1969-06-27

THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, June 27, 1969
Sir,
I have the honour to Inform you that the Hon. Gerald Fauteux, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 27th day of June at 12.45 p.m. for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant Louis-Fremont Trudeau Brigadier General Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.



PROCEDURE


Mr. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order at this time because this is the proper time to take at least a preliminary objection. It deals with a notice of motion appearing in yesterday's Votes and Proceedings standing in the name of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) for Monday next.
My objection is such that we will be arguing at the appropriate time that this motion should not be put. I must raise the point in a very limited way without in any sense arguing about the merits.
The motion of the President of the Privy Council involves a duplication of the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair), .the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, for the adoption of a report of the committee. The minister's motion involves two changes, but apart from these changes it is identical to the motion of the hon. member. I wish to mention only one change.
Under the proposed Standing Order 75(b) the majority of the parties may work out the agreement as to the allocation of time. The order proposed by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) provides, "a majority including the government". In other words, there cannot be a majority unless the government is part of that majority.
My objection, Mr. Speaker, is based on the fact that this constitutes anticipation of a motion with which this house is at least partially seized. The report of the committee has been tabled. The motion for concurrence has not been put, but it has been stood on several occasions by the hon. member who is the chairman of the committee.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)
The motion standing in the name of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) will in effect block the hearing of the motion which a committee of this house, through its chairman, has brought before the house, and I submit there are ample precedents to warrant Your Honour's holding that this is improper and should not be done. I will renew my argument before the motion is actually put.
I only add this, Mr. Speaker, that if the government can at any time through a variation of a committee report, by a motion like that of the President of the Privy Council, prevent the discussion of that report, then our so-called committee system will be in a much sorrier state even than it appears to be at present.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) I rise merely for the purpose of entering a caveat with respect to this matter. I agree with my colleague that the time to argue it is perhaps on Monday or Wednesday, or whenever the matter comes before the house; but since we are aware of the government notice of motion that is on the order paper I believe we should draw Your Honour's attention to any objections we have at this time.
The hon. member for Peace River has referred to the rule of anticipation. May I just read one paragraph from citation 131 in Beauchesne's fourth edition, which is as follows:
In determining whether a discussion is out of order on the ground of anticipation, regard shall be had by Mr. Speaker to the probability of the matter anticipated being brought before the house within a reasonable time.
There is another paragraph of some length which I need not read at this time. However, I would point out that the motion of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) is on the order paper in a place where it can be
10694	COMMONS DEBATES	June 27, 1969
Notice of Objection to Motion of Minister called literally any day. So there is no question as to the probability of this matter being brought before the house in that way, if the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization wishes to exercise his right under that motion. Therefore it does seem to me that Your Honour should consider whether the motion proposed by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) does in fact anticipate, or in other words block something that is already on the order paper.
I realize, and I suspect the President of the Privy Council may draw attention to this fact because I notice he was trying to get to his feet, that some of us were not party to the report of the standing committee. We have even had some argument on the floor of the house as to whether it was a report of the majority or a report of the committee. I recognize the rule in this matter, but the hon. member for Grenville-Garleton went to pains yesterday to emphasize that what he had presented was the report of the committee.
Surely at some point a decision has to be made. Are these rule changes that are proposed changes that are in the name of a committee, whether in its totality or majority, or are the changes being made in the name of the government? Later on we will have time to argue as to whether it is proper to change the rules of the house on the initiative of the government, but I think the point has to be made at this moment.
I also draw attention to the same point made by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), that if it is the desire of the government to make some amendments or some changes in the rules brought forward by the committee, the government should be required to follow the rules that face all the rest of us, instead of being able to act under some special provision.
All told, Mr. Speaker, we think this is not the manner in which the rules of the house should be dealt with, and while we do not seek a ruling at this point my colleague and I both felt that since the item has just appeared on the order paper we should indicate our objection to the way this matter is being handled.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be rather brief, because the two previous speakers have already expressed the opinions that we of the Ralliement creditiste wanted to make known.
The committee report, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) 
said, does not constitute an exact report of the proceedings. Standing Order 75c which has been presented at the very last minute by the government does not represent the committee's views. We deplore that this report was included in the Votes and Proceedings No. 175 of last Friday and that we might have to discuss it in a few days if not today.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that your ruling was that what we will discuss does not represent the committee's report, especially as far as Standing Order 75c is concerned, but only the government's views.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I shall not go into any detail on the arguments raised, because it was only an instant before the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) rose that he mentioned to me he would be taking this position. If I could, I should like to refer the Chair to the fact that the rule with regard to anticipation refers to actual discussion as opposed to putting the motion. The motion in the name of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) has not been put and therefore the precedents referred to by the hon. gentleman do not apply. I think we are entitled to be a little amused at the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who earlier this week disavowed the report of the Committee on Procedure, and has now adopted it as being something good.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) knows better than to try to put words into my mouth by suggesting I am adopting the committee's report. He knows very well I am against the motion to adopt it hook, line and sinker, but I insist that the government must make clear whether it is trying to give this to us as a committee report or as a government motion, with all that goes with that situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether we are not debating the matter at the present time. I understand that hon. members are just entering a caveat that they propose to raise this matter next week or the following week.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Report on Canada-XJ.S. Meeting



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS	were reached and arrangements for follow-up

[Stage Direction]
_________________action was taken.

[Stage Direction]
Twenty-fifth report of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, in French and in English-Mr. Clermont.
Twelfth report of Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, in French and in English.-Mr. Isabelle.
[Editor's Note: Text of foregoing reports appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to report briefly on the twelfth meeting of the Canada-United States Committee on Trade and Economic Affairs which was held in Washington on June 25 and 26. This was the first meeting of the committee since the assumption of office by the present Canadian ministry and the administration of President Nixon. My colleagues and I welcome this first opportunity to discuss with our United States counterparts a wide range of problems, both bilateral and multilateral, of great importance to our two countries. As is customary on these occasions, the committee reviewed the international political and economic situation and addressed itself to a number of specific issues of current concern.
I should like to table the communique issued by the committee at the end of the meeting yesterday. This communique gives a fairly full account of the discussions and I should like at this time merely to draw the attention of house members to certain highlights of the meeting. In the first place, Mr. Speaker, the discussions were wide ranging and, in my view, both constructive and businesslike, exemplifying the community of interest and the friendliness which characterize our relations with the United States. These discussions should be regarded as part of a continuous process of consultation through which our two governments inform each other of their views and interests, and make appropriate adjustments in their policies. The communique refers specifically to a number of issues on which understandings
e (11:20 a.m.)
I will, for the moment, restrict myself to the discussions on international wheat marketing, during which the two delegations expressed their concern at developments which are placing serious pressure on the price provisions of the International Grains Arrangement, and expressed their readiness to consult with other governments on measures to restore stability in the world grains market. I would hope that it will be possible for the wheat exporting countries to meet very soon to discuss these important issues.
There was also a good discussion on energy relations between Canada and the United States, and it was agreed that current difficulties with respect to the level of our oil exports to the United States should be the subject of further consultation which I expect to start in Washington on Monday.
Attention was also directed to the problems of inflation in Canada and the United States, and to the appropriate policies to be pursued in this situation, and to a variety of individual trade and economic problems. It is worth mentioning, in particular, the agreement that was reached to achieve an early understanding on methods for dealing with problems which may arise in cross-border trade in certain agricultural products; the agreement to negotiate on the delineation of United States-Canadian continental shelf boundaries and the agreement to explore the resolution of problems which have arisen from the imposition in 1968 of a numerical limitation on western hemisphere immigration into the United States.
All in all, Mr. Speaker, this was one of the most substantial and productive meetings of the joint committee which it has been my privilege to attend, and I think it augurs well for our future relations' with our great neighbour to the south.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments about the minister's statement and I will try to be brief.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Go
easy on him. He is more to be pitied.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I think we must, of course,
all approve of these meetings as institutions, and certainly they ought to be useful because they do provide an opportunity for Canadian ministers and their counterparts in the United
June 27, 1969

Report on Canada-U.S. Meeting States to discuss problems of mutual concern. That is the kind of discussion that in itself certainly ought to be useful.
It is really quite difficult to tell from the communique or from what the minister has said what real progress had been made toward the solution of the matters that were discussed. For example, the annex refers to the position of the United States, that the world payments equilibrium would require the United States to rebuild a substantial surplus concurrent account, and that this would entail adjustments in the pattern of world payments.
This is a very obscure statement that might very well give some cause for alarm, if anybody could figure out exactly what it means; but clearly all the annex does is indicate substantial conflict of position as between the United States and the world at large, including Canada, in this regard.
Canada's statement of its position as to its long term objective of greater balance in its over-all current account, which would reduce Canada's dependance on net inflows of capital, indicates nothing at all as to what progress if any was made to reconcile these apparently very conflicting positions.
They apparently talked about the operation of the international monetary system and the annex is very obscure with regard to this. It is not clear, for example, whether the ministers representing the two countries are happy with the arrangements that have been made to provide for stability, such as special drawing rights, or whether in fact there is concern as to what is likely to develop, and whether the ministers from the two countries formulated any approach to these problems.
The United States members apparently noted with satisfaction the fact that Canada has accelerated its Kennedy Round tariff reductions by putting them into effect immediately, and that Canada is liberalizing its tourist allowances. The United States should note that with satisfaction.
With regard to some matters of very intense concern to Canadians at the present time, there is very little that is of a concrete nature. The ministerial committee apparently reviewed the grain situation and "the two governments agreed to co-ordinate their efforts to reduce distortions and impediments to agricultural trade." But not the slightest indication is given as to the mechanics of this co-ordination or what specific measures the two countries propose to take in concert to achieve this end. For example, what is the attitude of the two countries with regard to 

the suggestion made that the governing body of the world wheat agreement may propose a reduction in grain prices? In other words, judging from the communique and the annex, the ministers may have made some progress or they may have made very little. I believe the people of this country are entitled to know precisely what mechanics will be employed to follow up this general statement which may be no more than a pious hope of the efforts of the two countries to reduce distortions and impediments in this area.
There are references to underdeveloped countries; there is reference to cross-border trade in respect of certain agricultural commodities; there is talk about early consultations. But again, these mean nothing unless, in fact, arrangements have been made for the establishment of machinery to deal with the problems. There is nothing in the communique or the minister's statement which gives the people of this country any means of judging whether they are simply pious statements or whether, in fact, a foundation has been reached for some action.
With regard to the comment on energy resources, oil and other things, as far as the communique is concerned it adds nothing to the information we already have. However, I understood the minister to say that he proposes to take some initiative himself in this regard, commencing on Monday. As I understood him this morning, he said he would open discussions on Monday next with authorities of the United States regarding oil arrangement. I hope the minister will correct me if I am wrong. This provides one concrete bit of information that is not contained in the communique.
There is reference to the law of the sea having been discussed, but there is no indication whether any of the conflicting opinions between the two countries have been resolved in any way. Again, there is pious statement about seeking solutions to water and air pollution problems along our common frontier. However, there is no indication at all whether this is simply a pious statement or, in fact, concrete measures were discussed with a view to solving the problems.
This kind of meeting is useful; but surely, if we are to have effective participatory democracy we must have more solid information than the minister has given us. Surely parliament and the country are entitled to some frankness as to what differences of opinion there were and what real progress was made with regard to reaching solutions. We are entitled to statements going beyond
June 27. 1969	COMMONS DEBATES	10697
Report on Canada-U.S. Meeting
pious or general declarations of intention. I The communique says that the Canadian admit that the minister was restrained in his representatives were concerned that we report; he did not tell us what the weather should reduce Canada's dependence on the was like down there. But a good deal of the net inflows of capital, but we are not told report he made is about as interesting and whether the Canadian government proposes illuminating as the discussions that take place to take any steps or proposed any steps at in connection with slides that acquaintances this conference for the reduction of the net sometimes invite us to watch in their base- capital inflow, and we are still waiting for a ments, after their return from a trip abroad. statement from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) as to what steps the government pro-
[DOT] (11:30 a.m.)


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that the communique he has just tabled-I thank him for sending us a copy of it-gives a full account of the discussions which took place at Canada-United States ministerial meeting in Washington this week. This seems to me a very generous interpretation of the term "full account". As a matter of fact, there is a report from Washington in this morning's Globe and Mail under the by-line of David Crane which contains a great deal more information than the communique the Minister has tabled. It seems to me passing strange that parliament is always the last to know what is going on and that the press seem to be able to get a great deal more information about these conferences than the members of parliament are able to secure from ministers of the Crown. We do not expect the minister to tell the house what position the United States representatives took at these discussions- that, of course, is confidential-but certainly the house is entitled to know the position which the Canadian representatives took at this meeting, and there is no indication in this communique or in the statement made by the minister of the position which the Canadian government took with respect to any of the matters outlined in this communique.
The minister says, for instance, that discussions were held regarding the International Grains Arrangement. The minister says that it is hoped there will be a meeting of the countries involved. But there has been a meeting this week in London of the exporting nations to discuss the matter of prices. What position did the Canadian representatives take at the Washington meeting this week? Did they secure any assurance from the United States government that the United States would not continue to sell below the floor price of the I.G.A.? Was any such assurance asked for and was any given? The minister surely is obliged to tell the house whether or not Canada has agreed sub rosa to some reduction in the floor price under the I.G.A.
poses to take about the takeover of Canadian financial institutions, which would be one way of dealing with this problem of the net inflow of capital.
There is no statement in the communique as to what the government's proposals were at this conference with respect to the oil policy. Is the objective of the Canadian government to reduce the deficit which we have in our oil dealings with the United States? Is the position of the Canadian government that we should endeavour to make greater use of our own oil resources and supply our own market for oil to a greater extent than we are now doing, and were discussions held with the United States representatives to this effect?
We have no information in this communique as to what the discussions were about the Canada-United States auto pact. The report from Washington to which I referred earlier says that the Canadian government wants to include the parts industry. Surely if that can be told to a press man in Washington it could at least have been conveyed to the House of Commons. Is that the government's position? Did the government make any representations regarding the very wide disparity in the price of cars sold in Canada and the price of cars sold in the United States, a disparity which the auto pact was designed to remove? What progress was made in this regard?
Mention has been made of the fact that the government discussed the possible reduction in the distortions and impediments to agricultural trade. What particular agricultural commodity does the government have in mind? What was the nature of these discussions. Surely ministers who have gone to attend a very important conference owe this House of Commons much more explicit information and a clear statement as to what the government policies are and what proposals the Canadian representatives put forth at that conference.
We are told, for instance, that the United States representatives were pleased that
June 27, 1969

Report on Canada-U.S. Meeting Canada has reduced its tariffs under the Kennedy round. Did the Canadian government representatives ask for any quid pro quo? Is the United States prepared to make commensurate reductions in their tariffs to meet the reductions which the Canadians made? On the contrary, this communique points out that the Americans now are hinting to the Canadian government that they propose to take some action to stop the volume of textiles which are entering the United States market. About this the communique says absolutely nothing.
I hope that when we get statements from the government in the future they will give us some information, rather than reading like a telephone directory that has been sent over from Washington.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) who had the text of the communique delivered to us in good time and in good French, although there are some sentences that we cannot easily understand since the communique itself is very short and-


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is the same in English.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Yes, it is the same in English, and we are not told much.
The purpose of that meeting was mainly to find new trade opportunities between the countries concerned and to develop world trade. We trust that the ministers have made arrangements that will be profitable to Canada, although this morning's communique does not provide us with clear and precise information as to the future of our international trade.
We are rather inclined to believe that the meetings held recently, mention of which is made in the press release, were mainly attempting to adjust the Canadian economy according to the wishes of the United States. In my opinion, this communique outlines the problems of Canada-United States trade as well as world trade but suggests no solution.
On page 2 of the release, paragraph 5 deals among other matters with a question not pertaining to international trade but which was studied by this committee, namely inflation. It concerns everybody, I agree, but it is a Canadian problem which we could solve without taking into consideration what the 
other countries we are dealing with do or think. Here is what is said:
The Committee agreed that inflation and the need to cool their overheated economies were serious problems facing both countries.
Now, Mr. Speaker, a hope is expressed. No reference is made to a solution to the problem of inflation, but the fact is deplored that Canada and other countries are experiencing inflation and that they must act so as to cool their overheated economies.
Mr. Speaker, over heated economies are like an overheated soup which sticks to the pan and has a burnt smell. The communique did not offer any unusual solution to the problem of trade with other countries.
The Governor of the Bank of Canada, who has just authorized the Bank of Canada to increase interest rates in the country,-one of the main causes of inflation-was one of those who believed that Canada was faced with inflation. On the other hand, he did not say to the trade committee which met in Washington to study our inflationary problems, that he would take measures to lower our interest rate.
Before closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that we must look into our world trade problems, and from inside the country first. If we are unable to cope with our economic and commercial problems, how can we send a Canadian delegation to Washington or elsewhere with proposals and suggestions to solve trade problems throughout the world?
I am all for giving suggestions to other countries, but the best thing for Canada to do would be to show them the way by a fine management of her own trade affairs. Then, we could say: This is what we have done at home. Here are the solutions we have decided upon, and followed, and here are the results.
Mr. Speaker, we have considered those problems, and now this morning, a statement is made which offers no solution insofar as the future of our trade is concerned.
[DOT] (11:40 a.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before we resume the business of the house I feel it is my duty to remind hon. members once again of Standing Order 15(3) which specifies that-
-a Minister of the Crown may make an announcement or statement of government policy. Any such announcement or statement should be limited to facts which it is deemed necessary to make known to the house and should not be
June 27, 1969	COMMONS
designed to provoke debate at this stage. A spokesman for each of the parties in opposition to the government may comment briefly, subject to the same limitation.
I have said before that brevity is a relative term but if I am to judge by the length of the statements made in recent days and weeks by spokesmen on behalf of the opposition, their standards are rather different from mine. I would remind hon. members that these statements should be limited, and ask them to accept the spirit of this standing order. When, as happened today, a statement lasting three minutes is followed by more than 20 minutes of comments on behalf of the opposition-


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about yesterday?


Mr. Speaker:: -I suggest there is perhaps a situation which we might look into and try to correct. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Center points to the fact that the ministerial statement was long, and I appreciate this; I felt as unhappy yesterday as I do today. The rule is applicable to both sides of the house and hon. members will recognize it is my duty from time to time to bring it to the attention of the house. Perhaps we might all give it some thought during the summer months.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I wish to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that we in Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition will meet with your wishes in accordance with your interpretation of the rules of the house. I will simply say that it will assist us quite a bit if the minister's statement did contain facts.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I can assure Your Honour that we shall endeavour at all times to comply with your wishes. May I take the liberty of pointing out that while the statement itself took only three minutes to make, the minister was referring to a communique which is three pages in length and which contains in addition an annex in which are included some 13 items? When a communique of that length is tabled it is very difficult to make a comment about it in two or three minutes. Though the statement itself was brief, the communique was an extended document.



PROCEDURE AND ORGANIZATION


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
June 20, 1969-Mr. Blair (Chairman of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization):
Inquiries of the Ministry That the third report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, presented to the house on Friday, June 20, 1969, be concurred in.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Dropped.


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The item stands.



INVESTMENT COMPANIES ACT


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance) moved: the first reading of Bill S-17 (from the Senate) respecting investment companies.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce whether he will disclose the position the Government of Canada has taken with regard to suggestions being considered by the International Wheat Council in London to fix a new and lower minimum price for wheat on the ground that a world surplus exists.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Did I hear well? I am very surprised that the Wheat Council suggests this should be done. That is not the information I have.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Would the minister say
whether the ministers in Washington took a definite position with regard to this matter? Will he tell us whether the government is insisting on the maintenance of the present position, and whether Canadian ministers solicited and obtained the support of United States ministers with regard to this?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Reference was made this morning to the communique. I might say there is a fine art of reading a communique, also. Everything is quite clear. "The committee expressed concern about current developments"-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
June 27, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry


Jean-Luc Pepin: The hon. member for Crowfoot may want to send me back to the university to teach. Maybe he should go, too. The communique refers to "serious pressure" it refers to "the need to consult bilaterally with governments of other countries", "in order to bring about stability in world markets". This morning the Secretary of State for External Affairs expressed the hope that a meeting of exporters at ministerial level would be held very soon-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister is now making a speech.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not think I need any lectures from the minister, although I appreciate-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I will just ask him a direct question, one which, having spent many years in a university, I am sure he is fully qualified to understand, if he brings his mind to bear on it. Will he answer the question I asked and tell me whether Canada took the position at Washington that the present prices should be maintained? Will he tell us whether Canada solicited and received agreement of the ministers at Washington that this would be their position? If the minister is not prepared to answer this question I can only assume he wishes to evade it.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Jean-Luc Pepin: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The hon. gentleman gave us a lecture lasting 15 minutes this morning on communique drafting; I am giving him one now on communique reading.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We do not appear to be making much progress.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: I wonder whether the minister will get down from his throne, cease this studied insolence to parliament, and answer the question.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest the right hon. gentleman is not helping the situation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I am asking the minister to straighten up the record and make a statement of fact. Did the Canadian government make strong representations to the United States ministers against the United States policy of underselling wheat below the
[Mr. Pepin.l
price set by the international agreement? What was said by the Canadian representatives in this connection? What undertaking did the United States give that the course of action it is following which is detrimental to Canadian wheat producers is going to be stopped?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, many exporters are selling below the set price at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Answer the question.


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is done by all exporters.


Some hon. Members:: Answer the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the minister might be allowed to reply to the question.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, hon. members no doubt are aware that on March 14 I said in this house that we would be becoming fully competitive.


John George Diefenbaker: But the government has done nothing since that time.


Jean-Luc Pepin: We have become competitive at the highest possible level. We have become competitive with some exporting countries, although France undersells everybody. Ours is a responsible attitude to take and at Washington we were strong advocates of price stability and pointed out that the downward movement of grain at this time is not in Canada's best interest, and is not in the interest of the world. We strongly supported the idea that there should be more co-ordination and co-operation between exporters if we are to prevent a disastrous downward price movement.


John George Diefenbaker: I have finally smoked out an answer, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister now say what attitude the United States representatives took, or was their attitude such that the minister prefers to keep it confidential?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I think it should be kept confidential. The people down there are very intelligent, they speak well and are quite capable of speaking for themselves. The right hon. gentleman asked me what the position of the Canadian government was in these matters. Our position was that everything should be done to prevent prices from going down. We are trying to build co-operation between exporters. Some of them have not been as co-operative as others in recent weeks and we are trying hard now to rally the troops.
June 27, 1969


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Did Canada during the discussions bring in proposals with regard to renegotiating price differentials as they presently exist between the different qualities of wheat in the different countries?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, we did not discuss this in detail because we had more urgent matters to discuss.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister had more urgent matters to discuss, and so many bushels of Canadian wheat lie piled up on the prairies.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am afraid the understanding of the hon. member for Prince Albert is incorrect. We had more urgent matters to discuss in the sense that we wanted to bring about, first of all, co-operation. What needs to be done later will be done later.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Hees:: That is a very nice statement. Brilliant.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. With respect to obtaining co-operation, did the Canadian delegation succeed-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I invite hon. members to allow the Chair and other hon. members to hear the question the hon. member is trying to put.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, did the Canadian delegation succeed in obtaining the co-operation of the United States authorities to the extent that a useful approach will be made toward negotiations going on in London under the auspices of the International Wheat Council? Are those negotiations being conducted with a view to stabilizing prices under the International Grains Arrangement?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs expressed the hope that such a development would take place. Knowing how well informed he is, I have every reason to believe that his hopes will be met.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is not what happened in Stockholm.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. So that there is no misunderstanding, are we correct in assuming that although the ministers of the two governments agreed to continue discussions, there was in fact no agreement as to the prices at which these grains would be maintained?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the agreement was that they would be maintained at the highest possible price.



WHEAT-BOX CAR SHORTAGE-REQUEST FOR EXTENDED GRAIN YEAR

Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, my question is more or less a related question and arises from the statement made by the minister about the position of present producers. Because of the present box car shortage and in view of climatic and other circumstances which prevented grain deliveries this spring, will the minister authorize an extension of the current grain year until such time as all delivery points are at least on a five bushel quota. This matter has been raised in this house time and time again, Mr. Speaker. I therefore ask whether the minister will assure grain producers that time for the five bushel delivery will be allowed before the cut off date is enforced by the Canadian Wheat Board?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, we have recently consulted the Wheat Board on that situation. The quota situation has been improving steadily in recent days and I think the latest figures will indicate to my hon. friend how close we are getting in most instances to the five bushel quota level.


John (Jack) McIntosh: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister to disregard the figures he has alluded to and obtain information from members representing grain growing constituencies. He can learn accurate figures that way. He will also learn that it is almost impossible at present for Canadian Pacific and Canadian National to bring box cars into certain areas in order to take out the wheat the minister has promised will be taken out. Some areas have delivered one bushel less than their quota, in fact. If the goals that have been set are to be realized something must be done right away. Will the minister look into the situation and see what can be done.
June 27, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry FINANCE



WASHINGTON MINISTERIAL MEETING-REQUEST FOR POLICY STATEMENT ON OUTFLOW OF CANADIAN CAPITAL-TAKEOVERS

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the statement that Canadian representatives at the ministrial conference were concerned about reducing Canada's dependence on net inflows of capital, may I ask whether the minister has any proposals to make or any statement to give to the Parliament of Canada about the outflow of Canadian capital? I ask this question because hundreds of millions of dollars of Canadian capital is flowing to the United States for purchase of equities. Did the minister make any proposals at the conference' about reducing the net inflow of capital? Were any proposals made with regard to restrictions in outflows of Canadian capital? If so, what were the proposals?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the outflow of Canadian capital for the purchase of United States equities is, of course, a matter that has to be decided by individual Canadian investors. This matter is not under the control of the Canadian government or the United States government. On the matter of capital inflow, I indicated that it was our intention to balance our current account, or do better than that in the long run, in order that we might depend less on foreign capital.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since takeovers of Canadian financial institutions result in increased outflows of Canadian capital, particularly from pension funds and insurance funds, will the minister be ready in a day or two to make his long promised statement on the action the government of Canada proposed1 to take with respect to the takeover of Canadian financial institutions and investment houses?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I think the assumption my hon. friend made at the beginning of his question is wrong. As to the second part of his question, 1 hope to be making my statement on Monday.


Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance.
We have been informed that the Placements collectifs du Quebec would be sold in the 
near future. Can the minister assure the house that this important financial institution will not be sold to American interests?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of such proposals.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
As several newspapers have announced that the government was seriously considering granting an acreage subsidy to western farmers, could the minister tell us whether this is a new policy or whether the government is seriously thinking of confirming the statement to the effect that subsidies would be granted to western farmers so that they refrain from sowing in order to avoid producing a surplus of grain?


Jean-Luc Pepin: That question is really too complex, Mr. Speaker, for a brief reply, but the Minister of Agriculture has repeatedly stated that the income situation of western farmers is now being reviewed by the government.



WASHINGTON MINISTERIAL MEETING-U.S. INTAKE FROM CANADA-SECRET AGREEMENT-ALTERNATIVE SUPPLIES

George Harris Hees: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his capacity as head of the Canadian delegation that has been conferring in Washington. In view of the statement of the Secretary of the Interior of the United States that that country could absorb 500,000 more barrels a day of Canadian oil in addition to the 300,000 barrels which the secret agreement of 1967 permits Canada to export to the United States, did the United States ministers indicate a willingness to increase steadily the intake of Canadian oil so that the upper limit of 800,000 barrels a day can be achieved in the foreseeable future?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, what the members of the United States administration indicated to us is what the hon. gentleman
June 27, 19G9	COMMONS
already knows, that the whole subject of oil import policy and oil policy in the United States is under study by a task force appointed by the President of the United States. Until that task force reports, the United States government does not have a view.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Did they indicate when this task force is liable to report so that we can get on with the job?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. They expect it will be in the reasonably near future. They have welcomed any contribution we can make to the study.	,


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Did the Canadian ministers
express a Canadian oil policy? Did the Canadian ministers put forward to the ministers in Washington Canadian objectives with regard to the export of oil and gas?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We supported the general policies that the deskmate of the present Leader of the Opposition espoused. We continue to follow a national oil policy designed to maximize the output of oil and to maximize our exports to the United States.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Did the Canadian ministers put forward a specific policy or did they simply talk in terms of maximizing exports and the sort of general objective the minister is talking about?


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not know anything more important than to maximize the exports of Canadian oil. I hope my hon. friend will agree with this. It is a desirable objective.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: In view of the answers of the minister to the Leader of the Opposition, I wonder whether I may put a question? I refer to paragraph 10 of the communique which was filed this morning. The last sentence of the paragraph reads as follows:
In this connection, the United States members described the intensive review being undertaken of United States oil import policies.
It does not refer to any intensive research or study of Canada. I think it is time we had an answer to this question. Will the minister now confirm or deny whether there is a secret agreement between the United States and Canada which has been made by the government since the secret agreement of 1967?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have arrangements with the United States which are designed to result in the largest flow of oil across the Canada-United States border that is possible. The hon. member is perfectly aware of this. It is desirable to promote this objective with the maximum agreement from the United States. That is what we are doing.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I put one supplementary question? Will the minister answer the question whether there is now a secret agreement between Canada and the United States which was completed since 1967? If the minister fails to answer, the answer must be in the affirmative.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, there is an open border between Canada and the United States with respect to oil. That is the objective of the Canadian government, to maintain an open border. If the hon. member wants to have that border closed, he can go on talking as he is talking now.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a question of privilege, the minister knows I have never suggested that the border be closed when speaking for that industry in western Canada or any other industry. If the minister was not guilty of so much verbicide and always being so decisive in everything he says, he would be able to give me some of this information.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: A supplementary question with regard to the discussions on oil policy. When these discussions took place, did the minister clearly indicate that Canada had other alternatives failing the admission of additional oil to the United States, such as a pipeline to Montreal?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the United States government knows and we have discussed with them on many occasions that there are alternatives available. It is our view, however, and I hope the hon. gentleman agrees, that the alternative we should choose is the one that results in the maximum output of oil from western Canada.


Max Saltsman: Did the minister make very clear during these discussions that the Canadian government was prepared to go to these alternatives failing access to the United States market?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, if by chance, and I hope this will not happen as a result of some of the irresponsible statements being
June 27, 1960

Inquiries of the Ministry made here today, that happens with the United States market, then we will have no alternative. I hope these alternatives can be discussed in an open and responsible way, and that is what I urge upon the house.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I hope the type of answers given by the two ministers who reported this morning does not reflect that the ministers had a very bad time.


Mitchell William Sharp: I hope the Leader of the Opposition, when he makes comments upon these discussions, will realize that if we are going to make progress with our friends we do not reveal in an open session matters which they discussed with us confidentially.



EXTERNAL AID


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In the light of the renewed threat of mass starvation in Biafra, will the government accept the proposal made by Canairelief and use its good offices with the federal government of Nigeria to get it to accept or permit daylight flights into Uli airport?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have had representations from this organization which I intend to reply to shortly. I just received a telegram. I can assure the hon. member that we have been trying for months to get daylight flights accepted. The preliminary response from Colonel Ojukwu indicates that daylight flights are available with certain conditions. Whether these conditions are acceptable to the Nigerian authorities, we are not sure.



BIAFRA-CANADA-U.S. MINISTERIAL MEETING -TRANSPORT BY SURFACE CORRIDOR

Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweafher@Fundy-Roy-al: During the minister's discussions in Washington, did he discuss with the Secretary of State of the United States what action Canada can take to assist in the United States plan for transporting relief by surface corridor as agreed to by Biafra and as suggested by the United States?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this was not a specific subject of discussion at our meetings.
I did have an opportunity of talking to the
[Mr. Sharp.1
United States Secretary of State on this subject. Moreover, we have been in constant touch through diplomatic means in support of this initiative of the United States.



FINANCE


Mr. J. G. Lind (Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address my question to the Minister of Finance. Is the United States government agreeable to reducing its tariffs on our products in the same proportion as we have done in the Kennedy round of tariff reductions, as announced in the recent budget?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the matter of a reduction of our tariffs by an average of three percentage points on some $2 billion worth of exports was designed for purely Canadian purposes and we sought no quid pro quo. It was designed to help in the fight against inflation in this country. However, I did stress in Washington that we in the Canadian government looked forward to further major negotiations with regard to reduction of non-tariff barriers as well as tariffs in the future.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has made it very clear that machinery cannot be introduced to require importers to pass on these tariff reductions to consumers, would the minister not agree that his move has been a complete failure?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's statement that the 3 per cent reduction in Canadian tariffs was to fight inflation, and in view of the fact that the Americans are also concerned about that problem, did the Canadian government seek any quid pro quo from the United States government prior to the minister making the announcement in his budget speech that Canada would reduce tariffs by 3 per cent?


Edgar John Benson: No, I did not discuss with the American authorities or with anyone else the decision of the Canadian government to take action to fight inflation in this way.
June 27, 1969	COMMONS



CANADA-V.S. MINISTERIAL MEETING-DISCUSSION OF INTEREST RATES AND INFLATION

Mr. Henry Lalulippe (Complon):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Finance. Following the meeting with the United States authorities, does he maintain that it would be possible to find some solutions to the problems of interest rates and inflation, in a tangible way, in the near future?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, at the meeting I was very impressed with the determination of the secretaries present representing the United States government to tackle this problem with all the effort they could put forth, and they in turn congratulated the Canadian government for the work we had already done in this direction.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



CASHING OF OUT-OF-TOWN CHEQUES WITHOUT BANK EXCHANGE CHARGE

Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the great profits that Canadian banks are making and in view of the fact that about 95 per cent of United States banks cash all out-of-town cheques at par, would the minister appeal and recommend to the Canadian Bankers Association that all out-of-town cheques be cashed by Canadian banks without bank exchange being charged?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to bring the hon. member's representation to the attention of the Governor of the Bank of Canada. I think that the benefit of cashing all out-of-town cheques in the United States in the way he has described is offset at least to some degree by the requirement of maintaining balances.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In the light of the very grave concern expressed by a number of represen-
Inquiries of the Ministry tatives of the Indian people with regard to the policy announcement he made in the house the other day will he give a firm assurance to the house and to the country that no steps will be taken until there has been the fullest consultation with the authorized and responsible representatives of the Indian people and, hopefully, a consensus reached?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to give that assurance to the hon. member.
Yesterday afternoon, I spent two hours with some of the leaders of the Canadian Indian Fraternity and we reached an agreement. It is obvious that we will have consultations at the national and regional level in the future, and I am convinced that the Indians will understand that this policy is meant to offer them greater participation in Canadian society.


Mr. R. R. Soufham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In light of the clear request by the Indian people for the right to conduct their own consultations, will the minister say whether he intends to have money made available to the National Indian Council on Indian Rights and Treaties in order that they may carry out their own responsibilities in a way that will ensure the Indian people a greater sense of participation?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we have been having consultations for a year now and we intend to continue having them in the future.
As for the committee mentioned by the hon. member, I can say it will work in cooperation with the new claims commissioner who should soon be appointed. He will be authorized to provide the committee with funds to pursue its work.



INDUSTRY


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whil-by):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
June 27, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry The communique tabled today made reference to the efforts that are being made to extend the automotive pact to related industry which would include special replacement parts, special vehicles, tires and tubes. Have the Canadian unions which would be directly affected by such an extension been consulted on it?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, my department has conducted a series of consultations on these matters with both sides of industry. My officials have accumulated knowledge on this subject which will be taken into consideration in assessing the kind of broadening of the agreement we will be seeking.


John Edward Broadbent: In order that I may be clear on this, Mr. Speaker, did I understand the minister to say that the specific proposals which the Canadian government is making were discussed with the Canadian trade unions affected?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will check to see if this has been done as formally as the hon. member is indicating, but I know there was consultation with the labour as well as the employer side of industry. I have taken part in such consultations myself on some occasions.


John Edward Broadbent: As a further supplementary question, if the minister should discover that these specific proposals have not been discussed with the trade unions will he assure the house that they will be?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would think the question is hypothetical.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce whether there were any discussions regarding the disparity between Canada and the United States in consumer prices for cars, and did the Canadian government make any proposals on how to bring about greater uniformity in prices on both sides of the border, in view of the fact that the auto companies may now move goods across the border without paying any duty?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated that the idea of reducing that disparity is one of the objectives of the Canadian government, but in answer to written and oral questions I have also indicated that this is only one of many factors that have to be

borne in mind in making discussions on these matters.
Mr. Speaker, just to come back to the previous question asked by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, consultation on these matters cannot come to a conclusion with everybody in total agreement. I recall that some people who were opposed to the automobile agreement in the first place are now exporting 60 per cent to 65 per cent of their production to the United States.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the minister says that uniformity of consumer prices of cars was one of the objectives of the agreement? Since this objective has certainly not been reached, has the minister set any tentative date when he hopes to reach this objective?


Jean-Luc Pepin: It has not been reached but the disparity has been regularly reduced.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. J. M. Forresiall (Darimouih-Halifax Easf):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for whichever minister is in the house today answering on behalf of the Minister of National Defence, who was slated to be here, or in his absence whichever minister is supposed to answer for the Minister of Supply and Services, who was also slated to be here today, and is not. In light of the assurances given to the house less than a week ago by the Minister of National Defence that there would be no significant cut-backs in spending within maritime command without prior notice and consultation with the communities involved, can the minister answering today explain to the house and to the people of Dartmouth why there has been a freeze imposed on the Tracker aircraft overhaul and repair program?


Hon. Otio E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to bring the hon. member's question to the attention of the Minister of Supply and Services.


J. Michael Forrestall: When the minister is doing that will he bring to the attention of his other colleagues in the cabinet the fact that a very grave disservice was done to the house, in the light of the minister's assurance that there would be no cut-backs and the fact that cutbacks of a significant nature have followed within three or four days of the minister's announcement?
June 27. 1969	COMMONS


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the ministers will read the hon. member's comment with interest.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DELEGATION FROM VENEZUELA

Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I should like to bring to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of a distinguished delegation from Venezuela led by the Minister of Mines, His Excellency Mr. Perez La Salvia. I should like to welcome these gentlemen.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



TRANSPORT


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. I know he has had to leave the house to meet a commitment elsewhere, so I shall direct the question to the Minister of Agriculture in his capacity as acting Minister of Transport in the hope that he will be kind enough to take it as notice so that an answer may be given on Monday. Is Canadian National Railways at the present time operating the ships on the Borden-Tormentine service at less than capacity as a result of crew reductions that make it impossible for them to comply with steamship inspection regulations, especially with regard to the manning of lifeboats? If this situation exists, can the minister say when it will be rectified?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice.


Mr. Bell:: You are not even supposed to be here.



WATER RESOURCES


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. In view of the fact that weeks ago the minister promised a statement to the house on the pollution problem in Placentia Bay, Newfoundland, and in view of the fact that in today's Globe and Mail there is a report that the Erco plant
Inquiries of the Ministry is expected to announce today the date of re-opening of the plant, when may the house expect a statement on the serious problem of pollution and whether steps will be taken to ensure that adequate protection is afforded to the fishing industry in that area?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minisler of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, the fishermen are catching more top quality fish in Placentia Bay than ever before. The plant will only open on a schedule which is satisfactory to the government.



COWICHAN BAY, B.C.-PROTECTION FROM INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry whether his department has any information that large-scale industrial activity is expected in Cowichan Bay near the mouth of the Cowichan River which as the minister knows, is one of the largest salmon spawning grounds in British Columbia? Are these reports correct and, if so, is the department taking protective measures against the possible dangers to the fishing industry in that area?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, we are looking carefully into the matter, but I would be surprised if the reports are correct.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of what has happened at Placentia Bay, would the minister assure the house that steps will be taken to ensure that the toxic material is taken out of the effluent so that the fish will not be killed?



AGRICULTURE


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kenl-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Minister of Finance. It deals with his statement concerning the 3 per cent general tariff reduction which was discussed with the United States representatives. Would the minister state whether any agreement was reached in respect of the establishment of a practical method of quickly curbing imports from that country if they are found to be creating a great hardship on any segment of Canadian industry or are having an effect on the cost of living and are encouraging inflation?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the matter of disruption of certain Canadian producers applies particularly
June 27. 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry to agriculture. In our discussions with the United States authorities we considered specific actions which might be taken at particular times if our agricultural production would be drastically upset as a result of large imports. We have taken action in this regard from time to time, although it is not the type of action one likes to take, by establishing values for duty, as we did in respect of potatoes some time ago.



NATIONAL CAPITAL


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio in charge of resources. It relates to a situation I mentioned on Monday concerning pollution in the Rideau River and Nepean Creek and arises from a statement attributed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Has the government undertaken to give federal assistance to clear up this situation?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. I have not seen the statement of my colleague to which he referred. The general approach of the government to problems of pollution will be made known at the time of the appearance of the draft of the Canada water act. It is not our intention to give any general undertakings in connection with these matters until that time.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I had a supplementary question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion with regard to what he had said but since he is not here I shall abandon it.



FISHERIES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct this question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. During the minister's recent visit to other countries did he discuss the necessity of reconvening another United Nations law of the sea conference to win international approval for the extension of exclusive fishing zones to the edge of the continental shelf? If so, when may we expect a report indicating that another conference will be called or may be held?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, plans are now being discussed for the calling of another law of the sea conference at which time, of course, we will be pressing our particular points of view. The Soviet Union and the United States, the two principal powers, are prepared for this conference and have certain ideas to put forward, some of which we agree with and others with which we do not agree.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question relating to the discussions which took place during the recent visit to Washington about the law of the sea. Is the minister prepared to say whether or not Canada and the United States are now in agreement with regard to the lines that Canada is drawing with relation to territorial waters?


Mitchell William Sharp: The United States has
expressed some reservations about the lines we have drawn. They have made this quite clear. I do not think that as1 yet we see eye to eye concerning the law of the sea, but that is not surprising. I do not think there are any two countries in the world which see eye to eye on these questions. We hope we will be able to influence the United States in our direction.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I might indicate that we have gone beyond the time allotted for questions. I note that many members this morning have not had an opportunity to ask questions. This is perhaps due to the special circumstances-. I would think, unless there is unanimous agreement of the house that we continue, the question period at this time cannot proceed further. Is there unanimous agreement?


Some hon. Members:: No, no.



SUGGESTION TO SUSPEND SITTING ON MONDAY PRECEDING DOMINION DAY

Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that Tuesday is a holiday, I wonder whether the President of the Privy Council, through the usual channels, would ascertain whether it might meet with general approval if we were to suspend the sitting on
June 27, 1969

Ways and Means
Monday so that we might approach our work in a better mood on Wednesday?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to rise on a point of order. I had a question for the Minister of Transport which I consider to be of an urgent nature. I was hoping that the minister's absence from the house on this his allotted day would be only of a temporary nature. My question is urgent in that it affects-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member cannot seek privileges which other hon. members are not seeking.
Some hon Members: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: He is not the only one. The hon. member must realize there are at least ten other hon. members who did not have an opportunity to ask questions. I would think that all the questions asked during the question period were urgent, as well as the other questions which could not be asked. I suggest the question will have to be asked on Monday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Or
Wednesday.


Mr. Speaker:: It might be in order on Monday for the Chair to look at the back benches before looking at the front benches in order to give an opportunity to hon. members-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: -who do not have the opportunity to which they are entitled under the rules of the house. Unfortunately I do not think it would be in order to allow the hon. member to ask a question at this time in preference to others when the question period is over.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, may I say that if the government intends to require us to sit next week it should at least see that the ministers are in their places and ready to answer questions. For the record I want to say that my spot check shows that on 148 occasions ministers have not been in their places.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house proceeded to the consideration of a ways and means motion to amend an act to amend the Income Tax Act:
Edgar John Benson: That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide that the surtax on individuals and corporations by Part 1A of the Income Tax Act be applicable in the case of individuals to the 1970 taxation year and in the case of corporations to taxable income earned in 1970.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (for concurrence) agreed to.


Edgar John Benson: that Bill C-211, to amend an act to amend the Income Tax Act, be read the first time and be printed.


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


[Stage Direction]
The house proceeded to the consideration of a ways and means motion to amend the Customs Tariff and to make a consequential amendment to the Excise Tax Act.
Edgar John Benson: [Editor's Note: See Votes and Proceedings of June 3, 1969 for text of motion.]


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (for concurrence) agreed to.



Edgar John Benson: that Bill C-212, to amend the Customs Tariff and to make a consequential amendment to the Excise Tax Act, be read the first time and printed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
10710	COMMONS
Regional Development Incentives Act REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES ACT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, June 26, consideration of Bill C-202, to provide incentives for the development of productive employment opportunities in regions of Canada determined to require special measures to facilitate economic expansion and social adjustment, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Regional Development, and motion No. 6, Mr. Burton, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Skoberg.
Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, the minister had just commenced his remarks before the adjournment at ten o'clock. I should like to say a few things concerning this bill but I certainly am prepared to hear the minister first.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, in principle I do not object to the proposed amendment on the order paper, concerning the obligations imposed to the companies. I do not have the same objections which I had, for instance, to the insertion, in the bill, of a provision which would restrict capital investment to underdeveloped areas exclusively, because there would have been some discrimination against underdeveloped areas.
In this case, it cannot be said that there would be any discrimination against underdeveloped areas. If I hesitate so much, Mr. Speaker, it is only because in fact there should be a provision, a general legislation obliging all employers not only to refer to Manpower centres but also to provide a reasonable notice in case of lay-offs.
Anyhow, Mr. Speaker, I am willing to accept the proposed amendment, but it may be somewhat difficult to enforce because when the last amounts have been paid, how shall we manage to compel the employers to respect this provision?
There is something hazy about this amendment but anyhow, I cannot oppose the principle. I would simply have preferred that the matter be dealt with through legislation of a general nature. One may well object: "Very well, pass such legislation and we shall withdraw the amendment." Then, I daresay such a remark would make sense.

DEBATES	June 27, 1969
So, since there is no basic objection and since it may be our fault somehow if the general legislation is not yet before the house, I am not willing in the circumstances to start a debate against that amendment and I shall accept it.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I am happy that the minister has decided to accept the motion proposed by myself together with the amendment moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg), which corrected an error in my motion as first submitted.
I recognize the point made by the minister that in fact there may be problems of enforcement after the total sum of money has been paid out, or after the day of expiration of the legislation, for that matter, on December 31, 1976. I should think, however, that the minister with his ingenuity, imagination and capable staff will be able to give this matter consideration and come up with proposals to be placed before the house providing for efficient guarantees of enforcement of the provisions of this clause together with the amendment.
In my opinion the principle is very sound of requiring companies to adhere to the provisions of this clause which provides that an exchange of information and consultation must take place between companies and the Department of Manpower and Immigration. The fact that consultation is required underlines the point that industry and the economy generally are involved, and that no group of individuals or companies in today's economy can consider their welfare solely but that the welfare of society as a whole must be considered. I believe that the amendment proposed by myself, together with the alteration by my colleague, will assist in assuring a more equitable implementation of the provisions of the bill.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Skoberg) agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the motion as amended carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Burton) as amended agreed to.
June 27, 1969	COMMONS


Gordon Harvey Aiken: That Bill C-202, an act to provide incentives for the development of productive employment opportunities in regions of Canada determined to require special measures to facilitate economic expansion and social adjustment, be amended by inserting in clause 13 thereof, next following subclause (1), the following subclause:
"(2) in keeping with the spirit and intent of this act, the minister shall have regard to increasing productive employment opportunities for persons local to the designated region and, to this end, shall whenever possible encourage and promote the recruitment, training and employment of such persons by the applicant."
He said: Mr. Speaker, it may be that the minister is prepared to accept this amendment because it is very much in keeping with the spirit of the bill and in my opinion is an excellent amendment.
The purpose of the bill is to provide a stimulus to the economy of certain areas where it is needed. The purpose of the amendment is to encourage the employment of local labour by new industry which comes into an area and to express a legislative intention to that effect. As was said by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) last night, we in this party are more concerned about the effects of a new industry upon an area and its people rather than about the industry itself. In that light we approve of the principle of the bill.
The amendment does not lay down specific requirements as to how many people should be employed or what the percentage should be, but it does give direction to the minister, his officials and industries as to the concern of parliament that the areas involved actually receive the benefits. Until now most new industries established in designated areas have been quite reasonable in connection with the employment of local labour. We realize that a new industry must bring key people with it in order to operate a special factory or process because they have knowledge that local people do not, but we believe it would be very helpful if there were an express statement by parliament that local labour should be used to the fullest extent possible. I therefore hope the minister will see fit to accept the amendment.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, if this bill is to fulfil its purpose of providing employment opportunities in designated areas, the minister should be able to accept the amendment without much difficulty. We recently had in my area the experience of $40 million worth of work being 29180-6771
Regional Development Incentives Act carried out by Ontario Hydro, yet the employment situation in the area was not much improved. There are a number of reasons for this. One is the competitive factor which affects contractors who employ certain classes of workers. Ontario Hydro has in its master contract a clause which provides that wherever possible people will be employed from the local unemployment insurance area. This provision has been of great advantage in giving the people the opportunity to apply for jobs in the normal manner with some hope of success.
Difficulty often arises because several unions are involved in projects. I believe the minister should find a solution to the problem of employing local people when unions are involved and the area concerned is far removed from urban areas. It is often almost impossible for local people to get a job because outsiders are brought in to do the work. I believe this is a very important clause. We have been very interested in federal employment practices. Projects have been started in areas which have large native populations. I refer to the Northwest Territories, where little consideration has been given to employing local Indians and Eskimos. If an employer wishes to establish a business in such an area, he should be obliged to employ local people even if it is necessary to train them.
Many industrial complexes which may be established as a result of this bill will, of course, find it necessary to import skilled personnel. I think everyone will agree that in some cases this is a necessity. But I believe the degree to which this is done can be limited and controlled so that there are job opportunities for the greatest number of local people.
This has been a very complex problem when dealing with people who must be trained. I should like to give an example. The contractor on the Ontario Hydro project may need truck drivers. The truck drivers in the local area may have been used to driving trucks with a capacity of up to ten tons, and the trucks used on the project may be very much bigger. Unless local people are trained to carry out these jobs they may not have the opportunity to work. Restrictions may be applied by the employer which make it very difficult for local people to be employed.
The former minister of northern affairs was well aware of this problem. He did not go so far as to have a provision written into master contracts covering all government projects in the Northwest Territories, but on specific
10712	COMMONS
Regional Development Incentives Act occasions he made it a condition of the contract that 10 per cent, 15 per cent or 20 per cent of the employees had to be residents of the areas in which the project was being undertaken.
Members of Parliament should seriously consider this matter. If we are to try to help a given area to expand and achieve a high degree of economic growth, we must consider the employment picture that will be created. If employees are imported into such areas the purpose of the bill will not be fulfilled; auxiliary services and industry that would be created by the establishment of the main project will not come to fruition.
I hope the minister will seriously consider this exceedingly difficult problem. He has1 a great deal of knowledge of the problem caused by the complications of union jurisdiction in connection with this type of project. People employed in skilled trades in northern Quebec and northern Ontario have not had the opportunity to join unions, particularly craft unions, and in many instances when a contract is signed in the initial stages of development it prohibits local people being employed and workers are brought in from other areas. I have found that when the unemployment insurance offices and manpower centres have co-operated they have been able to exercise influence on contractors, subcontractors and many of the craft unions to eliminate what would otherwise become an exceedingly difficult political problem and often a difficult and insoluble community problem.
Because of the minister's experience, he should be aware of the problem and willing to accept this type of amendment. It may be that he can suggest an amendment which would have the same effect as this one. He should be willing to accept this kind of proposition, whether it is put in this form or some other. I strongly urge the minister to accept the amendment.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I wish to record my support of the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald). It is a very important amendment if we are to fulfil the purposes of the bill. Once again I should like to refer to the basic intent and purpose of the bill as set out in its title, which is as follows:
An act to provide incentives for the development of productive employment opportunities in

DEBATES	June 27, 1969
regions of Canada determined to require special measures to facilitate economic expansion and social adjustment.
If this purpose and intent are to be achieved, I believe it is very necessary to make a special effort to ensure that people living in a region which is in need of special assistance are able to obtain employment in any industry established in the region. The bill should be designed in a way that will assure this opportunity to local people.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
I believe that for this reason the amendment is very useful and would be a good safeguard to put into the bill. The minister is given very wide powers in the bill but, as has been noted, certain limitations, conditions and requirements have also been placed in the legislation. Consequently I think that this requirement would be a useful addition in fulfilling the intent and purpose of the bill.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I am most surprised that the minister did not rise to reply and to state his views on the amendment. He is a man who has had wide experience in union and labour work, a man who has compassion for his fellow men, and here we have an amendment put forward by a sincere and dedicated member of the house which indicates his concern with regard to the implementation of the bill. I ask the minister to rise in his place and give his views on this important matter.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, what this amendment does is to ask that I do my job as minister in charge of regional development. The whole purpose of this law is to do exactly what the hon. member is asking-to create more employment and greater local opportunities. Therefore, all the amendment of the hon. member does is to ensure that I do my job. But this is the purpose of the proposed law. My objection to the amendment is that at best it is redundant and, indeed, by confusing the issue it could make the legislation less effective in fulfilling the purpose toward which the hon. member is aiming.
I think we both agree on the principle and objective of the bill. What will we do if, when the bill is passed by the house, we find that before we can give any incentives to employers the law imposes a condition on them? That is the purpose of the amendment. If this is stated in general terms in the bill,
June 27, 1969

does this give, say, a labourer without any skill the right to say to his employer, "you are not going to hire a skilled man from outside even if it is absolutely necessary for the operation of the plant because it is stipulated in the law that you cannot do it"? The hon. member has to take into account that in certain circumstances it would not be wise for the local workers to do that. So I believe we are in perfect agreement on the objective we wish to achieve. This is the very purpose of the law, the purpose of the manpower centres, and this is why they are there. The amendment puts an obligation on the employer to do exactly what is the purpose of the law, but in that case he will have no incentive.
In principle I cannot object to the amendment because it tries to achieve the very purpose of the legislation, which is to create local employment. Therefore I cannot tell the hon. member that his suggestion is contrary to the bill. All I can tell him is that it is redundant. We are trying to achieve this purpose and we will put such an obligation on the employer. However, to place such an obligation in the bill would be tantamount to giving such a right to any local employee, which I think is wrong, and I believe that in certain circumstances even the hon. member would not be in agreement if such a request were made by an employee. We must have flexibility.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the minister at the very moment he was about to reach his conclusions. Is it the wish of the house that the question be put?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to hon. members that this vote be deferred, along with other votes, until two o'clock. If such is the wish of the house, all questions1 which have been deferred will be put after the house has been called) back at two o'clock.
The Royal Assent MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill C-210, an act granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1970.


THE ROYAL ASSENT
[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, it is the desire of the Honourable the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General that this honourable House attend him immediately in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
[DOT] (1:10 p.m.)
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act respecting The Canada Trust Company.
An act respecting The Huron and Erie Mortgage Corporation.
An act to amend the Food and Drugs Act and the Narcotic Control Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Criminal Code.
An act respecting Canadian Order of Foresters.
An act respecting Gillespie Mortgage Corporation.
An act to prohibit the advertising, sale and importation of hazardous products.
An act respecting the production and conservation of oil and gas in the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories.
An act respecting The Perth Mutual Fire Insurance Company.
An act respecting Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
An act to incorporate Atlantic Mutual Life Assurance Company.
An act respecting Nova Scotia Savings & Loan Company.
An act to amend the Patent Act, the Trade Marks Act and the Food and Drugs Act.
An act to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act.
An act to amend the Historic Sites and Monuments Act.
An act to regulate products used for the control of pests and the organic functions of plants and animals.
An act respecting the National Library.
An act to establish the Export Development Corporation and to facilitate and develop export
10714	COMMONS DEBATES	June 27. 1989
Regional Development Incentives Act trade by the provision of insurance, guarantees, loans and other financial facilities.
An act to amend the Income Tax Act.
An act to amend the National Housing Act, 1954.
An act to amend the Fisheries Improvement loans Act.
An act to amend the Criminal Code.
An act to amend the National Housing Act, 1954.
An act to establish a Canadian corporation for telecommunications by satellite.
An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1970.
Mr. Speaker:: It being after one o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of Bill C-202, to provide incentives for the development of productive employment in regions of Canada determined to require special measures to facilitate economic expansion and social adjustment, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Regional Development.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The house will now proceed to the taking of deferred divisions on motions nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 in respect of Bill C-202, to provide incentives for the development of productive employment opportunities in regions of Canada determined to require special measures to facilitate economic expansion and social adjustment, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Regional Development.
The question is on motion No. 1, Mr. Broadbent:
That Bill C-202, an act to provide incentives for the development of productive employment opportunities in regions in Canada determined to require special measures to facilitate economic expansion and social adjustment, be amended, by deleting in clause 2, section (f), all the words after the word "of" in line 13 of page 2, and by substituting therefor the words:
"all forms of industrial activity."


Mr. Speaker:: Since there has been a
negative recorded vote on motion No. 1, I am advised that there may be a disposition to decide motion No. 2 on a voice vote. I wonder whether this is the disposition of the house.
Aiken
Alexander
Asselin
Baldwin
Barnett
Beaudoin
Bell
Bigg
Brewin
Broadbent
Burton
Carter
Coates
Comeau
Crouse
Danforth
Diefenbaker
Dionne
Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands)
Downey
Fairweather
Forrestall
Gauthier
Gilbert
Gleave
Godin
Grills
Gundlock
Hales
Harding
Harkness
Hees
Horner
Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand)


Gordon Harvey Aiken: No, Mr. Speaker, that was not the agreement. After motion No. 2 is disposed of I may have a suggestion to make in connection with motion No. 3.


Mr. Speaker:: The question then is on motion No. 2, Mr. MacDonald (Egmont):
That BUI C-202, an act to provide incentives for the development of productive employment opportunities in regions of Canada determined to require special measures to facilitate economic expansion and social adjustment, be amended, by deleting paragraph (f) of clause 2 and substituting therefor:
(f) "facility" means the structures, machinery and equipment that constitute the necessary components of
(i)	a manufacturing operation;
(ii)	a tourist operation;
(iii)	a service operation;
(iv)	a processing operation other than an initial processing operation in a resource-based industry.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is now on motion No. 3, Mr. MacDonald (Egmont):
That Bill C-202, an act to provide incentives for the development of productive employment opportunities in regions of Canada determined to require special measures to facilitate economic expansion and social adjustment, be amended, by deleting paragraph (b) of clause 4 and substituting therefor:
(b) In the case of a proposal to establish a new facility or to expand an existing facility to enable the manufacturing or processing of a product not previously manufactured or processed in the operation or to expand an existing tourist or service operation, a secondary development incentive by way of additional financial assistance to the applicant for the establishment of the new facility or the expansion of the existing facility for that purpose.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, as this amendment is consequent upon the amendment which has just been defeated on a recorded vote, we would request that a standing vote not be taken.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion. All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
[Mr. Speaker.!


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. The motion is defeated on division.
Motion No. 3 (Mr. MacDonald, Egmont) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is now on motion No. 4, Mr. Burton:
That Bill C-202, an act to provide incentives for the development of productive employment opportunities in regions of Canada determined to require special measures to facilitate economic expansion and social adjustment, be amended, by including in clause 7, subclause 1, the following new paragraph:
"(c) the establishment of a Crown corporation in consultation with provincial authorities would make a more significant contribution to economic expansion and social adjustment within the designated region."


Mr. Speaker:: The question is now on
motion No. 7, Mr. Aiken, for Mr. MacDonald (Egmont):
That Bill C-202, an act to provide incentives for the development of productive employment opportunities in regions of Canada determined to require special measures to facilitate economic expansion and social adjustment, be amended by inserting in clause 13 thereof, next following subclause (1), the following subclause:
"(2) in keeping with the spirit and intent of this act, the minister shall have regard to increasing productive employment opportunities for persons local to the designated region and, to this end, shall whenever possible encourage and promote the recruitment, training and employment of such persons by the applicant."
Aiken
Alexander
Asselin
Baldwin
Barnett
Beaudoin
Bell
Bigg
Brewin
Broadbent
Burton
Carter
Coates
Comeau
Crouse
Danforth
Diefenbaker
Dionne
Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands) Fairweather Forrestall Gauthier Gilbert Gleave Godin Grills Gundlock Hales Harding Harkness Hees Homer
Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand) Korchinski
Anderson
Andras
Badanai
Basford
Beer
Benson
Blair
Borrie
Boulanger
Breau
Buchanan
Cafik
Cantin
Chappell
Clermont
Comtois
Crossman
Cullen
Cyr
Davis
Deachman
Deakon
Dube
Ethier
Lambert (Bellechasse) Lambert (Edmonton West)
Latulippe
Lewis
Maclnnis (Mrs.)
MacLean
McCleave
McCutcheon
McGrath
McIntosh
McKinley
Marshall
Mather
Mazankowski
Monteith
Moore
Muir (Cape Breton -The Sydneys) Nowlan Paproski Peddle Peters Ritchie Rodrigue Rose Rynard Scott Skoberg Skoreyko Southam Stanfield Tetrault
Thomas (Moncton) Thompson (Red Deer) Thomson Winch
Woolliams-71.
++NAYS
Messrs:
Forest
Forget
Foster
Francis
Gendron
Gervais
Gillespie
Givens
Goyer
Gray
Groos
Guay
(St. Boniface) Guilbault Haidasz Hogarth Honey Hopkins
Howard (Okanagan
Boundary)
Isabelle
Jerome
Kaplan
Kierans

June 27, 1969
Division
Lachance
Laing
Lang
Laniel
Leblanc (Laurier)
Lefebvre
Legault
Lessard
(Lac-Saint-Jean) Lind Loiselle
Macdonald (Rosedale)
MacGuigan
McBride
Mcllraith
Mahoney
Major
Marceau
Marchand (Langelier) Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo)
Morison
Munro
Noel
O'Connell
Olson
Orange
Osier
Ouellet
Pelletier
Pepin
Perrault
Pilon
Portelance
Pringle
Prud'homme
Richard
Roberts
Robinson
Rochon
Roy (Laval)
Ryan
Saltsman
Smith (Northumberland-Miramichi)
Smith (Saint-Jean)
Stafford
Stanbury
Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay)
St. Pierre Sulatycky Sullivan
Thomas (Maisonneuve) Trudel
Turner (London East) Turner (Ottawa -Carleton)
Wahn
Walker
Watson
Whelan
Whiting
Yanakis-105.
of the house to revert to motions for the purpose of considering Monday's sitting.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: There have been some discussions following the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that we dispense with the sitting next Monday, and there appears to be a degree of support for that proposal in all corners of the house. Therefore, if there is unanimous consent I wonder whether the following could be made an order of the house:
That when the house rises this day, it shall stand adjourned until Wednesday next, July 2, 1969, at 2 p.m.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.



[Stage Direction]
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
Jean Marchand: That Bill C-202, an act to provide incentives for the development of productive employment opportunities in regions of Canada determined to require special measures to facilitate economic expansion and social adjustment, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Regional Development on Tuesday, June 17, be concurred in.
Motion (for concurrence) agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time, by leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Jean Marchand: the third reading of the bill.


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



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, before we proceed with the debate on third reading of Bill C-202 I wish to ask for the unanimous consent



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Marchand (Langelier) that Bill C-202, to provide incentives for the development of productive employment opportunities in regions of Canada determined to require special measures to facilitate economic expansion and social adjustment, be read the third time and do pass.
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, speaking on third reading of the bill I want to be brief.


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


John Edward Broadbent: I want to be brief because a number of points have already been made, but certainly the members of our party believe that the bill, which we supported in a very fulsome way at the outset, has taken on a somewhat different tone, particularly as evidenced by the emphasis in the supporting speeches of the minister. We supported this bill at the outset, Mr. Speaker, because in our view there are now two major problems in Canada and both are concerned with poverty; one is regional poverty and the other is poverty within the regions of Canada associated with class or occupational groupings. We are
June 27. 1969	COMMONS
pleased that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) should have made this one of the important issues he decided to stress in his election campaign. I refer to the overcoming of regional economic disparities. We supported the government in the establishment of the new department and from the outset we have supported the bill before the house.
The legislation has two important features which constitute improvements on existing statutes intended to deal with regional poverty. First, broad discretionary power is given to the minister. We think this is excellent; it is something which should have been done in earlier measures. It will enable the minister to see to it that firms which do not need special economic benefits do not get them. Second, there is the emphasis placed on the concept of growth centres as the criteria to be used when providing economic assistance. This is something for which the N.D.P. has been arguing for years and we welcome the improvement of this principle as part of the bill.
There is one thing which has been said in the house by the spokesmen for our party and for the Conservative party as well. It is that no significant amount of money has been allocated by the government in its budget to deal with regional poverty. This is a crucial aspect of any meaningful action in this direction. No matter how good the bill is, or how sound it is in general principle, if we do not allocate important amounts of money to be spent on this program there is no real chance of a meaningful start being made next year. I shall not dwell on this argument because it has been made already, as I mentioned.
In addition, we have attempted to do three things by way of amendment at the various stages of the bill. First, we have argued that the notion of a growth centre being restricted to a manufacturing centre is really outdated. We, and members of the Conservative party, have voted on an amendment which would have extended the concepts to include, for example, the service industry and the tourist industry. In our view it is not at all sensible to exclude from the provisions of a bill which is intended to provide a framework for a comprehensive plan for a variety of regions, provision for the financing of the service industry and the tourist industry. Both are important aspects of a modem economy especially as they affect certain regions of Canada.
Second, our party entered an amendment which would have prevented funds going to
Regional Development Incentives Act firms owned or controlled outside this country. We argued that foreign ownership has already gone as far as it should go in this country-to understate the case by about 100 per cent-and that we should not provide public funds to subsidize further takeovers of our economy. I shall not repeat the arguments which I, the leader of my party and the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) have made on this point. I refer members of the government to their own Watkins report and to the speeches made by former cabinet ministers in their own administration. This question is one which is of basic significance to Canada and it is a shame that a bill which has a noble intent, that of reducing poverty in certain areas of Canada, should contain a built-in provision whose effect would be to encourage the further ownership of our economy by those living outside our nation.
The third amendment put forward by this party and voted down by the house would have made specific the importance of Crown corporations in the government's efforts to deal with regional poverty. This is a deliberate and serious part of the approach of the New Democratic party both to the question of regional poverty and to that of foreign ownership. It seems to us there are all kinds of examples in Canadian history and in the history of western European nations, as well as of developing nations, of public corporations being used to stimulate growth and economic expansion. The argument put forward by the leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and by the minister stressed that to exclude foreign owned or controlled firms from the benefit of the legislation would, in effect, be to say that such firms should locate in the already industrially prosperous parts of this country.
Our response to that argument is: yes, it is a probability, but we should provide national leadership on this question by setting up Crown corporations to fill the necessary role when we cannot get enough Canadian capital to move into parts of the country where it is needed. To me, it seems incredible that at a time when other countries of the world, most of them much poorer than Canada, are exercising strict safeguards against the foreign ownership of their economy, we in Canada should go merrily on our way quite unconcerned about this threat. This is not just a negative argument calling for the exclusion of foreign capital. We should certainly encourage foreign investments but this investment should be in the form of arrangements whereby Canadian private or public capital would
10720	COMMONS DEBATES	June 27, 1969
Regional Development Incentives Act exert the controlling interest. Minority shareholding would certainly be welcome, and it is needed in this country.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
Although some of my arguments have been repeated elsewhere, the one I am about to raise has not been. I refer to the very important constitutional question. If this bill is to have the effect that the minister and members of the government wish it to have in removing poverty, it is important for us to avoid a narrow-minded, legalistic and rigid approach to the constitution. The Prime Minister's thinking on the subject has characterized that approach. Anyone examining the Prime Minister's writings on this subject will see that he has adopted the classical eighteenth century view of federalism which is permeated with the idea that there must be rules and regulations governing the strict division of powers. That view ignores the fact that constitutions must reflect social and economic realities. Any constitution with any meaning changes; it changes so that the people living under it may come to grips with their social and economic problems. The minister must persuade other members of the cabinet who may be wedded to the Prime Minister's view to adopt a less rigid approach to the constitution. There must be less rigidly defined lines of responsibility between federal and provincial governments.
The minister must persuade the Prime Minister to yield to his arguments. He must argue for the adoption of a form of co-operative federalism under which the federal government can take initiatives in areas which, strictly speaking, lie within the provincial domain. I do not say we should ignore the constitution. In certain areas, such as those involving schools, roads or hospitals which lie within the provincial domain, the federal government must consult the provinces. I am not advocating arbitrary action; I merely advocate federal leadership. The minister must exercise that leadership throughout the country. The minister touched on the importance of there being federal participation in areas which, strictly speaking, come within provincial jurisdiction.
In this connection may I read from Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence No. 14 of the Standing Committee on Regional Development. At page 286 the hon. member for

Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) is reported to have said:


Max Saltsman: What strikes me as rather significant and important in the program you are bringing forth is that it clearly indicates that the federal government can take the initiative in cooperation with the provinces in any area at all virtually, provided the provinces are willing to have them go along and that the excuse for nonfederal intervention or the federal government not seeking the role in some areas is no longer as valid as it might have been before.
The minister's reply was, "Yes". That was a decisive reply because the minister acknowledged that if his department's plans to help the depressed areas of Canada are to have any real meaning, they must cut across constitutional lines. The minister's department will therefore require the co-operation of provincial governments. I see the minister is shaking his head. Does he disagree? I beg your pardon. The minister is not shaking his head. He agrees. I am pleased to see that. It seems to me that the Prime Minister will have to modify the stand he has taken in this house and outside. In any event, I hope the minister wins this argument and that the Prime Minister loses. I say that for this reason: if the minister does not win the argument the poor of this country will be the losers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Edward Broadbent: That is all I wish to say at this time, Mr. Speaker. My party wishes the minister well and his department well. We consider this bill, by and large, to be good and important. We have made certain suggestions which, if implemented, we think will bring about substantial improvements in this legislation. We shall watch with great care what the minister does and we hope, for the sake of the poor of this country, that he is successful in his endeavours.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate sincerely the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) for his outstanding contribution in committee and for the sincerity with which he has approached the whole problem of poverty in Canada. Hon. members no doubt will have noticed that the hon. member and I are not in complete agreement on all aspects of this matter.
I have been considering this problem for almost five years. One of the first matters I had to consider on coming to the House of Commons was the question of designated areas. The government of that day introduced this stupid program under which they robbed
June 27, 1969
Peter to pay Paul. I have spoken on the subject many times. Many times I and others in my party have told the government it was introducing inadequate legislation; that it constituted a cruel hoax and would not help the people of the depressed areas of Canada. We have gone full circle. Having brought in inadequacy after inadequacy, the government for the first time has recognized that rigid sets of rules will not really solve the problem. We do not need legislation to solve the problem of poverty in this country. All we need is a willingness on the part of the government to allocate resources and funds in a proper way so that the problem of poverty can be wiped out in this country.
I am speaking in this manner because I do not wish to see the minister's power limited more than it has been. When I first spoke on this bill, I said that the minister was being given the powers of an economic czar. Perhaps he needs those powers and, in any event, my remarks were not intended to be derogatory. I said he has virtually unlimited power in this field and complete flexibility. He may now be able to reach his objectives. I point out that from now on we shall not be looking so much at the legislation and saying that one clause needs to be altered here or a few words added there, but we shall be looking at what is done. We shall be looking at the results of the minister's actions and at the willingness of the government to give him backing.
We have finally escaped from the concept of ordinary criteria. When the government adopted so called criteria based on unemployment or growth standards with respect to designated areas, it looked to some of us very much as if the government was trying to avoid decisions. For instance, the government could always say to an applicant, "But your area does not fit into the pattern; it does not exhibit this characteristic or that characteristic and therefore we cannot help you." That was one way of passing the buck. I have seen this sort of thing happening for five years during which the people of this country have suffered because the government did not take a firm stand and solve the problem of poverty. I may be excused for wishing the minister and his program well because at the moment his intentions are not obvious. Everything is so flexible that we feel he needs all the goodwill in the world, not only from the opposition, but from members of his own party in order to achieve some success in this direction.
Regional Development Incentives Act
(3:20 p.m.)
I am pleased to see in this legislation the emphasis on the development of secondary industry. Too many of the disasters of this country can be traced to primary resource development. We have seen industries engaged in primary resource development after a few years leave nothing but a wake of human disaster in their trail. The way this bill is written seeks to recognize that Canada is becoming a secondary manufacturing nation. Primary resource development should not be encouraged; it has to be there anyway and if the inducement to go there is not enough, that is as much as we should do.
While the minister has somewhat neutralized his position regarding primary resource development, if he really recognizes the importance of secondary industry he should have some very detailed discussions with his colleagues about the kind of incentives we are now providing to the mining industry in this country. This industry does not need these incentives, with the result that much capital is being misallocated. If the principle of this bill is to be carried through, the minister should recommend to his colleagues the implementation of the proposals of the Carter Commission on the tax changes and capital depletion allowance.
I agree with the provisions of this bill regarding service industries. In my experience, service industries will go where there is an industrial base. If there is no industrial base, no inducement in the world will bring a service industry into that area. On the other hand, if there is a prosperous industrial base everything else is parasitic, everyone lives from the employment provided by that industry base. A concentration of basic development is needed in this country, not any kind of industrial development, but largely manufacturing development. This is necessary for every part of this country.
It is possible for every part of this country to have secondary manufacturing. I really believe this. I do not think it is necessary to live with the idea that some parts of Canada are good only for mining and tourism. Under a properly organized and planned program, we can all benefit from secondary manufacturing. This should be our purpose. Manufacturing provides the flexibility that is needed in a changing society. It enables people to adapt. It means the capital resources which go into a townsite or community will not be lost because a mine happens to close down or

10722	COMMONS DEBATES	June 27, 1969
Regional Development Incentives Act one industry decides to move to another location. The idea of growth centres, moving the development closer to the people so that they do not have to migrate from the area where they were born or live in order to find employment, is a good concept and one I would encourage.
Having pointed out the great opportunities that exist within the framework of this legislation, let me also say that I intend to be extremely critical if the minister or the government does not live up to the promises before us. It is not enough to have legislation and to have the power. Probably no one recognizes this more than the minister.
If this government is not prepared to allocate a fair share of the resources of this country to this development, this or any other program will fail. How the government demonstrates its goodwill and intentions is by its willingness to spend money on these ideas. To the present time, and certainly not during the committee evidence, there has been no indication that the government is allocating greater resources than before to the problem of depressed areas in Canada.
The second area the minister must deal with, and he must deal with it in cabinet, is the problem of unemployment. If he does not solve the problem of unemployment, the whole development program will amount to nothing. The minister must realize the facts of life in Canada. It is all right to say we are going to bring in industry that does not exist elsewhere, new industry, but that would unnecessarily limit the minister. In any event, he has no way of controlling this. This means industry from the heartland of Canada will have to be transferred to the depressed areas of this country if we are really sincere about helping them. I speak as a member who comes from a highly industrialized area. I think the people in my constituency understand the needs of the people in the Mari-times, Manitoba and other parts of Canada which require assistance and industry.
They will understand this on one condition, if full employment is maintained in this country. There is a grave responsibility on the minister and his government to see that full employment policies are maintained in this country. It is within the power of the minister and the power of the government to see this happens. There can be no excuse for unemployment in a modern world. There is no need for unemployment. If unemployment exists, it is because governments want it to exist.
For this program to be successful and to achieve its objectives, we cannot tolerate 4 per cent or 5 per cent unemployment. We cannot even tolerate 3 per cent unemployment in Canada. When you cut unemployment, the whole business of the willingness of industries to move and contemplate new locations will become easier. It is a prior condition to the success of this program.
My colleagues are very concerned about the fact that much of the industry that may receive bonuses in these areas will be foreign. I agree with my colleagues that this is very sad. This again represents a failure on the part of the government to create an instrument of public control for the development of this country. I say in sadness at this moment that we have no choice because of this gov-renment's past record but to let some foreign companies come in and develop the underdeveloped areas of Canada. As has been pointed out in this chamber many times, it is very hard to say to the poor and unemployed of this country, this is a pad foreign industry; we do not want it. This is pretty hard to sell to a man who needs a job and has a family to look after. We have to accept this situation because we recognize the box into which many of our people have peen put. [DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
But this does not mean we have to go on living with this kind of situation. In this country we must create a Canadian entrepreneur corporation for the development of our resources. When asked a question by a member of his own party about upping the percentage of grant higher than indicated in the legislation, the minister said, "If we have to give more money than that we might as well vote it." I suggest there are very good ways in which Crown corporations could be effectively used to develop Canada, and specifically certain parts of Canada. Many of the vast inducements envisaged by this legislation will go to private industry, and in particular foreign owned private industry. At the moment we do not have any choice because there is no instrument ready to take advantage of this legislation under government sponsorship.
The other failure is a failure in imagination. This failure goes back to the question of crown corporations. It goes back to the question of designated areas all over Canada. It goes back to the government's unwillingness to accept responsibility for establishing crown corporations whereby, for the first time, Canadians would have a basis upon which to judge the success of their government. By

June 27, 1969	COMMONS
turning all this over to private industry, how does one judge the effectiveness of it? When some private industries do not perform well we have to bail them out, yet very little is said about that.
I now wish to make another proposal which to me seems a necessary condition for the success of a development program. It is a proposal to implement a guaranteed annual income. This may seem a rather odd place to introduce this concept but I am convinced it must be done. Only if you provide a guaranteed annual income to take care of the people who must inevitably be displaced under a development program can the program itself be justified in any kind of humane terms. At the moment many industries in Canada survive because of only one thing, and it is called the Unemployment Insurance Act. Let us not make any mistake about whom that act benefits. It is often said that it is the seasonal worker who benefits. People can see the payments going directly to him, but I would suggest he does not get that much from the unemployment insurance fund. It is inefficient industries that benefit, and the act is merely a prop to maintain industries that should not be in existence. The only way these industries exist is through releasing their workers so they become a public cost. If these workers had to be retained, retrained and paid all year, those industries would have to change their ways and become efficient or else go out of business.
In our humane attempt to help people engaged in seasonal employment, we have indirectly created some serious industrial problems. Therefore, it is far better to make direct payments to people so that we can make an analysis of our society and take a good look at these industries that are being shored up by the Unemployment Insurance Act. The truth of the matter is that the largest recipients of charity in this country are some of our industries, not some of our people.
If the minister carries out these suggestions that I have made this legislation can do a very great job. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I recall some words that I spoke when I participated in the debate on this legislation three weeks ago. At that time I called the minister one of the bravest men in Canada. I wished him well because this legislation really puts his neck on the block. He must prove himself. He has power to act. He must prove himself not only in this house but, more importantly, he will have to use his power in
Regional Development Incentives Act the cabinet. He will have to demand those concurrent conditions that are necessary to the success of this legislation.
With the greatest sincerity at my command,
I wish the minister well. He is being asked to do a job in which everyone else has failed. For that reason, all of us most sincerely wish that he will be the exception. I can assure him that we in this party will help him if we possibly can. We want this program to work. We feel deeply about the poverty of people in Canada. The juxtaposition of the rich and the poor is a disgrace to our eyes and an affront to our sensibilities. As I say, we will do everything we can to assist the minister, to provide encouragement, and on occasion stimulation to ensure the success of the program.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I believe short speeches are the order of the day, but after we have all had a chance to get our second wind over the long holiday it may be a somewhat different story next week. I simply wish to make one point to the minister. It arises from questions asked earlier today by the hon. member for Dart-mouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), relating to problems incurred by a defence plant in his constituency. The point I wish to make is that the minister should have the closest liaison possible with other departments of government that have a direct effect upon employment in Canada, particularly in areas that need assistance.
The minister has said that a capital investment of $25,000 per job is a likely rule of thumb with respect to the type of problem he is facing. Using the minister's own yardstick, the lay-off of 40 men can immediately run into a figure of $1 million. I hope that in charting the broad course for helping the poorer areas of Canada the minister will bear in mind that there are other government ministers who can be jogged, who can be asked what their particular departments can do. Since the Fairey Aviation matter is a mixed problem of defence and economics, I do not want to argue the defence aspect of it because I would be immediately ruled out of order. However, I do wish to say we all know that these situations should be given consideration when we are dealing with the spending of taxpayers' dollars.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I should like to dwell on the economic side of this question for a moment and suggest seriously and earnestly to the minister that every day his department operates he not
June 27, 1969

Report of Library of Parliament only ask himself what he can do to better the lot of the people in the poorer areas of Canada but that he not let any other department or any other minister off that same hook.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Motion agreed, bill read the third time and passed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might again have permission to revert to motions to deal with a matter having to do with the Library of Parliament and the report of the Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It has been brought to my attention that if it were possible to adopt the report of the Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament this afternoon, the parliamentary librarian would then be in a position to give a holiday to his staff on Monday and Tuesday next week. Could there be agreement to the following order:
That the Report of the Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament laid upon the Table of the House by Mr. Speaker on Wednesday June 25, 1969 be concurred in.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there has been some discussion with regard to the order of business. I think it might be found there would be some agreement to calling order No. 77 in respect of Bill C-194, to amend the Patent Act.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, if we could complete consideration of that bill in short order, then we might ease the mind of the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski), who has partly delivered his speech, by dealing with the official languages bill if there is time before four o'clock.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I welcome that suggestion.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-194, to amend the Patent Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs) moved:: That Bill C-194, to amend the Patent Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs on Monday, June 16, 1969 be concurred in.
Motion (for concurrence) agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time? By leave now?


Some hon. Members:: By leave now.


Stanley Ronald Basford: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the government house leader, while the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) is in his seat, whether the government intends at the next sitting of the house to give consideration to the area covered by consumer and corporate affairs? In respect of this department, we find ourselves having to deal with a number of standing committees of the house and I believe this to be an unsatisfactory arrangement.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: This might be an appropriate subject for discussion when we consider reconstructing Standing Order 65 with regard to committees. I would be prepared to take up this matter with my colleagues on all sides of the house.


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


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, June 20, consideration of Bill C-120, respecting the status of the official languages of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Special
June 27, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Committee on the Official Languages Bill, and motion No. 6 (Mr. Baldwin).
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to page 10509 of Hansard for June 20, 1969 at which time I mentioned that General de Gaulle did not make his discovery of Canada until 1967. I regret I cannot find any evidence of any Ukrainian of Polish explorers in Canadian history books. But when I see Chirikov listed as the discoverer of Alaska in 1741 that has a familiar ring. In any case, we are all here now and we must make the best of it. We must make this the best country we possibly can.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I say, therefore, that the Canadian people of all races and cultures have a right to have their wishes respected. The constitution that we are dealing with is the constitution of Canada, a federally chartered nation. The constitution is the charter of that nation. It is not, and must not, be a charter for one group or one segment to the exclusion of others. We cannot have a constitution embodying in its structure a principle of discrimination. We cannot have a constitution favouring some to the disadvantage of others. In a free, democratic nation there must be respect for the rights of all and that respect must be embodied in that nation's charter, the constitution.
I think it is a well known principle that Canada is, in effect, a nation with a written constitution, like that of the United States. There is, in fact, no one, all inclusive document. We do have the British North America Act of 1867. But we have a number of other acts, such as the Act of Union of 1841; the Statute of Westminster, the Bill of Rights of 1961 and other similar statutes which can be regarded properly as forming part of Canada's constitutional law. And this bill calling for official language rights will, if passed, become part of the body of constitutional law.
I am rising today in order to put before this house a view of the problem that I feel has been rather neglected. Coming, as I do from a group of Canadians numbering close to one-third of the population-the third force-those neither of English nor French descent, I feel that their views are worthy of consideration for a good many reasons. I feel an obligation as a member of this house to speak on behalf of a very large group among our fellow citizens who, while looking with tolerance and good-will upon the English and
Official Languages
French cultures, are not bound to them by ties of blood or history. I think it is a point of view which needs to be put forward and one which is worth listening to, not because it is my own, but because it is the view of a very large proportion of the people of this country.
We hear a great deal about the English fact and the French fact in this country, but there is another fact, a third fact, which we do not hear so much about; yet it is a very important fact and should not be neglected. It is that there are in this nation nearly 7 million people, or one-third, who are neither English nor French by descent. The figure given by the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism is 26 per cent. I feel that is restricted and comes from a narrow interpretation. When you consider, for example, that the Scots and the Irish are not really English but that they were among the first to be culturally absorbed by Britain as it were, or at least up to a point, you find an interesting picture. Even in this august chamber, it is no problem to find 25 or 30 members who are of neither English nor French descent.
It is not my intention to review at length the statement in the B and B report by Dr. Rudnyckyj on the question of subsidiary or supplementary languages. But I would refer to one or two of his conclusions:
The above considerations led me to the conclusion that there is an objective need to recognize some extra privileges for the languages of ethnic groups in regions where there is a concentration of speakers of a particular mother tongue. I believe that the following languages are spoken by enough people to be considered: Eskimo and Indian in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon; German and Ukrainian in the prairie provinces; Italian in the metropolitan areas of Toronto and Montreal.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Mr. Alexander:: And in Hamilton.


Steve Eugene Paproski: And in Hamilton, the hon. member for Hamilton West said.
This statement by Dr. Rudnyckyj is deserving of careful consideration by this chamber. In another place, he makes a statement which I consider extremely significant and deserving of support by the majority of Canadians.
The category of moderately minded Canadians of non-British and non-French origins, however, shows a remarkable degree of agreement and positive support for constitutional recognition, use, and teaching of the two official languages of Canada from coast to coast, and for a greater degree of official bilingualism in the federal and provincial governments as well as in the public services. These people are firmly convinced of the utility and future survival of the French language in

June 27. 1969
Official Languages
this country. There is no objection on their side to the role of French as the language of instruction in public schools where it is warranted by general demand.
While recognizing and supporting the idea of a broad application of official bilingualism in Canada, the adherents of this attitude foresee the preservation of other ethnic languages in addition to the two official languages in bilingual provinces and districts, and in the context of regional bilingualism (English or French, plus another language) in provinces and districts where uni-lingualism (French or English) now prevails. However, in either case, the adoption of other ethnic languages as subjects of instruction is strongly emphasized.
There is a case, and a strong one, for official recognition by this country of languages and cultures other than English or French, providing they are of interest to a sufficient number of Canadians. I, therefore, feel that in dealing with this matter it is important to establish the basic principles on which we intend to operate.
I would say first, that in Canada the principle must be positive. We should put to one side national or racial prejudice. We should start on the assumption that in this nation, from the Pacific coast to the Atlantic coast, individuals have a right to the language and culture of their choice. We should also establish that it is the function and duty of the federal government to be the watchdog of minority cultural and linguistic rights in this nation, because there is no one in Canada who is not, in some way and under some circumstances, a member of a minority group. Some are in a majority in some areas, but in a minority in others; some control the situation in one region or even a province, but in another province find themselves in a minority. Therefore, no group is in a position to force or impose its will, and the only proper, reasonable and decent method in which to operate is by co-operation, not compulsion.
We in Canada have, as a nation, put to one side the theory of the melting pot, and if we do not want a melting pot nationally it becomes contradictory for certain groups in certain areas to be deemed a melting pot provincially. I may say that no group and no area is free of this kind of an approach, which in my estimation stultifies and destroys everything for which Canada stands. I want to make it clear that in political life there are no instant solutions. We must proceed on a step by step basis. We can only go as fast as the people will let us; but not to go as far as the people will let you is, in my mind, unjustifiable in this country at this time.
[Mr. Paproskl.l
Therefore, I would assume we recognize in Canada the existence of the constitutional guarantees accorded in 1867 to English language and culture and French language and culture. These are the two languages of the 1867 constitution and I propose to refer to them as the constitutional languages. No one wants to change that. I would point out that those guarantees, will last as long as the constitution lasts and as long as the nation lasts. When the constitution is changed or if the nation founders, then a different picture will emerge.
I will not go into the history of the guarantees except to say that English Canada has safeguarded and protected a way of life just as French Canada has. As a result of the constitutional guarantees accorded in 1867, Canada has seen the emergence on the North America continent of the only bastion of French language and culture in America. I attribute this to Confederation, because in the melting pot society, where there were no such guarantees, there was no such emergence.
The question arises today whether these guarantees shall be extended. I think it is quite clear that French Canada entered Confederation on the understanding there would be protection for its language, culture and property laws. That protection was accorded in so far as French Canada existed in any substantial way at that time-the province of Quebec. We are now being told that unless those rights and guarantees extended to French Canada in 1867, in so far as Quebec was concerned-because the two terms at that time were practically identical-French Canadians will no longer be at home in Canada. French Canada now extends outside the bounds of the province of Quebec and this fact should be recognize in an extension of the cultural and linguistic guarantees of the 1867 constitution.
This argument establishes a distinction between French Canada-a linguistic, ethnic and cultural group enjoying certain traditional and constitutional rights in Canada-and the province of Quebec, one of the ten provinces. Without going into the argument whether Quebec is in fact the national, cultural and ethnical homeland of French Canada-because that argument must be settled within French Canada-or whether people in one section can be represented in cultural matters by a government for whom they cannot vote, I feel at the moment that the distinction between French Canada and Quebec is a valid one.
June 27, 1969

Official Languages
Constitutional prerogatives accorded in these world-wide and age old races, cultures, 1867 to a people at that time domiciled in peoples and civilizations? Where shall we Quebec, it they are to be extended across start? Where shall we stop?
Canada, can be accorded to the same people. __	___.
I fail to see how extra-territorial privileges can be accorded to a province involving cultural matters in any other province. This would make of Canada a babble of confusion.
It would result in a cultural balkanization which would destroy national unity.
As Professor Rudnyckyj has pointed out, there is agreement or at least no opposition among ethnic groups to according recognition to French language and culture from coast to coast; not as any special recognition to a province, but as simple justice to 6 million Canadians who in 1867 were given certain guarantees applying to the situation as it then existed. These were guarantees extended to French Canada. The right to the French language in parliament, for example, was not restricted to French speaking members from Quebec but applied to French speaking members anywhere in Canada. Today, there are a number of French speaking members of parliament from various parts of Canada. The partner races of Confederation were English and French, and English is recognized from coast to coast. There is no ethnic objection to the same recognition being accorded to the French language.
Now, what of the ethnic cultures? Can we have in this nation a multi-racial, multi-cultural society with a bi-cultural constitution? I think we can. I think it is a noble experiment worth trying, and one that may lead to success at a time when to all intents the American society is foundering on the rock of racial prejudice. We must at all costs in Canada avoid the destructive, disastrous land mine of racial prejudice. Let us not in our deliberations embrace a narrow, restrictive, biased, partisan and personal approach. Let not our approach be one of shutting out others, but of opening a door to all those who wish to contribute.
I maintain our country is enriched by the beautiful and noble culture of the first Canadians: by the gaiety and passion of French Canada; by the measured dignity of the Anglo-Saxon; by the stern efficiency of the Tutonic races with their poetic imaginations; by the vivid tones of the Celts and the moving processional of 1,000 years of the Slavic people, along with the brilliant, colourful zest of the Italian community; the grandeur and pathos of the Jewish pilgrimage and the beauty and age old mystery of Asia. Are we to shut out of our calculations any of
While recognizing the constitutional undertaking of 1867 and the necessity of extending it to cover the present, is it not more reasonable, more positive and more beneficial as far as all Canadians are concerned to extend the umbrella of recognition to cover our other cultures? I am not, of course, suggesting the constitutional underlining or emphasis of cultures other than English or French. Certainly, the first step in ensuring the progress of this nation is to resolve the question of English and French relationships, but no one should feel this will be the end of all the problems.
Is there any reason why there should not be at the federal level recognition of the validity of our native Indian and Eskimo cultures? Such recognition already exists in a limited way through Indian schools and support of Eskimo art. This is not enough. Those cultures which embrace a sizeable proportion of our population should achieve special federal recognition through a department of Canadian culture having as its function and prerogative the recognition, extension and support of the various cultures which make up the charm, colour and vitality of this nation. This would not require particular constitutional changes at the moment. It could be achieved in a tangible way through an extension of the citizenship activities of the Department of the Secretary of State, which would preserve for Canada the enriching and ennobling aspects of the many forms and varieties of Canadian life and make this country unique among the nations of the world.
I am not suggesting the preservation and support of a particular culture for any reason other than that it is Canadian. When you have half a million or a million or more Canadians caught up in a particular cultural stream, it is a fact worth recognizing. This would apply to the culture of native Canada, French Canada and the many cultures that have been brought to this country and have since made their contribution here. I include the Germanic, Slavic and Italian cultures because their representatives are numerous.
I do not think Canada can in any way suffer by a sympathetic recognition of and creative approach to the many cultures which good fortune has brought to our shores. This

June 27, 1969
Official Languages
is the expansionist, positive, productive approach which makes nations great. We shall not become a great nation by a process of exclusion-by shutting out colour, race, religion or national characteristics. Let us embrace them all. Let us take them to our collective national bosoms, extracting from each the great good their contribution can convey to this fabulous and favoured land.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I earnestly hope the government will consider the amendment which would delete clause 38 of the bill and substitute therefor:
38 (1) The right to speak a language other than either of the two official languages shall not be restrained or restricted in its natural development in any way.
(2) The Governor in Council may by Order in Council enter into an agreement with the government of any province which has been authorized by legislation so to do, for the purpose of encouraging natural development of any such minority language especially as regards the use of such language in matters of education.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order.
It being four o'clock, the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills.


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I believe it would be the general disposition of the house that we proceed this afternoon with items Nos. 6 and 7, that is Bill S-32 and Bill S-39, and after those two bills have been given second reading and referred to committee, adjourn the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the statement made by the parliamentary secretary is a correct reflection of what has been agreed to.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. Ian Wahn (St. Paul's) moved: that Bill S-32, respecting the Canada North-west Land Company (Limited) be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders.

Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (St. Boniface) moved: that Bill S-39, respecting Boy Scouts of Canada and to incorporate L'Association des Scouts du Canada be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders.
Yves Forest: That the house do now adjourn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Pursuant to special order made this day, this house stands adjourned until Wednesday next at two o'clock p.m. May the Chair wish you and yours an enjoyable and happy holiday and hope that on Tuesday hon. members will celebrate with pride our national holiday.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 4.09 p.m.

Wednesday, July 2, 1969