my election campaign. In my campaign one found the vigour and the enthusiasm of youth working with the experience of the mature, and as a result of this kneading together we were successful. Some people in Hamilton West did not like it; 1 do not want to say it was the Liberals. What I am really trying to say is that here were responsible people acting in a responsible way, within the framework of our democratic institutions, to achieve a desired result.
The CYC also had principles, and there is no question that they were commendable. It also had powers with respect to the achievement of these aims. Perhaps I might read a few of them. They had the power to engage in community development work in the rural areas, power to carry out programs to widen

the social and economic opportunities of young people who leave school before completing their schooling, power to initiate recreational programs for young people where such facilities are not available. There were a host of other objects that were ideal in nature.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
All of us, particularly those who were members of the House at the time, thought they were the type of objects to which youth would be attracted so they could go out and do their "thing" in a responsible way. We had a golden opportunity for serious and responsible involvement. But what happened, Mr. Speaker? The vocal minority in Canada, which exists in the United States, England, Europe and Africa, took over and said, "We cannot work within the existing framework of the so-called establishment; we must be on our own and do our 'thing' in our own way".
Let me tell the House about the latest thing that they want to do in their own way. I quote the Globe and Mail, today's issue, which has a report dealing with the CYC's latest project of communal experimentation. The article reads, in part:
At least 1,000 people in Metro are talcing part in the communal experiment, the woman said. In addition to the group on the island, there are others in the Spadina, College and King Street areas.
In Ottawa, Mr. Williams had said that about 300 people were taking part in the experiment ... "and that members considered themselves 'the new natives' and were 'pioneering'; a life style for all."
I do not want to be included in that life style, Mr. Speaker, and I think I am safe in saying that the vast majority of the Canadian people do not want to be involved in this new experimentation. What has been the result of CYC activity over the past three years? I do not want to repeat the evidence that was adduced, because we are all familiar with it; but let me summarize it and refer to some of the nouns that were put on the record. There were charges of violence, subversion, illegality, incompetency, social action that was designed to break down existing systems. What was a dream of the former prime minister, which was acceptable to all Canadians at the time, has become an unacceptable nightmare for many Canadians and parliamentarians.
What do the headlines say today about this acceptable dream of the past? On the first page of today's Telegram appears the heading in large type: "Trusteeship demand as three
December 15, 1969

leaders quit". In an article by Claude Henault there is this passage:
Three members of the dissent-ridden governing council of the Company of Young Canadians announced yesterday they will demand the council be disbanded and replaced by trustees.
I should like to know whether the Secretary of State has been apprised of this information. Have submissions been made to him in this regard? Does he not think that this is an important statement? May I again refer to the Globe and Mail of today's date, where reference is made to Mr. Axworthy. We all know who he was. Apparently he was a government appointee to the council, a one-time aide to the former minister of transport, the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer). Mr. Axworthy has stated that it would be a travesty if the council were to continue. Does the Secretary of State know of this statement?


Mr. Bigg:: He does not care.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I know he cares, but perhaps he has not yet had an opportunity to digest the statement and to appreciate its importance and implications. I quote from the Globe and Mail:
Mr. Axworthy said yesterday that he, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Sullivan had written Secretary of State Gerard Pelletier asking him to scrap the council anyway.
Has the Secretary of State received that communication? I do not know whether the Globe and Mail is the gospel or the Bible, but I should like the minister to tell me whether he has been advised to scrap the council. I now come to the Ottawa Journal for today. This paper carries the headline: "Resignations, dissent, rock CYC council". Here is another quote from Mr. Johnson:
Mr. Johnson said the weekend meeting-
That is, the meeting of the council.
-was a make-or-break session for council. It had to prove to Parliament that it was capable of running the CYC.
"It failed," he said.
I should like to know whether the minister is aware of this. I think it is important not to pussyfoot in regard to this very important national problem. We must be responsible in this regard. Surely the minister realizes that the CYC is dead; and if it is not quite dead, then it must be going through its final throes of death. This has been obvious to us all over the week end.
Company of Young Canadians Act


An hon. Member:: What we need is mercy killing.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: My hon. friend to the left of me says that what we need is a little mercy killing. Our party wanted the CYC killed right then and there, and we moved a motion to that effect. We knew in stating we wanted it dead that we were acting responsibly, at the same time still appreciating the involvement of youth.


Gerald William Baldwin: It is not its death, but its smell that we are worried about.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The smell is becoming quite obnoxious, and I do not know for how long the Canadian people will be able to stand it. In keeping with the policy of this party in terms of youth involvement, we have accepted the fact that the CYC has been born, unfortunate though it is. However, in light of the events and the chaotic behaviour that has led people to wonder whether this is a responsible institution, we on this side of the House must be careful of our actions. Our approach is stated in paragraph 10 of our press release.


Mr. Gilbert:: Which one?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: We have only one. There is one thing about the NDP, Mr. Speaker; they do not like being chastised. They put a ridiculous motion before the House, and now they do not want me to continue, though my time is running short.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Take your time; you have 40 minutes.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Our approach to the CYC is this:
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
On the contrary, we believe a fresh start, building on the experience of the past, can develop a viable and constructive outlet for youth in social action at the community level-


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on Line!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Why don't you stand up, Joe, and get into this debate?


An hon. Member:: I could do it.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Either stand up or quit bothering me. Do you have a point of order, or what is the point? As it is stated, Mr. Speaker:
-we believe a fresh start, building on the experience of the past, can develop a viable and constructive outlook for youth in social action at
1998	COMMONS
Company of Young Canadians Act the community level, which will far exceed the present legacy of $7.2 millions spent on 38 outgoing projects which involved not more than 400 volunteers in its troubled and turbulent three year history.
We therefore say:
Our primary belief is that volunteer service for youth is still as valid an aim as it was when we supported the concept behind the Company of Young Canadians. Surely, however, we have all learned that good intentions are not sufficient to prevent the abuses that arose in the company's operations. We endorse a new start after proper study.
Let me say again, in reference to the Minister without Portfolio, that we are pleased he showed a spirit of consultation. We appreciate this. We are pleased that he showed a spirit of co-operation. This is the way in which the House can work. We are always prepared to be co-operative, to have dialogue and consultation. The government now knows our position in respect of March 31, 1970. We are sorry the government did not tell us what the appointment of this comptroller was all about; we do not know what it is all about; we do not know who he is, we do not know how long he is going to fill this position and we do not know what the position actually is. The government has left us in the dark.
These are the kind of questions we hoped the minister might answer. He should lessen the darkness so we can walk in a path of light and understand what the government is trying to do. I feel I have made my points clear, in spite of the interruptions. I am sure the minister understands the position we have taken. We want this matter referred to the Committee of the Whole this evening in order that it can be dealt with expeditiously, bearing in mind that we are all interested in this company. Let the government understand that March 31, 1970, is the deadline as far as the comptroller is concerned.


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I doubt that my speech will include the emotional content of the previous speech.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Or the intelligence.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mark Willson Rose: I hope that my speech will generate a little less heat and a little more light on the problem that confronts us.


An hon. Member:: Don't go away Line.


Mark Willson Rose: I am sorry that the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) is leaving.


An hon. Member:: He is back.

DEBATES	December 15, 1969


Mark Willson Rose: I should like that hon. member to make as great a contribution to my speech as I did to his. We have believed in the CYC. The members of my party believe strongly that Parliament will by this bill hobble the Company of Young Canadians so much that volunteers will no longer be able to work effectively for social change and to provide a voice for the voiceless. We feel, in other words, that the company will be limited to being a sort of respectable Boy Scout organization, a conventional service organization supporting the status quo. If that is all the CYC is to be, I agree with the hon. members to my right; it would be kinder to kill the organization cleanly. Its uniqueness will be gone and its effectiveness will be lost if we allow the kind of proposal we now have before us.
In seconding the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), and as a member of the committee on broadcasting, I say to the people of Canada that I voted for the three-man trusteeship because I believe that a temporary trusteeship with sympathetic and knowledgeable trustees would allow time for the present elected permanent council and executive director to work out the obvious inadequacies in the management and methods of this organization.
We should make a few things very clear. Neither I nor other members of my party believe that the people's money should be squandered uselessly. We believe that greater financial accountability is of crucial importance if the Company of Young Canadians is ever to enjoy the confidence of the Canadian people. There is no disagreement on this point. We do not object to financial accountability worked out by the company with the trustees and the government. We do not think this is necessarily a sinister thing; we believe it is a must.
We should make another point very clear. I do not accept the distressing tendency to blame all the troubles of the CYC on a bunch of hairy-headed kids, or the newly elected permanent council which has been operating only since last October. The provisional council of the company, comprising 15 members appointed by the government, has guided the company over most of its life. If anyone thinks that all the CYC troubles can be solved by denying volunteers their part in policy-making, they are naive at best and ignorant of the company's history at worst.
December 15, 1969	COMMONS
The CYC legislation was conceived in a great rush. It was never very carefully thought out. The company's greatest contribution was its service to the Liberal Party's campaign strategy in convincing young people that there was a role for them to play and that dissent was not only tolerated but was welcomed within that party. We had a recent demonstration of this at Harrison Hot Springs where a token number of unconventional dissenters were imported and paraded around as window-dressing.


An hon. Member:: Why did you vote for it?


Mark Willson Rose: Some of them had difficulty getting in because the RCMP set up barriers.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Mark Willson Rose: Let me say to my hon. friend that I do not intend to speak for the whole 40 minutes. I would welcome questions at the conclusion of my time. The fact remains that through the approximately three years of the government-appointed council there have been many incidents of tension and difficulty within the council not only in Ottawa but in the field. This difficulty has been present under various ministers who by and large chose to ignore the various contentions put forward. Never during the tenure of the provisional council was any government amendment presented to the House of Commons designed to overcome any of the obvious flaws in the structure of the organization. The organization and its accountability- which, incidentally was well known to all government appointees who sat on the council-was never changed by amendment.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
They were not the kind of people who were going to be out-manceuvred by the so-called radicals who formed a large part of the volunteers. Far from it. Some of these men enjoy high prestige and high office in government circles today. In the Privy Council office today are such Scrooge-like men as Mr. Lalonde and Mr. R. J. Phillips. One wonders why such men who exercise influence or direction in respect of government policy did not see at the time some of the shortcomings of the company and immediately advise the appropriate people. They obviously had the peers at the right place; they were prominent on the CYC council, but for all we know they remained silent. Whether they did or not, the results were the same-no government 21545-56
DEBATES	1999
Company of Young Canadians Act amendment altering the CYC administration was made until the one which is before us today.
It is true that the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) felt obliged occasionally to go beyond the book when important matters were at stake. We heard him admit before the committee that a few days before the June 1968 election he was so concerned with the situation in Montreal-one can imagine how sensitive anything like that would be a few days before an election-that he personally interviewed and supplied the executive director with certain information at the minister's home, which caused the executive director to ask for the resignation of Mr. Martin Beli-veau. Then because Mr. Clarke, the executive director, felt he was pressured, he resigned a short time later.
I do not raise this matter because I think the minister did something he did not need to do, or because I think he was interfering. Far from it. The minister himself said Mr. Clarke had a perfect right to tell him to go to hell. That is in the evidence. But he did not do it. Nor do I believe that an accountant-comptroller-nowhere, incidentally described in the act which set up the CYC which was enacted a short time later-was not needed. I think in introducing this bill today the minister is suggesting that a comptroller was so limited by the act that he really had no power, and that in spite of his being placed in the council's offices in Ottawa he was not able to do the job he was intended to do.
From what we learned in the committee I believe the government has for a long time been acutely conscious of the various problems within the Company of Young Canadians, but has been singularly silent until now about introducing legislation that might have overcome some of these problems. It is a long time-about three years. Behold, now they come in with a bill that anticipates a virtual Czar over the company; in other words a one-man trusteeship, not a three-man trusteeship. He is not to be appointed for one year, as the committee recommended, but as the bill says "who shall hold office during pleasure". This might be forever, for all we know.
The Minister without Portfolio, in charge of citizenship, has since told us he does not believe it will be in perpetuity, but that the period will end possibly as soon as March 31, 1970, or the end of the fiscal year. We were all extremely pleased to hear this. I think our words have reached the government; we have communicated. I learned a long time ago
December 15, 1969

Company of Young Canadians Act never to beat people on the head for doing things I wanted them to do in the first place.
Nevertheless, I wonder whether this measure really goes far enough. I think the comptroller-trustee, according to clauses 2 and 3, makes completely irrelevant the committee's concept of reform from within. Remember that the committee sat for about five weeks and heard a great many witnesses. I think the committee's concept of reform from within by the permanent council and the executive director, putting their own house in order and continuing to function toward this end, is rather irrelevant if we impose a one-man comptroller-trustee upon them immediately. Perhaps the government is out to kill the company. I hope it is not. I hope if it is to be killed, it will be killed outright and not left to survive in name only, like a de-fanged tiger that marches around the jungles of our large cities and Indian reserves but is completely unable to cope with the problems it might meet.
Perhaps the poorly drawn act has finally motivated the cabinet to blow the whistle. At the present time, two signing officers out of four may sign cheques up to a maximum of $100,000. I know anything untoward in this regard is far from the minds of some of the people who are signing officers, but I think the government sincerely believes it can no longer tolerate this situation in view of the record of the company and some of the testimony that was given before the committee. It can no longer tolerate the risk of two signing officers being able to write a cheque for $100,000 and then disappearing to some unextraditable country.


An hon. Member:: Cuba.


Mark Willson Rose: I do not know what our
diplomatic relations are with countries in the Caribbean and elsewhere, but I do not think that is the point. There must be some kind of financial account abili y. I agree with the minister on this point. The minister expressed in the committee the desire to have a panic-button. He wants some kind of legislative device that will allow him to take charge in a crisis situation. I ask the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, why he waited so long to bring in this amendment. Surely the need was apparent long ago. My view is that the Company of Young Canadians is neither a strictly financial problem nor a legislative one. The company is primarily a political problem now that its activi ies are losing more votes for the government than they are gaining for it among the youth. Now is the time for the axe.

There is no doubt that the representations of Mr. Saulnier of Montreal have had a profound effect on the government. This is why we had a prolonged investigation before the committee. Because it was prolonged, there was not sufficient time to go into a number of things which should have been gone into. No one in this party will sponsor government-financed support for subversive political strife. No one will be unduly influenced by the evidence that the Montreal council brought before the committee. The evidence was largely circumstantial, and so far as I am concerned most of it does not wash.
This committee member for one-and there were others on the other side of the House- does not deny that the civic administration in Montreal is being challenged; nor do I deny that seditious and terrorist tactics should form no part of the CYC activities. But when the city of Montreal attempts to come before us and in a scarcely concealed manner lays the responsibility for all the troubles of the CYC and all the troubles of Montreal squarely at the feet of the CYC, I for one cannot accept it. When the city of Montreal was defenceless last November, it was not because of the five or six infiltrators in the CYC but because the city failed to come to terms with its policemen who had gone on strike.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
The internal problems of Montreal are very serious and no one here would attempt to minimize them, least of all me, but that is not the point. The issue appears to be that the government is prepared to abandon all pretence at giving approval to a pluralistic society because, after two months, the permanently elected council has failed to deal with the problems that a government appointed council could not resolve after three years.
What we are really saying to the youth of this country is, "We do not approve of your outlook. Why can't you be more responsible, like us, for instance? We are responsible. We tolerate the arms race, war,, pollution, alienation, and discrimination. We have done it for years. Why can't you be more like us? Go ahead with your little patchwork community-chest type of projects if you like, but do not, for heaven's sake, threaten the power structure". Regardless of the ineffectiveness of its $1.9 million annual budget with which to wage war on poverty, it is rather like fighting an elephant with a peashooter. I think that members of the government, when asked by committee members what happened to the
December 15, 1969
war on poverty, said emphatically, it."
Aside from all these things, the CYC is a symbol for the young people of Canada that the government is secure enough to withstand the questioning of the young and that it really believes in change. It does not bother me a bit that some provinces or municipalities may feel uncomfortable at the presence of the CYC. If we are going to cook tasty omelettes, it may be necessary to break a few eggs. The company cannot avoid involving itself politically, and it cannot avoid unjust legal constraints on its work if it is to accomplish its goals and improve the life of people who are at present voiceless.
We must remember that this is a risk Parliament took at the outset when the act establishing the company was approved unanimously. But even though we support a better methodology and a better accountability for the company, or its law and order, I do not think anybody can support any lack of ethics or unlawful behaviour. Then we approve of law and order, but what we are really doing is stifling all dissent, that is something else again. We have lost the war on poverty-that appears to be plain for all to see-but we must be mature enough to recognize that there are many groups in our society which desperately need the kind of work that the CYC, properly constituted, can perform.
I should like to read to hon. members a few excerpts of a poem written by Gary Dunford. He made some recent poetic comments on law and order. He wrote:
Who's that tappin' down the street?
Hear his gleeful, good guy feet?
Safety in the suburbs? neat!
It's mister law and order!
Further down he wrote:
Civil rights, that's all passe Martin Luther's gone away,
Jail 'em all, that's what I say,
With mister law and order!-
I teach my kids the cops are fine They keep the anarchists in line Let's all parade, I got my sign For mister law and order.
Don't want no trouble, no disgrace The cops can keep them in their place I'll close my ears, you shut their face,
With mister law and order.
I think the minister does not support the kind of attitude expressed in the poem. He defended the concept of government sponsored dissent on October 29, 1969. He was speaking about the constant participation in which he believed. He referred to constant ~ 21545-56*
Company of Young Canadians Act participation by various people concerned with the legislation before Parliament. This is what he said:
It is interesting that the major corporations, and professional groupings of this country discovered the importance of this factor, many, many years ago. They developed public relations firms, PR departments, advertizing units, whose purpose it was to deliver the message-their message-to the people making laws. A company president or vicepresident will not hesitate to take a parliamentarian to lunch to discuss a matter that is of particular interest to him.
I do not disagree with this process, as long as it is done in the open. In fact, I believe it is one of the essential cornerstones of our system. It is important that all parliamentarians know the interests that are being represented by a person-a lobbyist. However, it is as important that the lobbyist be given the opportunity to present the opinion and attitudes of his client.
Further on he says:
I am not about to suggest that we take away this subsidy, but rather that we pose another question. What about the vast group of individuals living in cities, rural areas, poverty situations, who have not or cannot take advantage of these tax deductions, in order to present their opinion to the public. These groups are at least as important, and in many ways, much more important, than the population that can organize and perhaps gain a monetary benefit from presenting its opinion.
The minister is saying that it is not wrong to spend government money to give people the opportunity to present their views through the CYC, provided it is done ethically and legally. That is not the point. What we are talking about tonight is the necessity of taking certain steps to ensure that it is done ethically and legally.
Hon. members will be pleased to hear that I have almost concluded my remarks. The time which I spent on the committee investigating the CYC was an agonizing experience. I think it is important to say that the matter we discussed was of great complexity and had far too little time to deal with it. I should also like to repeat the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), that a chance was not given the volunteers who were accused to come before us and defend themselves. I think there is no escaping from that fact. I have other misgivings about the way we held our hearings, including the fact that we visited no project, either here in Ottawa where there are seven or eight, or a number of others in Montreal and Toronto. Yet we have submitted our report stating the view that, given the proper guidance and more time, the company itself could overcome some of its problems.

"We lost
December 15, 1969

Company of Young Canadians Act
The bill before us tonight is unacceptable to our party. Clause 2 of the bill goes far beyond the point of providing financial accountability. It imposes a financial Czar at every level of the Company of Young Canadians. It does not, as the trusteeship suggested, allow the council and executive director to work on the problems suggested by the committee report. It puts dictatorship at every level of the company operation. As I read clause 2, the company cannot hire or contract a volunteer. It cannot even buy a postage stamp, nor can it enter into any kind of an arrangement concerning a project.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
I realize the concern of the government regarding lack of financial continuity. I believe subsection 2 should state that the comptroller should be a signatory of the company for every cheque. Our party would have no objection to that. Nor have we any objection to subsection 3, the demand for vouchers. I hope the minister will assure the House that he supports our amendment that a financial administrator be appointed to look after and supervise the financial accountability of the company, but that he stays out of policy decisions. If the minister and his colleagues agree to this, there will be very little opposition from my party.
If the minister can answer the problem that was raised earlier about a permanent financial Czar and, as was suggested by the parliamentary secretary, that his office be limited to the end of the fiscal year, March 31, 1970, I am quite certain that most of us would be well satisfied. So we have no objection to the minister discussing this whole matter in Committee of the Whole. Then we can deal with the various amendments proposed by all parties.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As acting House leader, I understand that there may be a disposition on the part of members on all sides of the House to change the motion to refer Bill C-171 to a Committee of the Whole rather than to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts. If there were such agreement, perhaps we could do that whenever we dispose of the motion before the House.


Gerald William Baldwin: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, there was indeed such a disposition, and still is. It was linked with another offer and related to the question of time which should be inserted in the bill. It may well be

that the minister and members of the government would want to ponder this during the course of the evening and come to a decision more favourable to the original suggestion as to the time at which the financial comptroller should take over. It may be that we should all consider it a little and work out a happier arrangement tomorrow.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say that so far as our party is concerned we would be willing that the change be made as suggested by the acting House leader, namely, that the bill after second reading be referred to Committee of the Whole rather than to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts. However, that does not change the fact that we have an amendment to the motion for second reading and we have a position to uphold. The suggestion was that it go to Committee of the Whole after second reading, rather than to the standing committee, and this is acceptable, but that should not do away with our amendment. As the member for Peace Kiver (Mr. Baldwin) says, there are things that the government might like to think about overnight.



PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF MUNICIPAL DELEGATION FROM CORNWALL

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order please. Before recognizing the next speaker, I should like to mention the presence in the Speaker's gallery and in the next gallery of an important delegation from Cornwall led by the Mayor of that city and including the aldermen and their charming wives.



COMPANY OF YOUNG CANADIANS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pelletier that Bill C-171, to amend the Company of Young Canadians Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.
Marcel Prud'homme: Could I ask a question? It is very simple. I do not want to engage in any controversy with the hon. member, but I should like to ask him this: If this law forming the Company of Young Canadians was so
December 15, 1969
ill-conceived and so well surrounded by political friendship, why did his party, which is never afraid to speak up, vote unanimously for it?


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, it was not that the law was so ill-conceived because of political partisanship. If the hon. member will look at the various clauses of the bill and the report, he will see that not only our party but his own supported substantial revisions. I am sure he cannot help but agree, in view of the report, that the law was very badly drawn.


Marcel Prud'homme: I am not talking about the report, I am talking about the-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


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


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, before dealing with the Company of Young Canadians I should like to join Your Honour and other Canadians in the warm welcome to the company of old Corn-wallian Canadians. I hope they are enjoying themselves this evening.
So that there will not be any veil of mystery around this matter, the proposal that the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) presented to the government should be studied. It is one which seems to him and to some of us in the Official Opposition who have been dealing with this very vexatious problem, to provide that the powers of the financial comptroller be limited. There appears to be some merit in the suggestion because we would be giving back the powers to a man who would be required to interpret the will of 264 Members of Parliament as well as members of the o'.her place. The suggestion of the hon. member is that this power run to the end of the fiscal year, that is, March 31, 1970, to gather whatever salvation is possible for the funds remaining unspent by the Company of Young Canadians.
I understand from the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) and the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Stanbury) that other measures will be coming before us to deal with the Company of Young Canadians. Surely we can take one of two courses over the next couple of months and get it properly set on its feet, or bring in a structured organization that will work. One thing on which we all agreed in committee was that the Company of Young Canadians should never continue as it has been operating up to the present. The vote
Company of Young Canadians Act was as simple as that. Some of us wonder if we ought to scrap it now and perform a mercy killing. We must come up with a structure that makes sense, if the organization is so awful that it should be run by trustees.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
Surely nothing could be more condemnatory than that a body of people had to be imposed on it because it was so badly run, although I think that was the view of the majority following the suggestion of the Secretary of State when he presented the motion to have it referred to the committee in the first place. In any event, Mr. Speaker, there was the one point of agreement, that it should not be allowed to continue as it has existed until now.
We have seen almost everything this past week end that would reinforce the argument, and more particularly the argument of the Official Opposition, because half or three-quarters of the time of the council meeting of the Company of Young Canadians was spent discussing whether they were going to buck Parliament, whether they would defy each other, or whether the executive director was a fink. Those are not basic problems for a company that is supposed to call on the altruism and enthusiasm of the young people of Canada to do things to help the voiceless and the poor of the world.
We have had clearly and ably demonstrated to us stories of personality conflicts, stories of people using this project-a project which we set on its way with all our hopes and imagination behind it-to do their own "thing", some of this their own "revolutionary thing" and some of it their own "subversive thing". But, Mr. Speaker, others in the company have done such things as helping former inmates of penitentiaries, who do need a halfway house to assist them get back into the mainstream of life. It was this tremendous meshing together of the good and the sleazy that bothered us. One of the oldest laws in the world is at work in such circumstances, Gresham's law, which says that the bad will always debase the good. I suggest that with this bill and a succeeding bill to follow, we will still not be able to put the Company of Young Canadians together again as a believable force for most of the young men and women in Canada. It would still have that tinge or taint about it of those who would subvert public purposes to their own ends.

December 15, 1969

Company of Young Canadians Act
The Toronto Globe and Mail this morning covered the week end's activities in a rather startling article by John Burns, who wrote:
Two members of the Company of Young Canadians governing council-one of them the chairman-resigned abruptly on Saturday after the council voted 5 to 3 against firing two Toronto volunteers who were said to have done no useful work for the company whatsoever-
The volunteers, both Americans-
So, it is the Company of Young Canadian Americans.
-live in a house on Ward's Island and receive benefits from the company totalling about $975 a month, plus $75 a month for the rent of a basement office on Spadina Avenue. Part of the money-$85- is earmarked for support of a young woman who is declared a dependent of one of the Toronto volunteers.
A report prepared for the council said that there was no evidence that the volunteers-Larry Williams, 24, originally of Los Angeles, and David Gardiner, 28, from Buffalo-had made any real effort to fulfil their assigned task of working with alienated youth.
The report said the volunteers had refused to co-operate with CYC staff and with the Ottawa headquarters, and had misled the reporting team on key points. It also cited use by the volunteers or their friends of a Government telephone line for long-distance calls to Hollywood and other U.S. points.
I wonder what problems in Canada they were going to solve by calling Hollywood? Maybe they wanted to sell Hollywood their life stories about the experiment they had entered into, an experiment which I will tell you about in a moment.
The Spadina Avenue office is in the same building as the headquarters of an underground newspaper called Harbinger. The Harbinger staff, with assistance from Mr. Williams and other volunteers, mailed post free a tabloid containing vulgarity in CYC envelopes in October. The envelopes bore the inscription On Her Majesty's Service.
I imagine that we will have the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) on our side trying to stop these fellows.


Gerald William Baldwin: Did they say they were working with underprivileged Toronto MPs?


Robert Jardine McCleave: I do not know, but I will tell you something about this experiment.
Mr. Williams ... told the council that the volunteers and a community of about 300 people were conducting an experiment in living. He said it was machines, not men, that work.
That is the way this country is drifting. In a winter of high unemployment 1 will grant that
Later, he told a reporter that the community he spoke of was spread through Toronto "and the world."

It does not sound so bad if there are only 300 of them and they are diluted through the world.
Members considered themselves "the new natives," pioneering a life style for all, he said.
Nowhere in this report and in other reports that I have read has anybody been able to explain what this experiment in living is all about. Yet this is costing us $975 a month, plus another $75 for rent, and $85 of this money is earmarked for the support of a young woman who is a dependent of one of these two characters. Quoting again from the newspaper report:
The council members who voted to continue the scheme-known as the Toronto Youth Project- took the position that the council was in no position to judge the value of the volunteers' work.
I would think that was putting it mildly. I do not think anybody could judge the value of these two gentlemen's work except possibly the young lady who is the dependent of one of them. I continue the quotation:
One, Millie Barrett from the Lakehead, said the issue was whether the CYC was going to sponsor venturesome projects or play the game according to the rules of "the Establishment."
I do not know whether this experiment is something new. I do not know whether it does play the game according to the rules of the establishment because nobody has been able to set it forth succinctly. The press did reach the young lady concerned, and while she did not want to admit them to the home she was living in with one of the CYC people, she did grant a long telephone interview in which she said:
"I'm not a common law wife. I don't have physical relations... I'm not living in what some people call sin."
I put that on the record to justify her position. Whatever the experiment was-


David Lewis: What do you call it, Bob?


Robert Jardine McCleave: I call it living in a quandary, because if she is carrying on some experiment in living relations with 300 people, that must be about the busiest house in Toronto if not in all Canada. Anyway, I just point this out to show that while we are presented with a serious bill by the government, one to which it has given consideration, the council met and was not able-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald).
December 15, 1969


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could make two suggestions to the House. Since there appears to be general agreement to accept an amendment, which the government would be prepared to move at the committee stage, to reduce the period of time in which the comptroller would be operative, say to the end of the fiscal year, and since there also appears to be general agreement that the bill ought to be passed quickly, perhaps the House would agree to continue to sit past ten o'clock for the purpose of allowing hon members who want to speak on second reading to do so, and then possibly we could deal with the amendments. In this way we could continue to make progress and have the bill enacted speedily.


Gerald William Baldwin: Do I understand the minister to say there would be an acceptance of the principle that the date of the operative part of the bill would be limited to March 31, and in addition that there should be an arrangement by which, with unanimous consent, the bill would be referred to the Committee of the Whole, and that hopefully we would give it second reading tonight and then proceed in committee tomorrow?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Further than that, I would be prepared to move an amendment terminating the appointment at March 31 next.


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


William Arnold Peters: No.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: There is no unanimous consent.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I gather that there has been some misunderstanding with regard to the disposition of the proceedings mentioned a moment ago. I believe that there is a disposition at this point to give the bill second reading, after which we will proceed with the Committee of the Whole stage tomorrow.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, that is on the basis of the undertaking the government House leader gave previously.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I gave an
undertaking and am prepared to stand by it.


David Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask what is to happen to our
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion amendment? Could the government House leader indicate what we are to do with the amendment to the main motion?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, the amendment was introduced by the hon. member's colleague and I gather it is to be withdrawn. Is that not understood?


David Lewis: Oh, no, Mr. Speaker. That was not the suggestion, and that is what worried me just now.


Richard J. Stanbury: Why not deal with it in committee?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. It seems that I misunderstood; I thought there was agreement on the point. Perhaps we had better continue with the late show.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, on Monday last I asked the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) to account for the decision which resulted in the loss, in the fall of this year, of several hundred jobs in Oshawa. At that time the question was ruled out of order. I am now raising this matter because it is important not only to our entire community but to the entire regional economic development program this government has undertaken.
What are the facts? The company directly involved in the matter is Duplate of Canada Limited. The company, as is frequently the case, is misleadingly named. Duplate of Canada is owned in great part by the Pittsburgh Glass Company which controls some 66 per cent of the shares, and Pilkington Glass Limited, a subsidiary of Pilkington Brothers of England, which owns the remaining shares. These two foreign corporations happen to be the two major glass manufacturing concerns in the world. The Canadian company can
2006	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion scarcely be said to be small. Furthermore, it is not at all a Canadian-owned company. The major shareholders of Duplate of Canada in 1966 employed some 38,000 people, had sales in excess of $900 million and assets exceeding $600 million in net worth. The Canadian company has parents which on the international scene are by no means small.
For a number of years the Duplate Company has been producing glass products for automobiles in Oshawa. Last year this government awarded $868,845, under the Area Development Incentives Act, to Duplate of Canada so that the company could build a new plant at Hawkesbury, Ontario. Hawkes-bury, as hon. members no doubt know, is in a designated region. The new plant opened on May 1.
What were the results of the government's subsidizing the new plant to the tune of nearly a quarter of the total capital cost? The immediate result was that in the Oshawa area we lost 300 jobs this fall. A secondary result was the employment of slightly more than 100 people in the Hawkesbury area at rates that are between 25 cents and 56 cents an hour less than those paid by the same company to its employees doing the same work in Oshawa.


John Gilbert: Shame!


John Edward Broadbent: Just over a month ago the same company hired a third shift of 54 people in the local area on the basis that they would be employed for some time. In fact, the company employed them for exactly one month before laying them off on November 8. So much for the reputation of this company as a reasonable and considerate employer.
What are we to conclude from all this? The conclusion is that the government has simply transferred unemployment from one part of the country to another. Second, it has done so by making public funds available to a foreign-owned corporation which really had no need of them. It all amounts to an example of dreadful economic planning by the government. There can be no excuse for a measure of this kind. If we are told that this was done under the terms of an old bill which is no longer part of the government's program, I can only say it is a completely inadequate answer. The bill has been criticized time and time again and it should have been amended when the first example of its misuse was pointed out. The government should not have waited for disaster to strike in individual

DEBATES	December 15, 1969
homes either in my constituency, as in this case, or elsewhere. The bill should have been revised at once. Perhaps it should not have been put forward in the first place.
The situation to which I have drawn attention raises serious questions with regard to the discretionary power which has been given to the minister in the new legislation. I look forward to hearing what excuses or reasons the government can put forward in explanation of this kind of bad and reprehensible economic planning.


Rosaire Gendron: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), I should like to point out that there is no connection between the subsidy granted by the government in order to promote the industrial development of this company located in a designated area, and the laying off of a number of employees in Oshawa, for the following reasons:
a)	In 1967, the company decided, in order to meet US competition and to take advantage of the new Canada-United States Auto Pact, to rationalize and streamline its production.
b)	In Oshawa there was not enough space available to install new rolling mills so the company had to move anyway to a new location where it could carry on its operations. The ADA program was designed to urge the company to move to a location where the employment rate was low and such was, precisely, the purpose of the program.
c)	Right at the beginning, the company informed the union of the workers affected by this decision and offered them the possibility to settle in Hawkesbury. Twenty-five employees took advan age of this offer and 50 to 60 o'.hers went to Oakville and Windsor for the same company which was also modernizing its plant in those cities.
d)	This new project resulted finally in reducing the staff by 75 workers in Oshawa because of the setting up of this new plant, which would have taken place in any event with or without any federal contribudon to help these underprivileged areas.
e)	Recently, the company laid off a far greater number of employees but this was due to a considerable reduction in the production of automobiles. It seems, however, that these are temporary layoffs which have nothing to do, besides, with the construction of the new factory in Hawkesbury.
December 15. 1969	COMMONS
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
\English]



NATIONAL FILM BOARD-RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER LEVYING CHARGES FOR USE OF FILMS

Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, it has been brought to my attention that the National Film Board recently introduced a policy whereby they charge for films that have already been produced and are lying in the Film Board archives. These are films that have been distributed to Film Board libraries across Canada, and generally have been used by institutions and organizations for educational purposes.
In my own area the Indian reservations need to be educated about the Canadian way of life, because many of them do not have CBC television reception. Consequently, these Indian reservations must resort to National Film Board facilities. I remember as a young boy using these facilities, and many of these films awed us in our day. Many of our young people in these frontier areas, if I may call them that, have been impressed by these films, and are today.
Under this new policy the Film Board is going to charge for the use of these films. As I have said, the films are in stock, and I think nothing is to be gained now by imposing a charge for the use of the film. I think the prime motive in the minds of a lot of the librarians is to find a quick way of destroying the National Film Board.
The minister is not present in the House tonight and has left it to his second lieutenant, or whatever his classification may be, to explain his policy. I do not think the amount involved will be very large. According to resolutions passed by the Saskatoon public library, from January 1, 1969, to November 30, 1969, the system lent 6,334 films. If these films are to now carry a charge of $3 per film, the amount involved, $18,000 odd, could hardly be called a fantastic sum. Even if the maximum charge were imposed, the amount involved would be only $72,000. However, the amount itself is not important. What is important is the film material. I do not think the minister quite appreciates this.
Judging from some of the minister's letters to my colleagues, he is not exactly aware of what is going on in his own department. A colleague of mine wrote to the minister saying he thought the present practice should be continued. The minister replied that there had been no change in the present pattern, so I am not sure that the minister really knows
DEBATES	2007
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion just what is going on. Surely he could spare the amount of $72,000 which would have been charged in my own province had the new policy been in effect. If he must save a few dollars, surely he can do it by economizing on just one program of the CBC.
The National Film Board has already indicated it has had recognition in many areas. I think there is going to be a presentation to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) tomorrow. I do not know whether I am in order in reading part of this announcement, but perhaps I could read the statement which will be made tomorrow in French. I hope the House will forgive my lame attempt in the French language.

Ironically, we get less recognition in Canada than abroad.

In other words, my interpretation is that, ironically, we are recognized more outside Canada by strangers than we are by Canadians. This indicates to me that somewhere along the line the minister has not recognized the value of the National Film Board. Over the years as a young student I watched other students take advantage of films produced through the facilities of the National Film Board. These have been produced free of charge in order that students might learn to live in and understand Canada. The minister must realize that Canada is not Montreal, and that Canada is not Quebec. To the Indians in the northern part of my riding Canada is the area in which they live, and the southern part of Saskatchewan. If the Indians saw a film about a wheat-growing area they would be thrilled. I am sure if we saw a film about the life of our northern Indians we would understand a little better the way they live.
Those of us who hold the positions we have in this place should work to help these native people solve their problems. I think the minister has been misguided. For once I should like to see him withdraw a directive of which he is perhaps unaware but obviously should-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for raising this question and for his expression of confidence in the National Film
2008	COMMONS DEBATES	December 15, 1969
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Board and its work. I know the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) would appreciate the praise which the hon. member has heaped on the board, which is worthy of much admiration and support in this House. I am sure the hon. member wants to be fair to the minister in noting that he is not in the House at this moment. I think the hon. member will acknowledge that the Secretary of State has been in the House all day on another matter and that he was tied up all morning on government business. I hope the hon. member will not mind if I respond on the minister's behalf.
The films of the National Film Board have in fact become so popular, as the hon. member has indicated, that this in itself has created a problem. I suppose this is partly a problem of success and partly a problem arising from austerity. The fact is that the board advised the Secretary of State that the demand for its films has become so great, combined with restraints on its expenditures, that it has not been able to increase the staff in its regional offices and to produce the additional prints necessary to meet all the demands on its current budget.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
The result is that persons using the board's services are being asked to share in the cost. The board, I understand, has decided it should introduce, effective January 1, 1970, a rental fee on all films borrowed from its libraries across Canada. The schedule of rates, I am informed, would be based on the length of the film. For a loan period of a day, that would vary between $3 and $12 which is not a large sum, as the hon. member has indicated. He has mentioned that it would amount to $72,000 in Saskatchewan alone. I ask the hon. member if-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.



LABOUR CONDITIONS-FAIREY AVIATION LAYOFFS-INCOME MAINTENANCE BENEFITS

J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, my purpose tonight was to attempt to obtain replies to several questions asked during the past week or ten days in the House in respect of the pending closure of the Fairey of Canada plant. Notwithstanding the fact that certain government members are attending the Christmas party, I am very disappointed that neither the Minister of

Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Mar-chand) or his parliamentary secretary could be' here. I am a little doubtful whether I should proceed. I will proceed, however, and say that I think it is a pretty sad commentary on the plight of a very hard-pressed area to see the lack of interest tonight.
Before I refer to the four questions I have in mind, perhaps I might by way of preamble say that the Fairey Company, a 21-year establishment in the Atlantic region, is one of our larger industries. Perhaps it is more important to say it is one of our more critical industries. For some 20 years this plant employed on the average 1,000 to 1,200 men. With the sophistication of the aero space industry in Dartmouth, I think it can be said that the operation spread to include another 400 to 500 people in other firms in the immediate area. Now we have the very sad announcement by the officials of the company that the plant is to be closed on April 1, 1970.
I should like to quote from a telegram f om the Premier of Nova Scotia to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) dated December 8:
The announced closing of Fairey Aviation in March, 1970, will have a serious effect to the economy of this area.
Fairey Aviation employs 404 people, a high proportion of whom are highly skilled technical and middle management personnel. If these people are lost to us through closure of this operation we will have lost the great contribution they can make to the kind of progress which can utilize their skills and training.
While Fairey Aviation is not a defence base the company informs us it is entirely dependent on defence expenditures for survival. The deescalation of these expenditures is responsible for the situation in which this establishment now finds itself. It is an adverse economic effect flowing from defence policy.
I refer to your letter of May 30, 1969, in which you make reference to the fact that the regional economic effects of any changes in defence expenditures should be taken into consideration and your assurance that your colleagues and yourself have this in mind.
The premier of Nova Scotia goes on to assure the Government of Canada of that province's support in any efforts that can be made to save this vital and viable industry. I should like to quote from another telegram. This is from the mayor of the city of Dartmouth. I shall quote it only in part, as follows:
The closure appears to be the direct result of federal government policy. If you have plans for the elimination of regional disparity their application should take place immediately.
December 15, 1969	COMMONS
The men employed at this plant represent a technology which has been based on the needs of the defence industry and cannot be assimilated in the local economy.
I repeat the words "cannot be assimilated". This, despite your communication to me of June 24 that there would be no decrease in the defence budget.
The direct livelihood of 1,600 citizens of our community which represents approximately 4 per cent of our total population is at stake.
We expect immediate action from your government to resolve this crisis.
It goes on to speak about the concern of the community. One impression was clearly left, as referred to by both the mayor of the city of Dartmouth and the Premier of Nova Scotia, and indeed it is an impression I have had based on questions in the House and correspondence with the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux), the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen) with regard to government policies concerning economic conditions, particularly as they relate to defence spending in our area. That impression is that this government would take no action whatsoever as a result of internal defence programming or policy which would have a detrimental effect on the economy of our area. This is so. There is no question that the situation in which Fairey Aviation finds itself is the result of the deescalation of defence spending and defence programming.
I want to make one or two points as a preamble before I ask my basic and short questions. Again, I do not expect the parliamentary secretary to answer this question, but I think it is important. I should like to quote from a speech made by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) at a time when he was ardently seeking that job. He made the speech in Hamilton in June of 1968. Part of it reads as follows:
In a rapidly changing economy workers sometimes lose their jobs because of major changes in government programs and policies. These workers are entitled to reasonable income maintenance benefits if they cannot find other jobs in their own vicinity and if for some reason they cannot benefit from the government's retraining and relocation program.
The key words there are "reasonable income maintenance benefits", and the fact that they cannot benefit from the govern-
DEBATES	2009
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion ment's retraining and relocation program is important. The Prime Minister went on to say:
Given the nature of the skills of these employees, it would seem that they could not be easily absorbed in the community. Nor, for a variety of good reasons not the least of which is the long duration of their employment in one type of work, can I see them all being usefully and quickly retrained. This leaves relocation. Only one brief comment about relocation. When it is involuntary, we have clear evidence of our failure.
My brief comment is simply that when relocation is involuntary, our system of government has failed abjectly.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Rosaire Gendron: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has just put before the House a matter which he holds dear, and rightly so, since it concerns the employment of several perons affected by the closing down of a company. Still, I wonder exactly to what department the question was directed. I believe it concerns the Minister of Defence (Mr. Cadieux) and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen) and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand).
I know that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration wishes to give a full answer to the hon. member. He apologizes for being absent this evening. Although he is back from the Maritimes, he was unable to get here soon enough to answer the question.
The Minister of Manpower and Immigration, and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion are deeply interested in the hon. member's question, as well as the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) who would like unemployment insurance to be available to those employees. I believe that was the point of the question of the hon. member, namely whether those employees would be able to get unemployment insurance benefits.
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)

Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.31 p.m.

Tuesday, December 16, 1969