1969-11-05

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-3, an Act to provide for the dissolution of the Dominion Coal Board and for the repeal of the Canadian Coal Equality Act, the Coal Production Assistance Act and the Dominion Coal Board Act, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) 1 should like to table copies, in English and in French, of a short statement issued by United States Attorney General Mitchell and myself following discussions between us in Washington last Monday relating to co-operation between our two countries in anti-combines and anti-trust matters.


Mr. Sallsman:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether there would be unanimous consent of the House to appending to Hansard the statement that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs tabled earlier today.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am most agreeable to that, Mr. Speaker. It is a statement which it might be useful to have in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For text of statement, see appendix "A".]



COLOMBO PLAN


Hon. Miichell Sharp (Secreiary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table for the information of members a copy of the communique issued at the conclusion of the Colombo Plan conference in Victoria last Friday.



BROADCASTING


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, on October 23rd, 1968, I announced that, in order to facilitate the development of educational broadcasting, a task force would be established immediately under my direction. I informed the House that the task force would also be charged with considering and advising on the necessity of interim action pending enactment of new legislation. On March 10th, the government introduced for first reading Bill C-179, an "Act to establish the Canadian Educational Broadcasting Agency, and to make certain consequential amendments to the Broadcasting Act."
Both the province of Alberta and the province of Ontario have indicated the necessity for interim action. In Alberta, a station partly dedicated to educational broadcasting is being set up in conjunction with the CBC. In Ontario, the department and provincial agencies concerned are presently studying means of fulfilling the requests of that province.
As a result of the studies undertaken by all concerned, it has become apparent that significant technological changes have occurred and advances can be expected to continue.
As a consequence, and because of the progress made in the development of interim measures designed to meet specific requests, interim measures designed to meet specific requests in the field of educational broadcasting, and the impossibility of arriving at a general approach satisfactory to all provinces in the field, the government has decided not to pursue the development of the Canadian Educational Broadcasting Agency for the time

November 5, 1969
Educational Broadcasting being, and therefore not to proceed with Bill C-179.
In order to meet the desires of provinces for educational broadcasting, the government has implemented the following measures: (1) The Canadian Radio-Television Commission will be directed, pursuant to section 22 of the Broadcasting Act, that in provinces where the provincial authorities desire cable transmission facilities, as a condition for all new cable licences, and for the renewal of existing cable licences, the licensees shall be required to set aside at least one channel for educational programming. By this action, the government assures access to this mode of transmission for educational broadcasting.
I should note, Mr. Speaker, that this policy is consistent with the policy statement of the C.R.T.C. on the development of cable as issued on May 13th.
(2)	Furthermore, the government has decided that in certain situations, the C.R.T.C. may recommend to the government to direct the C.B.C. to act as its agent pursuant to section 39(2) of the Broadcasting Act, in providing, on a recoverable cost basis, the transmission facilities for educational broadcasting.
(3)	Because of the importance of educational broadcasting, discussions with the provinces in this area, and in particular on the definition of educational broadcasting will be held under the aegis of the Secretary of State. In addition, the Department of Communications will be available to assist provinces that desire advice on technological changes, and will co-ordinate the necessary studies on transmission systems within the government.
The government has decided to continue its policy of not granting provincial governments or their agents broadcasting licences. The government intends to issue a formal direction to the Canadian Radio-Television Commission to this effect.
The purpose, Mr. Speaker, of this new policy is to recognize changes which have occurred in the technology and other related factors, since the initial discussions on educational broadcasting, in the white paper of 1966. This policy will assure provinces the maximum possible choice in transmission facilities.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for

providing me with a copy of his statement in respect of this most sensitive and important field of educational television. If the minister had a seat on this side of the House he might fully appreciate this consideration which enables hon. members here not only to be concise but also constructive in replying. I intend to be both. Having made that general observation, I should like to say that the minister and his task force are apparently carrying on active discussions with the provinces in this field of shared jurisdiction.
There are two matters referred to in the statement which give us great concern. Is this decision not to proceed with educational broadcasting, as set out in Bill C-179, a retreat in principle or merely a review of the federal role owing to the pressures of provincial concerns and the low state of the federal pocketbook? If it is the former, then we must protest strongly about what might be classified as a further erosion of the federal role under this government. We on this side of the House support the principle that the federal government does have a part to play in providing the hardware for the educational television system, reserving always the right of the provinces to set up the software of the system, namely, content and circuits.
Quite frankly, one very good reason we on this side of the House are suspicious of the motivations behind this statement is the reason advanced by the minister that the change in policy as indicated by his statement today is being made on account of technical changes in the field of communications. Of course there are technical changes in this field and there will continue to be changes. It seems to me that since the task force was announced back in 1968 and introduced on March 10,	1969, several technological
improvements and changes have been made. If these changes are to be used as an excuse for inaction and indecision in a field which has been combed and covered by the experts, let alone a parliamentary committee, then the thought that the federal government is going to play a meaningful role in this field in the future is even more remote than the moon once was, and individuals from the United States were able to go to the moon this year.
The other change which causes us on this side of the House concern is that portion of the minister's statement which indicates that whatever develops will be solely under the aegis of the minister. Apparently Parliament and the broadcasting committee will be shoved aside and left in the dark. Surely
November 5, 1969

every member of the House should be concerned. We on this side of the House are justified in criticizing this course of action.
Often ministerial decisions, which are ever-increasing under this government, are remote and isolated. They very often affect Canadians more than many other government decisions, particularly in this case because of the effect on the education of children through the media of television. This is too important a matter to be left to the manoeuvres of the mandarins or the dictates of the minister. Matters of this kind must be considered by the members of this House during meetings of a parliamentary committee.
I said I would be brief, and I am always constructive. There is the question of how long this interim policy is to be continued, if it is an interim policy. There is the question of the criteria to be set out and established and there is the question of the position of school boards. Obviously there are many other questions but they cannot all be answered today. In summary may I say that this statement, as is the case in respect of perhaps most ministerial statements, provokes more questions than answers. We on this side of the House and the people across the land, I believe, are becoming impatient. We await with interest the answers to some of these questions, especially in the field of educational television which has been kicked around long enough.


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley Wesl):: Mr. Speaker, in my first opportunity to reply to a statement on motions I shall attempt to be brief. Unlike the previous speaker I have not had an opportunity to read the statement of the minister. I heard it for the first time in the House.
First of all, I feel that this interim statement is one more example of the lack of any federal leadership in education. I think this is a particularly important problem. Recognizing the constitutional problem surrounding it, the fact is that the development of a cultural identity is one of the most important things we can do and should be doing. We should be extremely conscious of this. Arrangements for educational television are, of course, a part of this development. I believe we should be very conscious of this and should not proceed, as the ministers' statement would seem to indicate, on an ad hoc or piecemeal basis.
The withdrawal of Bill C-179 of last session is a recognition of the fact that technological
Educational Broadcasting changes will probably make broadcasting stations per se redundant and irrelevant. The inroads of cable television are likely to cause this to happen.
I think we must recognize the criticism levelled against ETV by educators across the country that ETV really is a national extension of the teacher on a one-to-one basis rather than an opportunity for individualization of instruction in education.
The non-granting of provincial licences is something we will have to consider. As mentioned by the previous speaker, I believe the Broadcasting Committee should be very conscious of the complete ramifications of this new departure.


Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: First of all, I want to thank the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) for sending us a copy of his statement.
I find it wise on the part of the government not to pursue its study on the establishment of the Canadian Educational Broadcasting Agency. As a matter of fact, the Aird Commission on Radio Broadcasting is quite clear on this subject, as reported on page 11 and I quote:
Certain specified hours should be made available for educational work both in connection with the schools and the general public as well as the so-called "adult education", under provincial auspices.
On page 6 of the same report, it is clearly stated that this matter comes under provincial jurisdiction, and the following recommendation is made:
the establishment and operation of stations by provincial governments.
In the light of this recommendation, it seems necessary that an agreement be previously entered into with provinces in order to do justice to one and all. I think, however, that the Secretary of State's remarks are not clear enough.
At the end of the statement, one can read the following:
The government has decided to continue its policy of not granting provincial governments or their agents broadcasting licences.
And further:
This policy will assure provinces the maximum possible choice in transmission facilities.
How can we have an option when no licence is granted to the provinces?
Mr. Speaker, Canadians can make nothing at all of such a shower of statements. And I

November 5, 1969
Longshoremen's Strike
remind the government that with regard particularly to telecommunications through satellites, Quebec will also have to enjoy exclusive rights in educational matters so that the French culture may be preserved in Canada-just as it is now the case for the English culture-in order that our country may become strong, by seeing to it that the educational field falls within the provinces' jurisdiction, as recommended by the Aird report.
I think that this temporary delay is only an excuse for the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications to assume rights previously granted to the provinces in the field of education and to build in 1971 receiving stations for satellite signals which will pick up programs only on the wavelengths allotted to the provinces by the federal government, even in the case of educational broadcasts.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I propose, pursuant to Standing Order 43 and in view of the fact that no statement has been forthcoming from the government with regard to the situation in the Pacific coast ports, to ask for unanimous consent to move a motion. I will exercise my right under that Standing Order to make a very brief explanation which I hope will move the House to let me move the motion.
The failure of the parties to arrive at a settlement of the industrial dispute involving the Pacific coast ports would now appear to have reached the stage where the public interest is involved, and it is essential that the government discuss with Parliament appropriate action to be taken leading to the resumption of normal activities without prejudice to the rights of the parties involved to continue their negotiations. The vital interests of the people of Canada are being jeopardized by a continuation of the present situation.
The motion I will move, if the requisite consent is given, will be:
That this House urges the government to take such immediate action as may be required to lead to the resumption of normal loading of ships in the Pacific coast ports without prejudice to contract negotiations being continued.

If the House in its wisdom sees fit to grant unanimous approval, I would be glad to discuss with the President of the Privy Council an appropriate time for debate some time later today.


Mr. Speaker:: As hon. members know, the Standing Order under which the hon. member for Peace River proposes to proceed with his motion requires the unanimous consent of the House and it does not provide for a debate. The duty of the Chair, therefore, is to ask the House at this time whether there is such unanimous consent.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, if I had been given notice of this motion when I spoke to the hon. member earlier today I might have been able to consider it, but under the circumstances I would have to refuse consent.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: You are afraid.


Mr. Speaker:: Since there is not unanimous agreement on the part of hon. members, the motion cannot be put.


An hon. Member:: Hatchet-man.
Another hon. Member: No more tips for you.


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


Mr. Lewis:: Yes, Mr. Speaker, you anticipated me. Before we leave motions I should like to inquire whether the Minister of Labour intends to make a statement today regarding the situation on the west coast?


Gerald William Baldwin: I waited until he refused to speak on it.


Mr. Mackasey:: I had not intended to speak on motions, Mr. Speaker. However, I expect a series of questions which I think will cover the situation.


Mr. Woolliams:: He has to be interrogated before he will speak.



INTERPRETATION ACT


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-141 entitled "An Act to amend the Interpretation Act".
November 5, 1969

Questions


Some hon. Members:: Explain.	QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER


André-Gilles Fortin: I should like to thank my colleagues for their favourable consideration of this bill the purpose of which is to delete the references to "Great Britain" and "The Sovereign" in the act and replace them with the phrase "the Parliament of Canada". Of course, my hon. colleagues will no doubt give me their support in that respect.


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


André-Gilles Fortin: for leave to introduce Bill C-142 entitled "An Act to amend the Exchequer Court Act".


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


André-Gilles Fortin: for leave to introduce Bill C-143 entitled "An Act to amend the Air Canada Act".


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


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-144, to provide for the management of the water resources of Canada including research and the planning and implementation of programs relating to the conservation, development and utilization of water resources.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to point out that after a delay of almost four years the government has finally got the water act running downhill.


Mr. Speaker:: That is hardly a point of order.
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)



CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE RESEARCH

Mr. Mather: l.Is Canada co-operating with the United States, Great Britain and Australia in a program of research in chemical and biological warfare, including a study of the development of Napalm and Iroquois, a type of flame thrower?
2.	Is this research of a defensive nature?
3 What proportion of the research results are "classified" information?
4. If the research is defensive, are its findings published and made available for the protection of populations as in Sweden and, if not, for what reasons?


Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1 and 2.
Canada co-operates with the United States, Great Britain and Australia in the carrying out of scientific and technological studies in the defensive aspects of chemical and biological warfare with particular application to the provision of advice and protective equipment for the Canadian Forces should they ever be called upon to operate in an environment in which such agents are used. Flame throwers have not, however, been included in the inventory of weapons provided the Canadian Forces for some years and, consequently, since that time no research has been undertaken or required in flame throwers or flame thrower fuel.
3 and 4. Attention is directed to Hansard dated October 30, 1968 pages 2207 and 2208. When possible, the findings of defensive research are published. For example, during World War II, Canada developed a supply of vaccine against the destructive cattle virus, Rinderpest, and as a result the threat of this disease to livestock in North America has been practically eliminated, and it has been of inestimable value in Asia and India where Rinderpest in endemic. Other examples, are the development of detectors for monitoring ground contamination by chemical agents and gas, and improved gas masks.



CS GAS-PROVISION TO ARMED FORCES

Mr. Lewis: 1.	Are any elements of Canada's defence forces equipped with CS gas or the capacity to deliver it?
2.	Are the Canadian defence forces aware of, or in possession of, U.S. Army publication serial number TC 3-16, which describes the use of gases, defoliants and phosphorus and the systems used to deliver them?

November 5, 1969
Questions


David Walter Groos: 1. CS is a
tear gas used primarily in the Canadian Forces for training personnel who are designated for overseas service, in the use of the protective mask and for testing masks for proper fitting. Some elements of the Canadian Forces, therefore, have CS gas in small quantities for this purpose.
2. Yes.



PENSIONS OF RETIRED ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL

Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg: North Centre):
1.	How many retired Armed Forces personnel are receiving pensions of amounts within each of the following brackets: (a) less than $20.00 per month (b) $20.00 to $29.99 per month (c) $30.00 to $39.99 per month (d) $40.00 to $49.99 per month (e) $50.00 to $59.99 per month (f) $60.00 to $69.99 per month (g) $70.00 to $79.99 per month (h) $80.00 to $89.99 per month (i) $90.00 to $99.99 per month (j) $100.00 to $149.99 per month (k) $150.00 to $199.99 per month (1) $200.00 to $249.99 per month (m) $250.00 to $299.99 per month (n) $300.00 per month and over?
2.	How many widows of Armed Forces personnel or of retired armed forces personnel are receiving pensions of amounts within each of the brackets indicated in the above question?
3.	What is the total number of retired Armed Forces personnel and also the number of widows of armed forces personnel or of retired armed forces personnel presently residing in each province?
4.	In respect of how many orphans of Armed Forces personnel are pensions being paid and what is the average amount thereof?


David Walter Groos: 1. (a) 15;
(b) 70; (c) 250; (d) 299; (e) 334; (f) 321; (g) 540; (h) 756; (i) 924; (j) 3,964; (k) 4,861; (1) 4,664; (m) 3,267; (n) 6,040.
2. (a) 1; (b) 16; (c) 67; (d) 189; (e) 240; (f) 259; (g) 218; (h) 222; (i) 228; (j) 631; (k) 262; (1) 196; (m) 51; (n) 45.
3.	Retired
Personnel Widows
Newfoundland	63	8Prince Edward Island	145	9Nova Scotia	2,587	171New Brunswick	637	87Quebec	2,973	264Ontario	10,631	1,188Manitoba	803	111Saskatchewan	286	51Alberta	1,739	147British Columbia Northwest Territories	5,501	449and Yukon	369	1Outside Canada	571	139
4. 57; $29.87



CANADIAN ARMED FORCES SUPERANNUATION ACCOUNT

Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg: North Centre):
1.	What was the total amount of money in the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account as at (a) March 31, 1964 (b) March 31, 1965 (c) March 31, 1966 (d) March 31, 1967 (e) March 31, 1968 (f) March 31, 1969?
2.	What rate of interest does the government pay for the use of this money?
3.	What amount of interest was credited to the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account during the fiscal years ending (a) March 31, 1964 (b) March 31, 1965 (c) March 31, 1966 (d) March 31, 1967 (e) March 31, 1968 (f) March 31, 1969?
4.	What was the total amount paid out of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account during the fiscal years ending (a) March 31, 1964 (b) March 31, 1965 (c) March 31, 1966 (d) March 31, 1967 (e) March 31, 1968 (f) March 31, 1969?


David Walter Groos: 1, 2, 3, 4.
See Hansard, page 455, dated September 25, 1968, and Return tabled in Votes and Proceedings, page 1264, dated June 26, 1969.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

David Walter Groos: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 59 is acceptable to the government.
PLACE DU PORTAGE, HULI^-CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN NCC AND FORMER OWNERS
Motion No. 59-Mr. Thomson (Balileford-Kindersley):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence between the National Capital Commission and the former owners of Place du Portage in Hull, Quebec.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
David Walter Groos: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions Nos. 38, 48, 62, 63, 64, 69, 70, 71, 72, 87, 88, 89 and 96 are acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents and to the authorization of the government authorities concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that notices of motions Nos. 38, 48, 62, 63, 64, 69, 70, 71, 72, 87, 88, 89 and 96 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
November 5. 1969



CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING RE-OPENING OF COAL MINE AT CARMACKS, YUKON

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 38-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all agreements and correspondence between the Government of Canada and the Anvil Mining Corporation regarding the re-opening of the coal mine at Carmacks, Yukon Territory.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 48-Mr. Mather:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all agreements and correspondence between the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and a Quebec restauranteur regarding the leasing of La Poudriere of Quebec City as stated in the Department's news release of August 14, 1969.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 62-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Government of Canada or any agency, branch or department thereof and the Government of the Province of Manitoba since January 1, 1967 relating to the education of Indians.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 63-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents received by the government or any agency or branch thereof since June 25, 1969 relating to the policy statement on Indian Affairs made in the House of Commons by the Honourable Jean Chretien, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on June 25, 1969.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 64-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government or any agency or department thereof and any provincial government or agency or department thereof since June 25, 1969 relating to the policy statement on Indian Affairs made in the
Motions for Papers
House of Commons by the Hon. Jean Chretien, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on June 25, 1969.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 69-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, or any agency or division thereof and Jacques Guay et associes inc., Public Relations Counsellors, Suite 440, Dominion Square Building, 1010 Sainte-Catherine St. West, Montreal 2, Quebec since March 1, 1969.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 70-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, or any agency or division thereof and International Surveys Limited, 550 Sherbrooke St., West, Montreal 2, Quebec since March 1, 1969.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 71-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, or any agency or division thereof and Williams and Wilson Ltd., Public Relations Counsel and Services, 1161 Melville St., Vancouver 6, B.C. Since March 1, 1969.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 72-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, or any agency or division thereof and Desroches, Jasmin et associes inc., Public Relations Counsellors, 640 Cathcart St., Montreal 2, Quebec since March 1, 1969.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 87-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Department of Indian
[Stage Direction]
November 5, 1969
Motions for Papers
Affairs and Northern Development, or any agency or division thereof and Eugene Steiner Public Relations Ltd., 1330 - 8th Street S.W., Calgary, Alberta since March 1, 1969.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 88-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, or any agency or division thereof and Berger, Tisdall, Clark and Lesley Ltd., Box 61, Toronto-Dominion Centre, Toronto, Ontario since March 1, 1969.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 89-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, or any agency or division thereof and Crockett Writers, Public Relations Consultants, 295 Kensington St., Winnipeg, Manitoba since March 1, 1969.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 96-Mr. Orlikow:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States regarding the Iron Ore Company of Canada and its parent company Hanna Mining Company of Cleveland.
Motion agreed to.
David Walter Groos: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions Nos. 67, 68, 92, 95, 102, 103 and 151. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that the other notices of motions be allowed to stand.



&quot;REPORT OF WORKING GROUP I-INDIANS TO THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE&quot;

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 67-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the document, entitled "Report of Working Group I-Indians to the Executive Committee" which Working Group had its terms of reference set out in February, 1968 and which was formed to examine and outline the problems relating to Indians and to make recommendations concerning strategy, policy and programming.
Mr. Marlin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, no document exists in the general form described in this motion.
The executive committee referred to is that of the Rural Development Branch of the former Department of Forestry and Rural Development. The report did not deal with Indian problems, policy and programming as such, but specifically with how area development problems are inter-related with Indian and Metis problems.
The study was prepared by identified individual officials for discussion with other officials of the federal departments concerned with area development and Indian Affairs, and subsequently with provincial officials, as part of the continuing process of program development at both levels of government.
It is not designed for publication. To do so would be contrary to the public interest, as well as unfair to the particular officials-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest the explanation given by the hon. member goes beyond the narrow limits of the rules and practices of the House. I think the hon. member for Skeena must assume from the speech made by the hon. member that the government will not accept this motion.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, when I put the motion down I did not realize that it would need clarification to this extent. However, I would be glad to let the motion proceed subject to the re-interpretation given by the hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: My interpretation of the declaration made by the hon. member was that the motion was not being accepted.


Frank Howard: I think, Mr. Speaker, that we had better debate the motion on another day.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



DOCUMENTS RELATING TO &quot;GRANTS TO INDIAN BAND COUNCILS&quot;

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 68-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of any document prepared in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development entitled, or relating to "Grants to Indian Band Councils" subsequent to the issuance of Circular No. 15, dated September 18, 1968, which is entitled "Grants to Indian Band Councils".
Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern
November 5, 1969

Development has no record of any document prepared subsequent to the issuance of Circular No. 15 dated September 18, 1968, entitled "Grants to Indian Band Councils". In view of this, would the hon. member for Skeena consent to the withdrawal of this motion?


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, did the hon. gentleman say that the department had no knowledge of such a document? I think we had better put it to the test because I can produce the document.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion transferred for debate.


Frank Howard: But, Mr. Speaker, I do not desire to transfer it for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member dropping the motion?


Frank Howard: Not quite, Mr. Speaker. I should like to put it to a vote.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Parliamentary Secretary asking that the motion be transferred for debate?


Russell Clayton Honey: In view of the remarks of the hon. member for Skeena I would ask that, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion transferred for debate.
ROSE REPORT Motion No. 92-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the Committee Report, headed by Dr. D. C. Rose, on the Queen Elizabeth II telescope, presented to the government in August, 1968.


David Walter Groos: Mr. Speaker, the Rose report is a confidential report sponsored by the Science Secretariat, in its role as part of the Privy Council Office, at the request of the government. It is under active study at the present time and consideration will be given to making the report public at a later date. Under these circumstances 1 would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, obviously the government has not read the report on information tabled yesterday which calls for a freer distribution of information. I certainly will not agree to dropping my motion. I would ask that it be transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
Motions for Papers



COST-BENEFIT STUDY ON RAINBOW TROUT FARMING

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 95-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the cost-benefit study on rainbow trout farming referred to by the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry in the June 23rd press release of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada.
Mr. E. F. Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, notes prepared for the use of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry when announcing the construction of the new Freshwater Research Institute in Winnipeg on June 23, 1969, referred to "other possible methods of commercial trout rearing" which "justify experimentation". To date no cost-benefit analysis of these alternative fisheries has been completed. Since there is no conclusive study or final report available on these "other possible methods of commercial trout rearing", the hon. member may wish to withdraw his motion.


David Orlikow: I do
not, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion transferred for debate.



REPORTS REFERRED TO IN SUBMISSION TO SENATE COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 102-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of each report referred to in the submission of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to the Senate Special Committee on Science Policy on February 26, 1969, listed on pages 4385 to 4387, No. 31 of the proceedings of the Senate Committee.
Russell Clayton Honey: Mr. Speaker, last May 14, 1969, under motion for the production of papers No. 105, most of the documents which the hon. member for Winnipeg North is requesting in this motion were tabled in this House. While some documents were omitted because they are now out of print, the member for Winnipeg North was informed that they are available in the Parliamentary Library. In the circumstances, I would ask that the member for Winnipeg North withdraw this motion.


David Orlikow: agree to the motion being withdrawn, Mr. Speaker.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.

November 5, 1969
Motions for Papers



ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS' FEES

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 103-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all agreements and arrangements on consultant fees negotiated between the Government of Canada and the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada and provincial associations of the Professional Engineers of Canada as mentioned in reply to Question No. 1,256, Tabled on May 14, 1969.
Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works!: Mr. Speaker, this relates to an agreement made between the department and a professional body regarding consultants' fees. It was a verbal agreement so there are no written documents. If the hon. member wishes to press the matter, it would have to be a nil return. Perhaps he would like to drop the motion.
Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: I agree, Mr. Speaker.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING ESTABLISHMENT OF ELECTRIC REDUCTION COMPANY PHOSPHORUS PLANT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 151-Mr. Carter:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence between the Government of Canada, Bedford Institute of Oceanography, and the Government of the Province of Newfoundland or any of its agencies regarding the establishment of the Electric Reduction Company Phosphorous Plant at Long Harbour, Placentia Bay, Newfoundland.
Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, this motion, No. 151, is similar in content to motion No. 204 also put down by the hon. member during the last session. When the motion was called on October 22, the government's response was as follows: "Mr. Speaker, the correspondence requested in this motion which can be produced has already been approved by the acceptance of motions Nos. 198 and 199. In view of this fact I would suggest that the hon. member may wish to withdraw his motion."
At that time the hon. member withdrew his motion and since there has been no change in the circumstances surrounding the motion since that time, I would suggest that he may wish to adopt the same attitude at this time.


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, the information requested in my latest motion was not contained in the reply to the original motion put before the House

by the hon. member, so I must ask that the motion stand and, if necessary, be transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion transferred for debate.
Shall the remaining notices of motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTIONS


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour. Arising from the rejection last night by the British Columbia longshoremen of the proposed contract settlement, what action are the minister and the government now going to take?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I might say that I am rather disappointed that the unions on two occasions have rejected the recommendations of their negotiating committee. The last proposal which they rejected was the unanimous recommendation of their executive committee to accept the settlement proposed just the other evening. Since then I have been in touch with management and labour and a form of action has been agreed upon, but at the moment I am not prepared to reveal it publicly. I would only ask that the House be patient for a few more days. I will be prepared to make a statement not later than Friday.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the grave effects of this strike on the economy of British Columbia, the Yukon and western Canada generally, and in view of the minister's statement a week ago that if a settlement was not reached he would be forced to make use of legislation, for how long is he prepared to let the strike continue without recommending to Parliament some form of legislative action to re-open the affected ports?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman has raised a good point. In these matters there comes a moment of truth. Any Minister of Labour is guided in these matters by jurisprudence and what has happened in the past. I think the hon. gentleman ought to look at what happened in 1958 when
November 5, 1969

the government of the day let a similar strike go on for 34 days. There was also another strike in 1958 affecting the steamship companies in British Columbia. At that time the government, in its wisdom, let that strike go on for 71 days. I think the people of British Columbia know how disruptive any strike affecting the wharves is. They also know that it is not quite as disruptive as a strike in the steamship area.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Without expressing any opinion about the minister's haphazard use of precedents, may I ask whether the statement made by the federal mediator, William Kelly, that there are to be no further mediation attempts by the federal government represents the minister's position?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, on two occasions, as the hon. gentleman knows, we have intervened in the mediation role. In both of our attempts we were successful in obtaining a collective agreement. Unfortunately, in both instances they were rejected by the union. The basic problem, as the hon. member knows and as other hon. members representing ports in this country undoubtedly know, is twofold. On the one hand, we have management wanting, quite logically, to introduce the highest degree of automation possible and, on the other hand, the longshoremen at the same time rightly concerned that this increased automation will substantially decrease the number of longshoremen's jobs. Since longshoremen are averse to any agreement which they think will mean the phasing-out of their jobs, the situation has become quite difficult.
It is not our intention at this time to interfere further in the mediation role. I understand that today and tomorrow management and labour will be holding informal talks in order to clarify the one or two issues which resulted in the rejection of last week. I am hopeful that the difficulties with respect to ratification this time will be considerably less than they were the first time around.


Mr. Harold Winch (Vancouver East):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I, too, have been in touch with Vancouver. Since I understand that both parties to the dispute are looking again at the remaining problems, does the minister not think it advisable that he or his chiefs of staff should proceed immediately to Vancouver in order to aid in removing the last remaining obstacles preventing a settlement of the dispute?
21362-35J
Inquiries of the Ministry


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, perhaps on reflection I may wish I had stayed in Vancouver to see the agreement ratified. I do not wish to mislead the House. The parties to the dispute are reviewing the situation independently. If as a result of that review, which I think will be concluded shortly, they feel that our presence is necessary and can be helpful, then I or members of my department will travel to Vancouver. I would be happy to travel to a province where I know I am welcome. In the meantime, the unions have rejected the proposal but have promised to move grain and also other products for the B.C. lumbermen. I understand, too, that they have agreed to move an emergency supply of apples so that we do not jeopardize a new market in New Zealand.


Harold Edward Winch: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Instead of waiting to be asked to go to Vancouver, does the minister not think that, to minimize any delay, he or his officials ought to go to that city so as to be on the spot?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is very eloquent and persuasive and is one of my favourite members. I am tempted to run out there now-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I am glad that hon. members opposite have such confidence in my ability to settle this affair.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Contrary to the opinions of some, British Columbia is still part of the country, a very important part, and we are able to communicate by telephone with the province. The Prime Minister has stated on several occasions that transportation will be placed at my disposal if it should be necessary. The province is only five hours away by air and I do not think anything is being jeopardized by my presence here. However, I will certainly reconsider the hon. gentleman's request.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-tings):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Babe Ruth of the bargaining table not realize that you cannot hit the ball unless you are standing at the plate?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I did not hear the hon. gentleman's remark,

November 5, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry although I can imagine, to judge by the quality of the questions he has asked in the past month, that it was not really that important.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: Bryce, you have struck out again. You are becoming a fanning fool.


Mark Willson Rose: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the mandatory 12-hour overtime provision violates enlightened employment practices, does the minister not feel that he, personally, or members of his department could assist in overcoming what is probably the major obstacle preventing a settlement?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, that particular matter was settled on my last trip to Vancouver. Many of these rather unenlightened work practices have been eliminated. Quite naturally the longshoremen were afraid that they could be asked to work few 84 hours a week, which in theory was possible. That matter has been rectified. It is now a question of identifying how the various kinds of employees, casual, semi-casual and permanent, will be affected on the waterfront by the attempted change in the working rules, because management insists on certain rights. Once we can pinpoint this effect and assure the longshoremen that the collective agreement will not reduce their work force so drastically, I think we shall have gone a long way to reversing present opinions in the union. We are working to this end now.


David Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister made a slip of the tongue. He talked about assuring the longshoremen about the purpose of the legislation. I hope he meant to say "collective agreement".


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing the hon. member to make that correction, because I have not as yet contemplated legislation. That would be a cabinet decision and I have not made any particular recommendations to my colleagues. When the moment of truth comes we must worry about the economy of the country and about that part of the country serviced by this port. The responsibility here must be borne by the employers and employees as well.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina Easi):: May I ask
the minister whether he made a statement in public prior to the latest balloting by the membership of the union to the effect that if the agreement was not ratified, legislation would be imposed, and if he did make such a statement, does he not consider that it was a threat to the membership?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I must admit I threatened all sides, including myself. I tried seduction, I tried blackmail, I tried every weapon at the disposal of a Minister of Labour to get an agreement. What I had not counted on was the membership rejecting an agreement which had been unanimously accepted by the negotiating team. That was something which had not been expected, and it is a problem which, in the final analysis, the unions themselves will have to solve-what happens to unions, to seven different locals, when they repudiate what is done in their name by a negotiating team and an executive committee in pursuance of their responsibilities. This is something which the unions themselves will have to work out.


THE AUDITOR GENERAL
George Harris Hees: I have a question to direct to the President of the Treasury Board. Has the hon. gentleman looked into the directive from the Treasury Board that the Auditor General reduce his staff ceiling to 239?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: We will get to it. Is the minister reviewing that directive in the light of the statement by the Auditor General that he cannot accept it because-I quote his words- "if the government is going to determine of itself the size and quality of the staff of the Auditor General then they can determine and limit the scope and effectiveness of his work."


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The correspondence to which the hon. gentleman referred has been reviewed. The assumption was made that the Auditor General would wish to be a full participant in the government's program of restraint upon staff expansion in the current year. Consequently, it was proposed to him that his ceiling might well be limited in the same way as those of other government
November 5, 1969

departments, namely, to the number on strength as of July 31. However, as I think we agree, the Auditor General is in a special position and he did, in fact, advise us that he required additional people beyond the number on strength in August. Agreement was reached with the Treasury Board that he should have an increase in his establishment above the figure on strength on July 31 of this year, to the figure of 239. In this sense there has been an initial review of his establishment and he has not been subject to the general guideline set for the government as a whole, because of his special position.
May I take this opportunity to correct a misunderstanding which perhaps I created yesterday in response to a question from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Oh,
no! Don't correct it!


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In reply to the hon. member's question I indicated that the establishment of the Auditor General was approved under the terms of the Appropriation Acts. In fact, the establishment and the manpower figures which appear in the estimates are there merely for information and are not approved or authorized by the Appropriation Acts. I believe this was a misunderstanding which we both shared. In fact, the establishment figures in the blue book are not binding-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: A further supplementary to the Prime Minister. Can the right hon. gentleman advise the House why his government believes that the staff of the man who is the watchdog over government expenditures should be curtailed while his own staff, which generates most of the spending in this country, can be enlarged without limit?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that his question is argumentative.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport.
As the Toronto-Ottawa and Montreal-Ottawa lines of the C.N.R. have been exempted by order in council from the administration of the Official Languages Act,
Inquiries of the Ministry could the minister tell us for how long, in terms of days and years, such exemption has been granted?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: One year, Mr. Speaker.


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Is it the government's intention to apply such exemption to every Crown corporation?


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Could the Secretary of State tell us what policy and criteria were the basis for his recommendation that the government adopt such an order in council exempting the C.N.R. from the obligation to implement bilingualism, particularly on trains running between Toronto and Montreal, as provided in the decree, until 1972?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member could find the reply to his own question if he had another look at the Act, which provides a 60-month period for full implementation. Exemptions are therefore in order, and they are always granted on the basis of the criteria of the feasibility of achieving bilingualism in a given area within a given period, and potential conflicts. The latter criterium, I believe, applies in the case of the C.N.R. who have already signed with their employees a legally binding contract which conflicts with certain provisions of the Act.


Martial Asselin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Did the minister recommend to the Cabinet that other Crown corporations or agencies be granted a similar exemption?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not believe that the hon. member, whom I invite to resume his seat, can be allowed to ask the minister to disclose what was said in conversations he may have had with members of the Cabinet.


Martial Asselin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I might rephrase my question and ask the minister if other Crown corporations or agencies will also be exempted from implementing the policy on bilingualism?


Gérard Pelletier: Some requests have been made, Mr. Speaker, but I would not trust my memory to list them and say which have been accepted. I might give the hon. member that information later, if he wants it.

November 5, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry


SASKATCHEWAN PLAN TO BARTER WHEAT FOR MACHINERY
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: My question is directed to the Prime Minister. It has to do with the plan of the Premier of Saskatchewan to barter $300,000 worth of wheat for certain machinery. Has the government taken any stand against this course and, if it has, can we be told why the government of Saskatchewan should not be permitted to do something which would be beneficial to a small degree in diminishing the tremendous amount of wheat which is now piled up in that province?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I know that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has been talking to the premier of Saskatchewan and I believe he has reported briefly to the House on those talks. If the right hon. gentleman wishes to direct his question to the minister, I can say that he expects to be in the House tomorrow.


John George Diefenbaker: I ask the Prime Minister whether the Premier of Saskatchewan has been in touch with him in this regard and whether he has protested the attitude of the government in endeavouring to throw roadblocks in the way of the government of Saskatchewan in its endeavours to dispose of this wheat?


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


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister intend to sit and sulk like a petulant little boy while important questions of this nature are asked?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Max Saltsman: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It has to do with a reply the minister gave during an adjournment debate regarding the exemption of Old Order Mennonites from the Canada Pension Plan. On July 16 the minister indicated to me that this question had gone to the cabinet for consideration. May I ask whether a conclusion has yet been reached by the government and, if so, what that conclusion is?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minisler of National Health and Welfare):: I expect to be in a

position to announce government policy on this matter within approximately two weeks.


Max Saltsman: It was to be two weeks on the last occasion, on July 16; I hope the minister can assure us that this two weeks will be shorter than the last.


NAVIGATION
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: My
question is intended for the Minister of Public Works. It concerns the statement the minister made with regard to navigation on the Mackenzie River. Will he tell us whether the government is working toward obtaining an agreement with the government of British Columbia to protect downstream benefits, potential hydro development, navigation and wildlife?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: Because of the abnormal draw-down taken by British Columbia Hydro in August and September of 1968 we made representations and they restored, I think, 12,000 second-feet at that time. At the present time we are again making representations to the effect that while the area behind the dam is being filled, as much flow as possible is to be provided to the Mackenzie River.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A supplementary question. Would the minister advise the House whether the government has not insisted, under the provisions of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, that British Columbia obtain a permit and enter into a proper agreement, so that the federal government does not have to go cap in hand every time that province wants to transgress in this regard?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the question as asked by the hon. member has taken the form of an argument.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, this problem is not a simple one but one that is seriously affecting navigation and many other matters. It is a serious area problem, and I submit it is not sufficient simply to dismiss the question. The problem may be argumentative, but the question does require an answer.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not dismissing the problem; it is the hon. member's question that I am dismissing.
November 5, 1969


POST OFFICE
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Solicitor General. It deals with a matter in which I am sure he is deeply interested, namely mail robberies in Montreal, of which there have been three within two days.
In light of the increasing incidence of major thefts of mail, can he advise whether any special measures are being taken by the protective authorities so that mail deliveries, although now unreasonably slow, will remain reasonably sure?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to give a long and informative answer to that question, but I do not feel competent to do so at the moment. I will be glad to look at the hon. member's question to see whether there is an answer that I can give to any part of it.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I am glad to see he is lending an ear. In view of his fervent expression of concern last weekend for people on low income, and in view of representations made yesterday in Halifax to the Senate committee on poverty, is the government now prepared to consider the establishment of an income floor below which no Canadian will be allowed to fall?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think that the question as asked is rather broad in nature. The hon. member is asking for a statement of policy. I doubt very much that the question is acceptable in those terms.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Then, could I put it in
another form? Would the Prime Minister be willing to consider making a statement on motions very shortly about this matter which is concerning a great many Canadians?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is talking about a guaranteed annual income, yes, we have been considering it for some time. I am not in a position to say when a statement will be made, because as a government we are not yet satisfied that this is a realistic step.
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


POSSIBLE REVISION OF AID PROGRAM
André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro).
Since the need for sports and recreation facilities is becoming increasingly urgent in Canada and since such facilities are not subsidized at all under the Fitness and Amateur Sport Program, does the minister intend to review the government policy in this connection during the present session?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, there are certain programs now under review that assist in the provision of facilities. I would remind the hon. member that his statement is not correct. The federal government has shared substantially in the provision of sports facilities across Canada under the aegis of the Canada Games and Pan-Am Games committees during the last few years.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Hon. Hugh John Flemming (Carlelon-Charloite):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Is the minister familiar with the question asked by me one day last week of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice in relation to the apparently discriminatory raid that was recently carried out by officials under the Combines Investigation Act on the premises of the Daily Gleaner of Fredericton? If so, is he prepared to answer it now?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am also familiar with some of the newspaper editorials that have attacked the conduct of my officers.
I should like to inform the house that I have investigated these allegations and I am quite satisfied that my officials, all of whom are professionally trained, comported themselves with complete courtesy to those involved. They acted in a polite and efficient manner and confined their search to matters concerning the ownership and control of the newspapers involved. The search that they were conducting was carried out by these representatives pursuant to section 10 of the

November 5, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry Combines Investigation Act and the statutory-duty of the officers in my department to examine into this sort of matter.


Hugh John Flemming: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I draw to the attention of the minister the latter part of the question that I put last week to the Minister of Justice, which was to this effect: Has the same type of investigation been made of newspapers and newspaper proprietors in other parts of Canada? There was never any question about courtesy. There was never any question about the right of his officials to do what they did. It is the question of discrimination with which I am concerned.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would suggest that we are perhaps getting into the field of debate here. However, the minister may wish to reply to that supplementary question.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, there is no question of discrimination. The Director of Investigation and Research is carrying out his statutory duties which are laid down in the Combines Investigation Act. I do not have in front of me the details of other inquiries, but I do know that the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission has conducted, over the last few years, three inquiries into the proprietors of newspapers.


Hugh John Flemming: A further supplementary question. I should like to ask on whose complaint the investigation was initiated, and whether any complaint has been made with regard to any other newspaper proprietors in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Again, I have some doubt about this supplementary. If it is felt that the minister should reply out of particular consideration for the hon. member who asked the question, then perhaps the minister might be allowed to reply.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the inquiry was conducted pursuant to section 8 (b) of the Combines Investigation Act. As the House knows, under the policy laid down by the former Minister of Justice from Kamloops, British Columbia, it is not the general practice to reveal details of inquiries that are being conducted under the Combines Investigation Act. However, in this case the inquiry was made public by the people being inquired into.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. 
Speaker. May I ask the minister whether a member of the Senate of Canada from the province of New Brunswick is on the board which decided upon that prosecution?


Stanley Ronald Basford: No, Mr. Speaker.



HARBOURS


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to ask the Minister of Transport. I have gone through two earlier Ministers of Transport on this question but I hope I will get an answer from this minister.
Just before the summer recess, I asked the minister whether he would make a statement to the House on the government's plans with regard to a small vessel harbour administration on the British Columbia coast. The minister said at that time that he would do his best to make a statement before the recess. Could he now make that statement to the House?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I might say, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. friend will find it more difficult to go through me than any of my predecessors. However, may I apologize to the hon. member; the statement is not yet ready. The reason is the complexity of trying to work out an equitable solution.
Briefly, I think I can say that we are prepared to do something in this regard. It is a matter of user charges and whether all those wealthy yachtsmen on the west coast of Canada have the right to have these services free or, frankly, whether we should nail them.



FISHERIES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Justice. Is the Minister of Justice now ready to report on the hearings of the Fisheries Committee concerning its investigation into the seal fishery in the Gulf of St. Lawrence?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the last time the hon. member put that question to me I again looked into the matter. I want to be able to report to him in some detail later.
November 5, 1969



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PROVINCIAL MINISTERS

John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, I wonder whether you would allow me to draw to the attention of the House the presence in the gallery of three distinguished members of provincial legislatures; the Attorney General of the province of British Columbia, Hon. Leslie Peterson, the Attorney General of the province of Saskatchewan, Hon. Daryl Heald, and the Minister of Justice of the province of New Brunswick, Hon. Bernard Jean.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Allan B. Sulatycky (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development could advise the House how much longer the residents of Banff, Jasper and Waterton National Parks will be required to wait before being apprised in respect of the average lease value of their properties last summer?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Not
much longer, Mr. Speaker.



INDIAN AFAIRS


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the development in respect of leasing arrangements on Stanley Island in the St. Lawrence, will the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development take appropriate steps to assure that this situation will be remedied and that such exploitation will not continue in the future?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some doubt as to whether the question is in order. Perhaps the hon. member may wish to debate it at the time of adjournment if there is urgency which is not apparent to the Chair.



PUBLIC SERVICE


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker. I should like to direct my question to the
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of Supply and Services, provided I am right in assuming that he is still the minister who gives answers relating to the Public Service Staff Relations Board. If I am wrong, perhaps it might be directed to whichever minister has that responsibility. This question arises from a serious dispute that is brewing among electronic technicians in the Department of Transport. Will the minister concerned inquire into the situation and consider the possibility of making a statement to the House, informing us about the steps being taken to avoid a strike in this area?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the minister involved is the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatchewan. I note that he is to be in the House tomorrow and on Friday. Perhaps the hon. member will ask the question then.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Perhaps this information was given to hon. members of this House earlier when I was not here. The Minister of Supply and Services last session was the minister to whom questions of this type were put. If a change was made the Prime Minister should have informed us.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the information was not given I do apologize to the House. The change was made because, as the hon. member will appreciate, it was preferable to have a Minister without Portfolio and not one responsible for another department to answer this type of question. If notice was not given, I do apologize.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion in a position to tell the House whether negotiations have taken place with the province of Newfoundland with a view to developing a program for that province, and, if so, is the minister now in a position to make an announcement?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I think I answered a similar question a few days ago. We are now negotiating with the authorities of Newfoundland, and of the other provinces, in order to set up projects and programs which will be implemented very quickly during the coming months.

November 5, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry


James Aloysius McGrath: Can the minister assure the House that a statement will be made on this most important matter before the end of the year?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I fail to see why a statement should be made. There will undoubtedly be some information to give the House as the programs are set up with the co-operation of the provinces.



INFORMATION


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancas-ter):: Mr. Speaker, have the Prime Minister and his colleagues taken note of the recommendations of the task force on government information which state there is a specific need for the government to provide more informative replies to questions raised in Parliament than has been the tradition and, if so, what does he plan to do about it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as I said, we plan to announce government policy regarding the task force recommendations before the end of the year. I hope we will be supported by the opposition in respect of these plans in order that we may commence an operation to be called Information Canada. With regard to the questions asked in the House and the answers given to these questions, we will undertake to give more informative answers as soon as the questions become more informative.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, has the Prime Minister, in the meantime, taken refuge in silence, and are his ministers' refusing to answer questions regarding this embarrassing-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I seek the cooperation of hon. members. I should remind them that there are only three or four minutes of the question period left.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple
Creek): Mr. Speaker, I was going to say something about the number of times members in

this row have tried to get the floor to ask questions-
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will assume that the hon. member has not said anything.


Mr. McIntosh:: I should like to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It arises out of the minister's announcement that Canada is to close a number of missions abroad. Will the minister say whether the action taken to close any of the Canadian missions that have been closed or are about to be closed was the result of requests from the countries involved and, if so, have these requests had anything to do with the present efforts of Canada to recognize Red China?


Mitchell William Sharp: The answer to that question is no, Mr. Speaker, unless one were to consider the attitude taken by the Cambodian government toward the International Control Commission as a request for us to withdraw.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is based on the fact that cancer is a disease which annually claims the second highest number of Canadian lives. In view of the important research work being done by the National Cancer Institute of Canada in attempting to eliminate this killer, will the minister assure the House that he has not and will not terminate the government's important financial support to this work, as has been rumoured in various quarters?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, representatives of this very worthwhile organization were in to see me this morning, at which time I gave them the assurance that support would be given next year. I did not give them anything definite as to the amount.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darimoulh-Halifax
East): Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion whether he is in a position to answer the question I asked last week about direct aid or negotiations between authorities in his department and Fairey of Canada, in light of the very serious situation and the plight of a number of families?
November 5, 1969	COMMONS
Jean Marchand: I sent a letter to the hon. member. I do not know whether he has received it. I hope he will receive it soon, since I sent it a few days ago.

In that respect, Mr. Speaker, the only exchanges with my department concern information on what we might do. There was also a meeting with my executive assistant, but nothing more exhaustive than what I have just said.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, toward the end of last session the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs indicated that if the automotive industry increased prices substantially in respect of 1970 models he would undertake to have his department investigate such price increases. I should like to know whether or not such an investigation has taken place and, if not, why not?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I can only refer the hon. member to statements made in the last few days and I would refer the hon. member to those.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would request that the statements-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM


Mr. Roch LaSalle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, which I would like to substantiate by referring to a meeting held in Quebec City last February 20th, when a federal official agreed in principle that labels on Canadian products should be bilingual.
Did the minister reach a decision in that respect and, if so, could he explain?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think this question is urgent, but if the hon. member disagrees, it might be discussed at the time of adjournment.
DEBATES	551
Dissolution'of 1967 Expo Corporation [English]



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the President of the Privy Council, as government house leader, if he will arrange shortly for the organization meeting of the Public Accounts Committee so that the Auditor General may appear and make his case for adequate staff to deal with the countless cases of government waste and extravagance on which he has reported.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce) moved: that Bill C-6, to wind up the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition and to authorize the writing-off of certain costs and the deferral of certain payments connected therewith, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might raise a question concerning what we do under this new regime whereby all the members do not have files of bills at their desks. I confess I have mine, as have a few others, but if we are not to have files of bills at our desks, I wonder whether a copy of a bill that is to be discussed on any particular day should not be placed on members' desks.


Mr. Speaker:: The point is well taken. It was my understanding that copies of the bill would have been distributed, particularly today since the business had been announced previously.
I notice that copies of the bill are now being circulated. The minister might wish to proceed now with his presentation.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The purpose of Bill C-6 is to dissolve the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition.
November 5, 1969


Mr. Valade:: I do not remember what the minister said at that time.


Jean-Luc Pepin: He said it would be sold to the highest bidder! This was what happened. It is my understanding, however, that later on the highest bidder, that is the Societe Urbaine des Transports Rapides Inc., sold the same asset to the city of Montreal for the same price.
There are four major consequences of this method of disposal that was used. The method was slightly different from others that could have been used. The assets could
DEBATES	553
Dissolution of 1967 Expo Corporation have been shared on the basis of the percentage of financial participation of the governments concerned. However, it was made on the basis which I described.


Georges-J. Valade: Will the minister allow me a question, Mr. Speaker, in order to clarify a statement?
As regards the terms of disposal properties and assets on the site, are there not also terms and conditions to be respected as set out by the Bureau of International Exhibitions, concerning the write-off or sale of the buildings?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, after the six-month period which the exhibition is supposed to last, the pavilions must be destroyed, according to what I was told at that time, but the mayor has concluded arrangements under which most of the participating countries have donated their pavilion to the city of Montreal. It is in this context that "Man and His World", which is different from "Expo 67", began. However, from that time on, the federal government was not to be personally involved in the new form that "Expo '67" was taking, that is "Man and His World". It became then the problem of the city of Montreal.
I shall return in a brief moment to an exception to the principle that I have just stated.

One of the consequences of this method of disposal was that the expenses of demolition and of restoring the site to its original condition were eliminated. The expenses of demolition and restoration would probably have exceeded the resale value of materials and other items recovered from the site. This is the opinion of experts. In other words, had we restored the site to its previous state it would have been more expensive. In other words, the deficit would have been higher than $285 million had we gone through the process of selling the assets.
The second consequence of the method of disposal was that it eliminated the costs of the long and complex process of valuation which would have been involved in any attempt to charge each of the three parties for assets acquired. The value of exhibition buildings, roads and other structures after an exhibition is over is related not to their initial cost but to their market value for some future use, which is by no means easy to determine. In the event, it was considered advisable to
November 5, 1969

Dissolution of 1967 Expo Corporation avoid this costly process. In other words, had they said: let us assess what the value of each of these assets is, and then let us divide that amount on the basis of 50, 37J and 12J, we might still be trying to assess the value of, say, a bridge which had been used for six months when we did not know exactly to what extent it would be used after! It was thought by the ministers at the time, good politicians that they were, that there was a better way of dealing with the assets than the very complicated process which was also open to them.
The third consequence of the method of disposal that was followed is that the deficit of the Expo Corporation, in these circumstances, is larger than it would have been if each of the three governments had made some payment for the assets they acquired. Suppose they had managed to assess the value of the properties involved and to distribute them among the government of Canada, the province of Quebec and the city of Montreal so that the federal government would have paid, say, $46 million, the Quebec government $20 million and the city of Montreal $54 million. That would have meant $110 million would have been deducted from the deficit that we now have which is $285 million. But this method was not followed and consequently the deficit is higher than it would have been had the three governments really purchased the assets that are still there. How much larger is an open question because, as I have already explained, the value of these assets was difficult to determine. Moreover, it is important to recognize that while the deficit of the Expo Corporation could have been reduced in this way, the net cost of the exhibition to the three governments would have been unchanged. The only affect would, perhaps again, have been to change the amounts payable by each government towards the net cost.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
For the Government of Canada,-here I am trying to anticipate some difficulties that might be raised-it is by no means certain that payment in full for any assets acquired, plus its share of a reduced deficit, would have been less costly than paying its 50 per cent share of the net cost of the exhibition. Do you understand all that? The disposition of assets on the present basis-"you, the federal government, get this for $1, and you, provincial Quebec government, get that for $1, and you, Montreal get that for $1"-does not change the situation that would have been created for

the federal government had it paid for the assets it got back and also paid 50 per cent of a reduced deficit for the corporation. I hope it is clear now. Anyway you may read it in Hansard tomorrow!
The fourth consequence of the method of disposal used was that the process of retiring the Expo Corporation's debt was accelerated, with a consequent reduction in interest costs and in the total deficit. Indeed, had we adopted the slower method I might not have the privilege and the good fortune of introducing this legislation today.
I do not know if it is true or not, but I have been told that the Paris World Exhibition of 1898 has not yet been wound up! I cannot believe it is true, but this is what I have been told. I say this just to indicate how complicated these things can be if one follows the slower method and if once in a while you do not decide to simplify things.
In short, the method of disposal limited the further escalation of the deficit in three ways, by eliminating demolition and restoration costs in some cases, by avoiding valuation costs, and by reducing interest costs, but still showed the full cost of the exhibition to each government.
The next item is the disposition of liabilities.

After agreeing to dispose of the assets in this way, the three governments concerned themselves with the allocation of the deficit of the Corporation.
An agreement concluded between the governments of Canada and Quebec was put into effect on June 30, 1968, when the deficit was estimated at $285.2 million or at $245.2 million, after deducting the initial grants of $40 million paid by the three parties concerned.
The 37.5 per cent of $245.2 million, that is the share of the deficit Quebec had to assume, amounted to $91.95 million.
To meet its share, Quebec paid $17.5 million of the bank loans in cash and gave Canada $74.45 million of its notes in the form of 48 notes maturing at monthly intervals and bearing interest at 5.46 per cent, the average rate payable on Expo notes.
Therefore, there has been one cash payment and the others were made in the form of 48 monthly notes, each worth approximately $1.5 million. The province of Quebec has since been paying the amounts regularly.
November 5, 1969

In turn, Canada repaid $17.5 million of the bank loans and honoured its guarantees on $74.45 million of Expo notes.
The city of Montreal made arrangements with the federal government in May 1969, and met its share of 12.5 per cent of the $245 million deficit by providing $25.15 million of its notes to the Corporation, and by supplying services to Expo valued at $5.5 million which I mentioned earlier.

So, the city of Montreal has given promissory notes to the federal government to the amount of $25.15 million.
The purpose of section 5 of the Bill I am introducing this afternoon is to stop interest accruing on the outstanding notes of the Corporation payable to the government of Canada. Interest on the Corporation's obligations should cease from April 1, 1969, because the intergovernmental arrangements already explained, although finalized in May 1969, were dated April 1, 1969. Otherwise, interest would be paid twice on the same debt.
It is rather complicated but the committee will be able to look more fully into the matter, if my hon. friends want to.
Let us deal now with the write-off of the federal debts, of the federal contributions to Expo, in short, as I said earlier, of federal investments in Expo '67.
In his explanation of the budget changes before the House on June 3, 1969, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) reported that the final accounting for Expo '67 had been carried out, and that Parliament would be asked to approve by legislation the arrangements made for the settlement of the operating deficits incurred by the Expo Corporation. The federal share of this deficit amounts to $122.82 million; the Minister of Finance proposed that this amount be written off completely as a budgetary charge during the current fiscal year.
Therefore, the purpose of this bill, so to speak, is to settle that account.
Section 7(1) provides for the write-off of Canada's share of the deficit of the Corporation.
It is specified in the bill that the amount should not exceed $125 million. The exact figure is $122.82 million.
This measure does not involve any additional expenditures.
Dissolution of 196 7 Expo Corporation [DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Nothing is being added this afternoon. This bill does not involve any additional expenditures. Its purpose is to strike off from Canada's accounts the share of the deficit of the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition that the Canadian government must make up.
Turning now to another subject, section 7 (2) authorizes the Governor in Council to defer to 1972 payments due from the province of Quebec in 1969-70 in settlement of its share of the deficit of the Expo Corporation.
I shall explain this section.
Following the dispersal of Expo's assets among the participating governments, the City of Montreal established an exhibition on the portion of the site they had acquired, now referred to as "Terre des Hommes", that you may have had the opportunity to visit, Mr. Speaker, and that surely impressed you. This exhibition was held in 1968, at a relatively high cost to the City of Montreal, we are told, especially-and the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade) remembers it well-as the weather was very bad.
Anyhow, in order to reopen the exhibition in 1969, the City of Montreal sought financial support from its former Expo partners. The government of the province of Quebec viewed the additional employment and tourist income which the continued operation of "Terre des Hommes" would bring to the province, and to Canada, of sufficient importance that it undertook to guarantee Montreal's potential deficit in this venture up to a maximum of $5.5 million. In order to make such a guarantee possible, the province requested-and the government of Canada agreed-to defer payments due from the province to the federal government in respect of the province's share of the Expo deficit in a like amount (up to $5.5 million) until 1972, without additional interest.
In other words, as I explained earlier, the province is making monthly payments of $1.5 million. Under this agreement, the federal government allowed the province to defer four of its payments up to a maximum of $5.5 million and that these payments be added at the end of the reimbursement process agreed upon by the province and the government of Canada.
The net cost of the transaction for the federal government will therefore be of approximately $1,100,000. For the coming year, Ottawa will conclude no similar agreements.
November 5, 1969

Dissolution of 1967 Expo Corporation The agreement was to be what La Fontaine would call "a one shot affair".
In conclusion, the bill when voted will allow the winding-up of the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition as a body corporate. The bill protects the rights of the individuals with claims against the Corporation, as well as the rights of the Corporation, by means of a transfer of the appropriate powers to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Paragraphs A) and B) of Section 18 and Sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Canadian Corporation for 1967 World Exhibition Act are not repealed. They refer to the protection of trademarks, symbols and copyrights and exempt the Corporation and its property from the provisions of the Surplus Crown Assets Act.
Therefore, the said provisions of the Canadian Corporation for 1967 World Exhibition Act remain in force, even if the act itself is intended to be repealed.
If I can, I shall table the Annual Report of the Corporation for the year 1968 this afternoon. I hope to have available the number of copies required before 5 o'clock, and immediately after second reading, the bill will be referred to the finance, trade and economic affairs committee, for detailed study.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member for Sainte-Marie has a question.


Georges-J. Valade: I wish to point out to the Minister that in his remarks, he did not refer to "Habitat". He did not specify whether this was considered as a lost investment or whether the government had studied the possibility of charging it against the account of the Canadian Corporation for the World Exhibition or of the Central Housing and Mortgage Corporation. He did not say either whether the benefits deriving from the undertaking would be considered as an asset or a liability in the Corporation's balance-sheet.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of this act, it is enough to say that "Habitat" is part of the federal holding. The question of whether it should be considered as assets or liabilities has no bearing on the bill under consideration.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, to put the purpose of this bill in

words somewhat different from those of the minister, it calls upon Parliament to officiate, in the words of a tag end of verse at the last sad obsequies of Expo. In 1967, we had a big birthday party in Canada and I think everybody recognizes that one of the most important and successful aspects of that was the 1967 World Exhibition or Expo. As world exhibitions go, this was one of the most successful, if not the most successful, ever held.
The minister has made a long and extremely laboured effort to defend the distribution of the assets. His explanation was so laboured and complicated that I doubt if many people understood him. He recommended that members read the report in Hansard, but I doubt if they would even get a clear picture of the situation there.
As I said before, we had a big birthday party and now we must pay for it, and for Expo. I think we in this chamber must examine how the very large amount of money required for Expo was spent to see whether there was waste and extravagance and whether the escalation of cost can be justified. The original estimate put before Cabinet was for a deficit of $40 million and it was agreed that of this the federal government would pay $20 million, the Quebec government $15 million and the city of Montreal $5 million. These grants were made but what was the final result? The Auditor General's report for the fiscal year ending 1968 showed a deficit of $273,500,000, but today the minister tells us that the deficit is now $285 million. In addition, there is about a million dollars in interest on deferred payments from the Quebec government and there is probably some interest due on money which the government borrowed in order to supply funds to the Canadian Commercial Corporation to meet its commitments. I do not see this item included in the Auditor General's report.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I think it is essential that the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, to which this bill is being referred, go thoroughly into the determination of what the costs have been. Although I have seen the figures based on the Auditor General s research up to the end of 1967 and heard the minister speak about them today, I still do not know what the cost is. Actually, the Auditor General himself does not know what the cost to the Canadian taxpayer has been, as I shall show later, nor does he know what the cost will be in the end.
November 5, 19G9	COMMONS
The escalation of costs is symptomatic, I think, of the manner in which the Liberal government has conducted itself during the past six years. The cost to the Canadian taxpayer of Expo was to be $20 million; that cost has escalated to a present known figure of $145 million, which is a seven-fold increase. That increase is greater than for the Arts Centre, which originally was to cost $9 million and wound up costing somewhere between $45 and $50 million. The final cost will be close to $50 million. While the cost of the Arts Centre increased by a multiple of five of the original estimated cost, the cost of Expo escalated by a multiple of seven of the original estimated cost, and we have no explanation as to why these costs should have escalated to such an extent. Why has such a huge deficit finally developed in connection with these undertakings? Certainly, I do not think opposition members of the House are prepared to pass this bill without hearing some satisfactory explanation of these terrific increases in cost which have taken place.
Anyone looking over the Auditor General's report for the year ending March 31, 1968, and reading his comments from pages 32 to 38 and 184 to 188 in connection with the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition will feel his hair stand on end. He will find that things happened which ought not to have happened and that the earlier comments the Auditor General made about the conduct of this Corporation's affairs were ignored. I wish to refer to a number of these incidents, as reported by the Auditor General. Of course, all this shows that if the government wishes to save money it ought to increase the Auditor General's staff instead of decreasing it. If it wants to guard against its own thriftlessness, the government ought to increase the Auditor General's staff.
One of the matters dealt with at page 32 of the report is the inability of the joint auditors-of the Auditor General and the Auditor of Quebec-to express an opinion as to the correctness of the revenues of the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition. The last paragraph on that page of the report reads:
Prior to the opening of the Exhibition, the auditors drew to the Corporation's attention certain aspects of internal financial control that required improvement and certain important decisions... had to be taken-
Then, the report continues:
However ... the joint auditors were unable to express an opinion as to the correctness of revenues aggregating $101,438,000-
DEBATES	557
Dissolution of 1967 Expo Corporation
This situation was communicated by the auditors to the then Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is now I think our Secretary of State for External Affairs, and to the Minister of Industry and Commerce of the Province of Quebec. So, here we have a statement that $101 million was taken in by the Corporation, but there is no proper means of checking the figures. The Auditor General does not know whether the statement of revenue is correct and cannot say how much money may have been lost. The matter was brought to the government's attention at that time but nothing was done. This, in other words, is another example of the carelessness and ineptitude of this government.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question or direct a remark to him. I know how fair he is and I do not think he would respect me if I were not to say that these points were raised and answered before. I will appear before the committee soon and will explain, with the help of my officials, all these matters. I think it would be wrong if we were to leave the impression at this time that the matter has been swept under the carpet, because it has not been.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I am not saying it is under the carpet. It is not under the carpet precisely because the Auditor General brought the matter forward.


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, no.


Douglas Scott Harkness: 
Gerald William Baldwin: They need a trustee in bankruptcy.


Douglas Scott Harkness: On page 186, the Auditor General states in paragraph 228 in connection with the general handling of contracts:
In paragraph 226 of our 1967 Report we pointed out that a number of procedures followed in connection construction projects had the effect of materially weakening financial control. These included amending contracts subsequent to the work having been completed in whole or in part without prior ascertainment of the additional costs involved, making a substantial number of progress payments to contractors without complete verification, and renegotiating bid prices with the lowest tenderer for modified programs without the benefit of competitive bidding. These procedures were continued throughout 1967.
In other words, in spite of the Auditor General having complained about this type of procedure, the government continued to act in the same way as before with a consequent continued escalation in the cost of these things. If we look at some of the costs as far as construction is concerned, we find evidence

November 5, 1969
of terrific escalation. On page 35, the report deals with the cost of Habitat. The estimated cost was originally $11.5 million. It ended up at $22,686,000-an increase of 100 per cent. The report enters into considerable detail concerning the mistakes which were made in letting contracts, the delays which added to the cost, and so on, leading to expenditures on a scale which only the government could possibly stand. In the end, of course, it is the Canadian taxpayer who has to find the money.
I shall not go into further examples. As I say, the detailed comments of the Auditor General on this particular operation take up more than ten pages of his report. They disclose, undoubtedly, that there has been a great deal of carelessness and inattention on the part of the government concerning what was happening. A very large amount of money was wasted. The amount paid out in extra salaries alone totals something well over $10 million, made up of overtime payments made necessary by the poor spacing of work, termination allowances and things of that sort.
The minister talked at considerable length about the way in which the assets have been disposed of so far. I would be interested in knowing the precise nature of the assets, still held by Canada said to be worth between $50 million and $60 million, which the dominion government has received. It seems to me the most iniquitous clause in the bill is clause 6, which deals with the method of the disposal of these assets. It reads:
The minister shall dispose of the assets and liabilities to which this Act applies in such manner as the Governor in Council, with the concurrence of the Lieutenant Governor in Council of Quebec, may direct.
In other words, it is a blank cheque enabling the minister to do anything he wants to do with these assets. I submit this is a clause which should be changed. Parliament should provide that these assets be disposed of to the highest bidder by public tender, or some other arrangement along those fines. It should not be possible for them to be disposed of entirely at the convenience or whim of a minister. It is true that the concurrence of the Governor-in-Council is needed, but we all know the Governor-in-Council is preoccupied by so many things that the minister's recommendation, whatever it is, is likely to be accepted without question.


Jean-Luc Pepin: You should trust me more.

November 5, 1969


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I do not think our system is based upon trusting a minister to do what he thinks best with public money and public assets. Our system is based on control of the executive by the legislature. This is why I am attempting to impress upon the minister the need for control by this parliament over the disposal of these assets, and such control can only be exercised by saying there should be provision for public tenders and so forth.
As to the write-off of $125 million for which the bill provides, I would point out that the minister has not yet, at least in an intelligible way, indicated just how this $125 million is made up. This, too, is information with which we should be provided.
There are a great many more complaints one could make with regard to what was done, and not done, by this Corporation. However, I do not wish to take any more time this afternoon on that subject. I repeat that I trust there will be no disposition on the part of the government to push this bill through the committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs before it has received a thorough examination.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in 1967 we had a big party. Even more than two years later we realize, I think, that it was a tremendous success, that we enjoyed it and that it did something for Canada.
All parties have to be paid for, of course. Sometimes they are paid for in advance, but most often they are not paid for until after they have been enjoyed. It would seem that this is what we are being called upon to do in the bill which is now before us.
The party was a bigger one than we had planned; it cost more, and now we have to foot the bill. One cannot but agree with the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Harkness) that in retrospect there is evidence of extravagance, waste and poor planning which might have been avoided. The Auditor General is a very good witness in this connection. But even after this has been asserted, the fact remains that the bill has to be paid, and the question before us is a very simple one: who is going to pay it? The Government of Canada is obviously taking the position, and so recommending to parliament, that this was a national event, that the mere fact of its location in one part of the country, Montreal-I am referring in particular to Expo-does not mean that the people of Montreal or the
Dissolution of 1967 Expo Corporation people of the Province of Quebec should pay more than their fair share of it. Rather it means that the people of Canada as a whole should pay a major share of the cost of Expo which, as we all recall, was one of the major items on the program for our 100th birthday party.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Therefore, while I cannot but go along with the kind of criticism made by the hon. member for Calgary Centre, I think in all realism we would have to admit that we are now presented with a fait accompli: we are now presented with the bills, and the bills have to be paid.
I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, as I have reminded the House on other occasions, that Expo was not the only national event in our centennial year. There were indeed events of various kinds in every province, in every city, and in many of the towns, villages and hamlets of this country. Moneys were raised in one way or another to finance those celebrations and parties. Most of them, I trust, have been paid for by now; and I share the minister's hope that it will not take us as long to wind up our 1967 events as it is taking France to get over the exposition it held during the last century.
I am sure no one in the chamber has any doubt as to the direction my remarks are taking. One of the other big national events in 1967 was the holding of the Pan-Am games in Winnipeg, or, to use the full title, the Pan-American games. Let me stress the fact that although those games were a much smaller event than Expo, they nevertheless constituted a part, and a very successful part, of the national celebration of our centennial year. Everybody recognized this. It is also a fact that the federal government joined with the government of the province of Manitoba and the city of Winnipeg in helping to pay the cost of the Pan-American games.
Having said that, I think I can add that even two or three years later we still enjoy in retrospect the experience of Expo. It is still true that in Winnipeg we are still enjoying the experience of the Pan-American games, and we are pleased and proud to have in our city such buildings as the Pan-Am pool and other structures that were erected for the Pan-Am games of 1967.
However, just as the actual cost of Expo was greater than its anticipated cost, so the actual cost of holding the Pan-Am games was greater than anticipated. It is the view of all
November 5, 1969

Dissolution of 1967 Expo Corporation of us from Manitoba-I am sure I can say all of us-that just as the government by this legislation is helping Montreal and Quebec to meet the deficit incurred on Expo, so the federal government should assist Winnipeg and Manitoba to meet the deficit of the Pan-Am games.
May I point out without hesitation or qualification that the federal government did in fact pay the full amount in respect to the Pan-Am games that it contracted to pay. Therefore, any request that is now being made for additional money is a request that is made in light of subsequent experience, but this is experience that is precisely the same as that in the case of Expo. The government has stated that what it is doing in the case of Expo is simply writing off debts that are on books; that it is not turning over to anybody any extra dollars or pieces of paper. The bills have been paid and the money has been spent. The federal government is simply saying that it will not require Quebec or Montreal to pay back the debt owed to Ottawa.
The Winnipeg situation is slightly different. The debt is one that is owed by the city of Winnipeg, and if Ottawa is going to assist Winnipeg it means that some further dollars, some further cheques or pieces of paper, will have to be turned over to Winnipeg. But I submit that difference is a pretty technical one. In the long run, it is a matter of dollars and cents, a matter of balancing the books. I further submit that the case for Winnipeg with regard to assistance of this sort is on all fours with the case that is being made by Montreal and Quebec with regard to Expo.
I speak with feeling and concern about this matter. But I am not manning the barricades or shouting at the top of my voice because I dare to believe that the views I am expressing are shared on the government side of the house. I know they are shared by private members of the Liberal party from Manitoba. Back home in Winnipeg, we understand there have been exchanges of correspondence between the mayor of Winnipeg and the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Richardson). It is also our understanding that the Minister of Supply and Services, who is a member of the government from the province of Manitoba, is as concerned about this question as are some of the rest of us. It is my hope that just as some of us are making the case here on the floor of parliament, so is he making the case inside the cabinet.

May I point out that although I talk about a case that is on all fours, a case that is parallel, with that of Montreal, when it comes to the amount of money involved we are talking about two completely different kettles of fish. In the case of Montreal, as indicated in the speech that the minister has just made, we in this House are being asked to write off $120 million odd; in other words, Ottawa's share of a deficit of $240 million, if my figures are roughly correct. In the case of the Pan-Am games the deficit facing the city of Winnipeg is only a little over $1 million. We are talking about peanuts, on the one hand, compared to what is being handed out on the other.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I must say I am having some difficulty seeing how the remarks he is now making are really relevant to the bill before the House. Bill C-6, in its preamble, states that it is an act to wind up the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition. It is with some misgiving that I interrupt the hon. member since he is an expert on the rules, but it does seem to me that when he gets into parallel cases-and the instance he cited may well be a parallel-the rule of relevancy excludes that type of argument.
If the hon. gentleman would like to argue the case, I would be delighted to hear him; otherwise I would prefer that he conclude his remarks on this aspect of the debate.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am really surprised that you have any difficulty procedurally in respect of this matter. You have read a part of the title of this bill. You read:
An act to wind up the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition

You did not read the rest of it which states:
-and to authorize the writing-off of certain costs and the deferral of certain payments connected therewith.
I submit with great respect that if we are being asked to write off certain costs of something that was part of our 1967 Centennial celebration, then I have the right to draw a parallel and suggest that the same treatment-equality of treatment in this just society we are now living in-should apply in other parts of the country.
The agreement under which money was paid to Expo was an agreement concluded between the federal government and the
November 5, 1969	COMMONS
province of Quebec, with Montreal in the picture as well. The money that was paid to the Pan-Am games was paid as a result of an agreement between the federal government and the government of Manitoba, with the city of Winnipeg in it as well. I submit these are parallel propositions.
If we are trying to wind up our 1967 celebrations before 1970, instead of taking 100 years as they are doing in- France, we have the right during these discussions to remind the government of some elements of this situation it seems to have overlooked. It is on that basis that I should like to make this case. If I have not persuaded you procedurally, I hope I can persuade you to be patient by saying I have not much more to say at this time. Perhaps that is more convincing to the Chair than my procedural argument. I gather from your gracious smile that it is.
May I just say that it was shortly after the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) gave us the budget on June 3, in which he announced the write-off of the Expo deficit, that I asked him-it was on June 10 as recorded in Hansard at page 9933-whether he would agree to the same kind of consideration for Winnipeg he had accorded to Montreal. I got an answer, the spirit of which I have already referred to. A couple of questions which I asked later on seemed to leave me in the same position. I had a private talk with the minister at one point toward the end of July during which he suggested I should write him. I wrote him on August 8 and gave him, in the best terms that I could, the facts of the matter. Not having received a reply by September 9, I wrote him again on that day and reminded him of my letter of August 8 and of our previous conversations. On September 15, I got an acknowledgement from Mr. T. K. Shoyama informing me that my letters were being considered and that I would receive a reply later.
By Wednesday, October 29, not having received that promised reply, I raised the matter during the oral question period and the minister replied in these terms, as reported in Hansard at page 242:
If I have not answered my hon. friend's letter yet, I apologize sincerely and will make sure that the answer goes out very shortly.
I still have not received an answer. I still do not intend to raise my voice or shout because I hope that the time being taken indicates that the point is being considered at cabinet level, that the argument I am making does have some merit, and now that we are
DEBATES	561
Dissolution of 1967 Expo Corporation winding up our 1967 costs we will deal not only with this great big one with respect to Expo, but that we will deal with this one that has come to us from Winnipeg.
I will try to draw this to a conclusion. I said that a moment ago, and if I say it again I hope it will keep you, Mr. Speaker, from interrupting me. I should like to point out that there was an agreement between the federal government on the one hand and the provincial and local governments in Manitoba on the other, on April 8, 1965, under which the costs were to be divided: five-elevenths to Ottawa, four-elevenths to the province and two-elevenths to the city of Winnipeg. Later on certain amounts were added because the Pan-Am pool was built and so on. Through the piece there was a pretty good relationship. There was an awareness of the fact that costs would mount, but when the party was held and when all the bills came in there was much more spent than had been anticipated, not astronomical as in the case of Montreal, but enough that the amount now to be paid by the city of Winnipeg is just too much for a city of that size.
There is a deficit in both cases. We are prepared to write off $120 million in respect of Expo '67. I do not object because, as I said before, this was a good party and Canada is better off for having had it as part of its 100th anniversary. But Winnipeg also made a major contribution to the celebrations of that year. It has a deficit of a little over $1 million, and it is help in clearing off this amount that is being sought from the federal government. I hope that favorable consideration is being given to this matter.
I think this is a solid case. It is being pushed by Mayor Juba of Winnipeg and the Winnipeg city council. It is being pushed by all of us who are the Manitoba members of this House. I hope this matter will be dealt with favourably. After all, we are simply asking for fair play.
Let me say again that all of us are a little astounded at the total cost of Expo. It went far beyond what we anticipated. It is also true that our enjoyment was greater than we anticipated. What it amounts to is that we have to pay the bill now that the party is over. If I may allude again to the minister's reference to the situation in Paris, let us not leave out tag ends. If we are winding up the cost of celebrating 1967 in Canada, let us do the complete job. Let us not only do the fair thing for Quebec and Montreal, let us do the
November 5, 1969

Dissolution of 1967 Expo Corporation fair thing for Winnipeg and Manitoba, where we made a major contribution to the celebration of 1967 through the very successful Pan-Am games that were held in my city in Canada's Centennial year. As I have already said, all we are asking for is fair play, and that is why I believe this request is germane to this bill.


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: Mr. Speaker, I will take only a moment of the time of the house. I speak now because I do not think the remarks of the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Harkness) should pass without comment. What he said was that we have an awful hangover. We had a good time at the party and, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said-


Stanley Howard Knowles: had a good time, but no hangover.


Steven Otto: The hon. member for Calgary Centre said we had a good time and an awful hangover because we ate and drank too much. He did not suggest that he was at that party, he just said that we should not have eaten or drunk so much. Surely, he will recall that he was here at the time we encountered difficulties and a threatened labour strike. Members of his party and he himself said we should get the '67 exposition on the road by 1967, not 1968, and the devil take care of the cost.
Questions were being asked daily as to whether we were going to complete the building on time. We finally had to get the late Hon. Robert Winters to take over. It was suggested there was only one way to finish the job on time and that was by working 24 hours a day. We were lucky to finish on time. For one to say now that there was mismanagement is completely out of order. He was one hon. member, along with others, who encouraged this government to get this exhibition ready on time in spite of the cost.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add some comment concerning Bill C-6 being introduced by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin). I would like to say that the previous speaker made uncalled for remarks when he repeated an expression which seemed to come from this side of the House, i.e. "The devil with the cost". Mr. Speaker, I do not feel that this is a case of inaccuracy, but rather a gratuitous assumption by a member looking for an excuse for

a lack of precision on the part of the minister himself.
In any case, I do not want to deal with this question at length here. I would merely like to take advantage of this introduction, Mr. Speaker, to express the most sincere sympathy of all members, and even of all Canadians, to the families of the great builders of Expo, namely the late Senator Mark Drouin and the late Pierre Dupuy, who, in my opinion, have been the cornerstones, the foundations of what has been done at Expo. I take this opportunity to extend to their families my most heartfelt sympathy.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-6 is very specific in its request to Parliament. Indeed, hon. members are asked to agree that the government write off the deficits accrued during the operation of Expo '67. I think it appropriate for me to state, Mr. Speaker, that in my own opinion and in the opinion of the majority of Canadians, Expo '67 has really been the event of the century for Canadians. It enabled us to celebrate adequately the centennial of our Confederation, and to become aware of our Canadian environment, with its differences, its requirements, its greatness and its variety.
On April 7th 1965, the former Progressive Conservative prime minister, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) said, speaking of Expo: "The reputation of the Canadians is at stake". To my mind, that was true: that colossal undertaking, we were staking the reputation of the Canadians.
Obviously, today we agreed to pay the bill, to pay the losses. Parliament is responsible for the moneys entrusted to it by the taxpayers, and it is responsible for giving them an account of the way in which those funds were managed.
It is certainly not encouraging for the public to be told that the government must make up $225 millions in losses. Nor is it pleasant for the citizens of Montreal, and elsewhere in Quebec, to have to pay, in addition to their share of the cost of the undertaking, additional expenses in municipal and provincial taxes.
But Expo was more than a regional achievement. It brought renown to Canada throughout the world; it focused attention on the many talents we had to offer in the fields of engineering, architecture and industry.
I feel that we proved to the whole world that Canada knows how to do things, that we are capable of competing in every field with all the countries in the world.
November 5, 1969
Of course, a deficit adds the already heavy burden the taxpayers must bear through many taxes. But we should not dwell only on the negative aspect of Expo. There is also its positive aspect, that is the various undeniably benefits Canada derived from it. The Quebec government and the municipalities are not without having also somehow benefited by it.
There is no point in emphasizing the benefit, for the country as a whole, of the flow of new visitors invited here on that occasion, who would probably not have come to Canada under other circumstances. We should not forget intangible factors such as encouragement to industry, innovation in the field of employment, and also the important income directly or indirectly accrued to the federal government through taxes levied on building materials and goods sold in Canada during the time of Expo. Had the federal government, however, accepted from the start the suggestions offered by the members, the deficit might have been curtailed. I remember, among others, a suggestion I made to the then minister of Commerce, the hon. Robert Winters. I had suggested allowing for the time of Expo a lottery the profits of which would have helped to meet part of the deficit. At that time the hon. minister had appreciated my suggestion though he did not follow it.
Considering the results of such a lottery in the city of Montreal, I believe that the 50 million people who have visited Expo would have, indirectly though voluntarily, contributed to bring down the deficit we are complaining about today.
The hon. minister was speaking a while ago of the Paris international fair of about one hundred years ago. I would like to remind him that it was precisely on this occasion that the French national lottery was instituted.

This is why I say, Mr. Speaker, that the government tell us about the deficits which they must assume, but rather cleverly, they evade a little too easily the responsibilities that were theirs,, that is, they had to make sure before and not after that these moneys would be spent reasonably.
In order to enlighten a little the hon. minister of Industry and Commerce, who is responsible for Expo to the House, I would like Mr. Speaker, to refer to page 387 for the record of the House of Commons debate of the 28th of
Dissolution of 1967 Expo Corporation January, 1966. I will quote in English the statements of Mr. Winters.

I do want to say, in order that hon. members will be aware of the controls that are exercised, that the act provides that the corporation's expenditures must be approved by the board, the treasury board of Canada, the governor in council of Canada, as well as the treasury board of the province of Quebec and the lieutenant governor in council of the province of Quebec.

That statement, Mr. Speaker, was made a year before Expo 67 operations began. I am coming back to the quotation:

The corporation operates under a master plan which budgets for all expenditures and revenues. Annual capital and operating budgets are approved by the board-
The board of the Corporation.
-the treasury board of Canada, the treasury board of Quebec, and the governor in council and the lieutenant governors of Canada and the province of Quebec. That is quite a gauntlet to run.
I shall continue because I think this is very important:
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
In addition, all expenditures of the corporation exceeding $100,000, or $25,000 where property is being acquired, require advance approval of the board, the treasury board of Canada, the Quebec minister on the advice of the Quebec treasury and the governor in council. I found the control procedures to be in keeping with good sound practices. It might interest hon. members to know that the corporation's operating procedures have been patterned on those of government departments and crown corporations and conform to the best practices of private enterprise.

Mr. Speaker, the government should see to it that the amounts are spent in an orderly and responsible way. The former minister had given us the assurance that the government would exercise a more efficient control on the Crown Corporations' administration. That was said a year before Expo. We have now come to the winding up of that company's assets, properties and securities, and the minister says that the Auditor General had made those remarks, I believe, once the Exhibition was over and that the government had done the utmost to make sure that the amounts would be properly spent.
That is why I refer to the Auditor General's report, pages 32 and 33, and more particularly to paragraph 65, that shows precisely that the

November 5, 1969

Dissolution of 1967 Expo Corporation government acted contrarily to the guarantee given by the former minister, Mr. Winters.
I quote the second paragraph of section 65: Prior to the opening of the Exhibition, the auditors drew to the Corporation's attention certain aspects of internal financial control that required improvement and certain important decisions that had to be taken before the opening of the Exhibition with respect to the procedures to be followed during the Exhibition for the handling of the substantial amounts of cash and the recording of revenues from admission passports, tickets, parking fees and other sources.
Mr. Speaker, while we can neither blame nor praise the government for having carried out a project which had been embarked upon and which was to be the crowning achievement of the century, the government is nevertheless responsible for the way it manages public property. We find that, in this case, public property was not under the control of the present government, or that it did not keep the promises made a year earlier by the predecessor of the present minister.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, if the hon.
member will allow me, I would say that answers were given to the Auditor General as regards the points he mentioned. As for myself-and the officials who will appear before the committee could say the same thing-I am prepared to answer each of these questions.
A moment ago I was discussing this matter with the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Harkness). All I ask is that the government not be found guilty before getting a hearing. The fact that the previous speaker does not accept the answer given by the government does not mean that there is no answer. In connection with the remarks of the previous speaker, I can answer that only $97,000 have not been accounted for, which is an exceedingly small percentage, a "record" percentage, in a venture of that kind, if one recalls that an amount of $107 million is involved.
I will answer all these questions before the committee. However, one should not infer that the government did not answer, or had no answer to offer.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for those particulars. I am not talking about the amounts which cannot be traced or have not been satisfactorily accounted for in this report, although they will be at the parliamentary committee, according to the minister, but I say that certain sums of money which were spent, and many of which are

presented to us in the form of a general balance-sheet, escaped government control. Perhaps the minister will allow me to prove my point by giving concrete examples.
1 will first deal with Habitat 67 which is mentioned in page 40 of the Auditor general's report. As my colleague was saying a minute ago, this undertaking which had first been estimated at $11 million finally cost $17,982,000. The point I want to make is that when this program was developed the government did not exercise the necessary supervision to ensure that the money would be well spent and that the contractors would receive a lump sum after completion of the project. It was content with foreseeing in a general way the carrying out of the operations. And I am most upset as regards Habitat which I consider a monstrous extravagance. Certainly this question should have been put before the minister in charge at the time, I find it extravagant that $1,891,000 should have been paid in professional fees for the plans and estimates of this project alone.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
If the government finds it normal that we should pay $1,891,000 to build such a monster, what I would like to know from the minister is whether this expense was made with the preliminary consent of the government or whether the government is now facing an accomplished fact and is simply bound to pay the shot?
According to Volume III of the Public Accounts of Canada, (1968), details on the assets of the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 world exhibition show terrific increases in the related expenses.
I want to refer to page 30 of Volume III of the Public Accounts, under the item "Personnel Expenses". We find that the amount of $9,273,307, earmarked for 1967 salaries finally totalled $28,091,629.
For administration purposes, legal fees amounting to $65,157 had been provided for. However, they actually came up to $291,698. A surplus of some $230,000 was apparently paid in legal charges.
I imagine the Corporation of the World Exhibition resorted to the services of counsels. The committee should try to find out why there was such an overpayment in fees.
We will also find, on page 31 of the Public Accounts, in Schedule 2, the items listed under the heading "Advertising and Publicity
November 5, 1969

Costs". This definition is quite vague, and I do not want to deal so much with commercial advertising as with consumer advertising. Expenditures went up from $2,127,177 to $7,439,999.
And further on, under the same heading, the item Consumer Advertising was added, and further below, the item Information.
The funds granted under this item went up from $2,655,000 to $5,616,000. I wonder if there is a difference between publicity and information or whether information and publicity are different for accounting purposes. However, I feel that when we add up all those figures under the item publicity, the total of $9,805,000 goes up to $20,928,000. This is therefore an increase of $11 million for the publicity item alone.
Mr. Speaker, as most Canadians, I was delighted by Expo. Like everybody, I saw in it a way for Canadians to really show the world that they were talented, that Canada was a country worth discovering and that it offered great opportunities to all. In Canada, even if we are somewhat remote from Europe, and in spite of a population smaller than that of other countries, there are enough qualified persons to carry out a project which has been envied by all countries.
Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, like all Canadians, I was pleased with this manifestation which did much to make Canada known throughout the world. During the world exhibition, there was a slackening in several areas of the administration and I might prove my point by giving an example that will undoubtedly impress the minister, because those are things in which I have been personally involved.
One day, I had been asked to represent the Canadian government and to replace the protocol officer, I believe. The hon. Lionel Chevrier had asked me to represent the Canadian government-in short, parliament- at an official gathering. I think it was to welcome on that day the representatives of Czechoslovakia. I had accepted offhand to replace the chief of protocol. On the eve of that official reception at Expo, I had forgotten to inquire as to the means of transportation available to me from my residence to Place des Nations. Therefore, I telephoned the Protocol Office to ask them at what time I could be picked up at my place to be taken to Place des Nations, since I had noted, as did many others, that several limousines were available to the directors of the Corporation
Dissolution of 1967 Expo Corporation and a few other high officials. I was told-and I must add to further illustrate this funny situation that for such receptions the lady has to wear a formal grown and the gentleman must be in formal attire, which means the striped pants-I was told quite naturally that I would have to take the subway to get to Place des Nations
I do ask the minister to try to visualize what kind of a figure the representative of the Canadian government would have cut, since I was not attending as a private individual. In fact, I had been asked to represent the Canadian government and there was no limousine available for my transportation. At Expo, that Corporation which had become all powerful at one time, which had the right to decide what it wanted-as can be seen by its deficits-had not realized that representatives of the Canadian government should have been entitled to the limousine service, and we were asked, my wife and I, to take the subway to get to Place des Nations. I have difficulty picturing how a representative of the Canadian government travelling by subway would have looked, in the eyes of the people.
I might then have become as famous as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) during his election campaign, through the strangeness of my garb. Mr. Speaker, although there is something cynically amusing in that incident, I feel that the Corporation may not have understood that it held its authority, its responsibility, from the government. When a corporation provided with hundreds of millions of dollars goes along so merrily in such things as that, I am not surprised that it did not make it a point to balance its budget, and that today we should have to ask the people of Canada to foot the bill.
I trust that, after those remarks, the minister will go before the parliamentary committee feeling duty bound to answer the questions which, when one really wants to get to the bottom of things, must be asked.
I have no intention, through my remarks, of casting any doubt on the integrity of the administrators of the Corporation. I do feel there was an element of urgency. There was much to be done, in very little time. As one of our colleagues said a while ago: no one has more than 24 hours in a day and, obviously, there was much to do and very little time in which to do it. However, that does not justify the fact that funds were spent without reason.
November 5, 1969

Dissolution of 1967 Expo Corporation
Mr. Speaker, I feel that the committee should see to it that the minister answers all those questions


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker,
I appreciate the opportunity of making a few brief remarks at this time concerning Bill C-6. First, I would like to endorse what has already been said about the great success of Expo '67. As a matter of fact, its unparalleled success brought millions of people to our shores, attracted some 60 odd exhibitors, and all-in-all it was a tremendous success. There is no argument about that point in this House or anywhere else in Canada. However, we as Members of Parliament are now asked to defray some of the expenses connected with that great show.
I should like to deal with that part of this situation which affects all members of this House, regardless of party afRliation. In 1962, parliament passed an Act stipulating how Expo should operate and indicating that it should be managed in a businesslike way. Employees of the government of Canada were entrusted with this task.
In this connection, I wish to quote from the auditors' annual report for 1967 on the Canadian Expo Corporation. The auditors were the Auditor General of Canada and the Auditor of the province of Quebec, and in that report they said:
The inadequacies of the financial controls referred to in previous reports still existed at the time the Exhibition opened. Certain revenues could not be effectively checked by us and we are unable to express an opinion on the correctness of the following amounts shown on Schedule 4 of the attached financial statements-
Four years prior to that, the two auditors had informed corporation officials that they were not keeping the proper accounts and records necesssary for them to do an effective audit.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
What was done about it? Apparently nothing was done. The Corporation continued ignoring the reports of the two auditors and now we find ourselves in this situation today.


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is not right.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Section 13 of the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition Act states:
The Corporation shall maintain in its own name one or more accounts in a chartered bank desig-


nated by the Minister of Finance with the approval of the Minister of Finance of Quebec.
That is what the act states, and that is what members of this House asked the Corporation to do. But what did they do? Well, let's see.
Although two chartered banks had been designated, the Corporation conducted its banking business during the year with a third bank which had not been designated by the Minister of Finance-*
They even ignored the Minister of Finance and engaged a third bank.
-and with another financial institution which was not a chartered bank.
I ask you, gentlemen, are we in this House of any use at all if the legislation which we pass is ignored? It does not matter which side we sit on, we cannot approve of this type of conduct. The report goes on:
The Corporation shall, as soon as practicable and in any event not later than one year after the coming into force of this Act, submit for the approval of the Governor in Council and the Lieutenant-Governor in Council its over-all plan for the Exhibition, setting forth the various undertakings and projects proposed by the Corporation in connection with the planning, organizing, holding and administering of the Exhibition, the estimated cost of each such undertaking or project and an estimate of the total capital costs and operating costs of the Corporation in respect of the Exhibition.
Any material changes in the plan referred to in subsection (1), including estimates of cost therein, shall be submitted by the Corporation to the Governor in Council and the Lieutenant-Governor in Council for approval.
Of course, the Corporation must have done this and given it to the minister who must have approved it. But what annoys each and every member of this House is the failure to abide by the rules and regulations set forth in the Act.
I will not take time to reiterate the examples of extravagance and waste mentioned by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Harkness), though he did not mention them all. However, we would not find ourselves facing this deficit today had the incidents brought to our attention by the two auditors not occurred.


Jean-Luc Pepin: You are an optimist.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Amongst other things, the Auditor General mentioned the loss on operation of a rented apartment building. The Corporation rented a furnished apartment building which was not fully used, and ended up with a loss of $345,000.
November 5, 1969	COMMONS
An elaborate gas distribution system was built at Expo costing $743,000 but there was a provision in the agreement with the gas distribution company that should the system still have value after the close of Expo, some of this cost could be redeemed. I understand the distribution system is still in use but the Corporation, without pursuing the possibility of recovering part of its costs, has transferred its rights of recovery to the city of Montreal and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Apparently the Corporation was not at all concerned about redeeming some of the cost.
An extensive telephone service was provided at a cost of $335,000 over and above the regular charges, to cover construction costs. The service is still in use but the Corporation has never approached the telephone company for the recovery of any part of the construction cost. One hundred and nine telephone booths were to be provided to the Corporation at no cost, but apparently they wanted something more elaborate and put in their own design at a cost of $170,000. This sort of thing added greatly to the cost. There is no excuse for those in charge who did not abide by the conditions laid down for this exhibition and do their part to prevent waste and careless spending.
Before I conclude, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister why the reports were not tabled on time. The Act provides for them being tabled three months after the end of the fiscal year. The 1967 report was tabled on October 2, about six months late, and the minister states that the 1968 report will be tabled today, although it should have been tabled last April according to the act.
I would be remiss, Mr. Speaker, if I did not make mention, as did the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade), of the two great Canadians who had a lot to do with staging Expo 67 and who have since passed on. I refer to the late Minister of Trade and Commerce, the right honourable Robert Winters. He carried a tremendous load during Expo and I know that these expenditures worried him a great deal. It is most regrettable that a greater effort was not made by those in charge to keep costs under control. Another person who travelled abroad and was successful in having many countries exhibit at Expo was the Commissioner General and President of Expo 67 Mr. Pierre Dupuy, C.M.G. To these two great Canadians we owe respect and offer our condolences to their families.
DEBATES	567
Dissolution of 1967 Expo Corporation [DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
It is regrettable that the minister has had to come before Parliament and ask that this deficit be forgiven or wiped off the accounts receivable for Canada. There is one other thing I should like to ask in connection with the deferment until 1972 of moneys due by Quebec. Is any interest being charged on these moneys, and what happens if Quebec fails to meet its commitment? These and many other questions I hope will be asked when this Bill goes to the committee. I hope that those who are responsible for letting the show get out of control will be called before the committee and asked to give an accounting.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to hon. members who have spoken on this bill which is to wind up Expo. I do not intend to spend a great deal of time on it.
I merely wish to say that Expo celebrated our one hundredth birthday and was eminently successful. I am of the opinion that Expo '67 had a great unifying effect on Canada and Canadians, that it advertised Canada to the world and that the way it advertised Canada will bring us benefits for a long time to come. Nevertheless, despite the good that has come out of Expo and the good that will accrue to Canada as a nation, Members of Parliament should not hesitate to criticize if they find that planning on the financial side has been faulty and lax. That, certainly, seems to be the case with Expo. Like other members of the House, I read with amazement some of the foolish financial arrangements entered into by the federal government with regard to Expo '67. You know, Mr. Speaker, here we seem to see the same old story of cost estimates running wild and no attempt being made by the Corporation or the government to collect recoverable expenses which, in my opinion, should have been taken into account. I agree with the hon. member who preceded me. When the Auditor General's report is before the committee, those who were to keep an eye on the accounts ought to be brought before the committee and asked to explain why they did not adhere to the various agreements we had entered into in financing Expo. They must explain why certain things went wrong.


Jean-Luc Pepin: All that will be done in committee.
568	COMMONS DEBATES	November 5, 1969
Dissolution of 1967 Expo Corporation


Mr, Harding:: If we do not ask for all these explanations, we shall not be doing our job as legislators in the House of Commons.
Since hon. members who preceded me covered matters in the report I had wished to bring up, I will not repeat what has been said. May I direct a question to the minister. I expect he will answer me when closing the debate. Why did the government not insist that Expo Corporation establish and maintain an adequate system of internal financial control?


Jean-Luc Pepin: How does the hon. member know it did not?


Randolph Harding: The minister seems to imply that it did establish such a system. I suggest that this procedure was recommended both by the provincial Auditor of Quebec and by the Auditor General of Canada.


Jean-Luc Pepin: It was not.


Randolph Harding: I suggest that, in the end, a financial control system could not be set up because the finances of Expo had reached such a state that the Auditor General could not say exactly how much revenue bad been received. This merely shows that financial controls ought to have been set up at the very beginning.


Jean-Luc Pepin: All this will be discussed in committee.


Randolph Harding: All these matters must be aired in committee.


Jean-Luc Pepin: They will be.


Randolph Harding: Possibly the minister may wish to clear up some of these matters in the House this afternoon. Earlier in this debate an hon. member spoke about building costs running wild. For instance, it was estimated initially that Habitat '67 would cost $11.5 million. The federal government entered into the agreement, thinking that that would be the cost. Well, Mr. Speaker, eventually Habitat cost about $22.6 million, double the original estimate. The Auditor General's report lists the reasons for this increase Nevertheless, that the increase should have occurred does not speak highly of those who were supposed to be the watchdogs over government expenditure. We have the same story with the theme buildings. Originally they were to cost $9.1 million; they wound up costing $20.5 million. That is almost a repetition of the Arts Centre story, Mr. Speaker.
[Mr. Pepin.)
May I refer to some points mentioned by an hon. member before me, Mr. Speaker. Since the Corporation built sewage disposal units, a gas distribution system and set up a telephone service system, I submit that certain items of expenditure were recoverable. The Corporation ought to have collected certain amounts from the utilities companies which put these services in and I, for one, will ask the minister to explain why these amounts were not recovered. Why were not amounts of, say, $50,000 or $100,000 collected by the Corporation and applied to the partial benefit of the federal government, the province of Quebec and the city of Montreal? That would have been the proper way to act. Since we entered into an agreement and told the people of Canada about the type of agreement we had with the other interested parties, I submit we should have implemented its terms. There can be no excuse if the minister, the government or any official has let these matters go by the board and so caused the Canadian taxpayer to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars. This is my complaint.
In closing, may I say that I will support the bill, even though its passage will mean ultimately that every man, woman and child in Canada has paid $6. Although I live many, many miles from Montreal, I visited Expo. I realize its value in unifying this country. By the same token, there is no reason for financial laxity on the part of the government or Expo Corporation. That is the point I wish to make in the House this afternoon, Mr. Speaker.


David Walter Groos: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult for me not to repeat some of the things that have been said this afternoon. Nevertheless, since I come from British Columbia, which was not an original entry into the 1867 coast to coast united Canada stakes, I should like to say a few words today about this bill to wind up the affairs of Expo '67.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you and members of the House will permit me to reminisce for a short while about those great days of our centennial year and refer particular to Expo. Probably the greatest value of that fair, to my mind, was that it provided a focal point for Canadian unity at a time when our national unity was being most seriously questioned. It also proved to be a source of justifiable pride for Canadians everywhere. It would be hard to deny, I suggest, that millions of Canadian hearts beat faster in those
November 5, 1969	COMMONS
days and continue to beat faster today at the sound and sight of the words "Expo '67". Even the name was new and Canadian. Surely, there must have been few, particularly among Members of Parliament, at the time the planning for Expo first began, who did not expect it would cost money to finish the job properly-more money than was originally anticipated.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
It was a gigantic undertaking which lay before the creators of the fair. They had to build, among other things, a large extension to an island in the St. Lawrence, and the work had to be done under extremely arduous conditions. I stand to be corrected, but I do not know of a single genuine world fair in this century which has made money. But I take a special pride in our fair because I believe it set a new worldwide standard of general excellence for fairs of this calibre, while at the same time capturing the imagination of Canadians generally in a way which cannot be measured in dollars alone. They said it couldn't be done, but we did it-and we did it within the framework of what seemed at the time to be an impossible timetable. That is something else to be proud of.
There are other spin-offs, and these too, in my view, are beyond price. I am of the opinion that Expo '67 and all it encompassed came at a most significant time in history. Man and His World was the theme. I firmly believe it contributed toward better world understanding-a new understanding of Canada and Canadians by non-Canadians, a new understanding of the world and of our place in it by Canadians, a new understanding between eastern Canadians and western Canadians, between young Canadians and old Canadians, between English-speaking Canadians and French-speaking Canadians, in fact, between all Canadians. We should be grateful for this.
From across Canada, from all directions, came people, particularly young people, to gather in Montreal to see what we as a nation were capable of doing. They came not only to see what we could do and how well we could do it, but to see for themselves how far we had come in 100 years of history. It is a large amount, in terms of dollars, that we are today being asked to pay, but I believe it to be a fair one in terms of its immediate and long-range benefits to our country and to our people.
Perhaps I could quote, Mr. Speaker, some words spoken by the Premier of our Province
DEBATES	569
Dissolution of 1967 Expo Corporation of British Columbia who, speaking of Expo '67, said:
I wonder how we as Canadians will remember EXPO best? Certainly we will remember it as a triumph of imagination and planning, of architecture and entertainment-for a triumph it most assuredly is. Certainly we will remember it as the catalyst which brought into focus the attention of the world to a spectacle produced in Canada by Canadians, and unrivalled by any exhibition ever produced before.
But in the fullness of time it may be that we will remember EXPO best for still another reason; and it may be that this remembrance will be EXPO'S greatest gift of all to future generations of Canadians.
Because in my opinion, as a proud Canadian, the one greatest contribution EXPO '67 has made to our country is simply this: It has demonstrated to ourselves-not just to the world, but once and for all to ourselves-that there is in our nation an unlimited capacity for excellence.
Finally, speaking for myself, let me say this: I repeat, there are long term benefits, some of which are yet to come, from Expo and I believe there are few in this country who are not willing to see their fair share paid now by this parliament. I hope this bill will be sent to committee for fuller study tonight.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: It is
not my intention to speak at any great length on Bill C-6 which is presently before the House, but there are some proposals in it which concern me since the measure has to do with a large expenditure of tax dollars and our present tax laws are of vital importance to all Canadians.
I listened with interest to the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto). I must disagree with his statement that members on this side urged the government to go ahead with this project "the devil with all costs", to use his words. I would remind the hon. member that it was not members on this side of the House who advocated the Pearson formula in 1966 under which a 30 per cent pay increase was granted to the stevedores, a settlement which set inflation ablaze throughout Canada and which the Liberal government has not yet been able to extinguish. To the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Groos), I should like to say that no one disagrees with his view that Expo was important to Canada. What my hon. friend from Calgary Centre (Mr. Harkness), the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade) and the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Hales) had to say amounted to this-that everything which was accomplished could have been done with a lot less
COMMONS DEBATES	November 5, 1969
Dissolution of 1967 Expo Corporation waste of money had there been more supervision over expenditures.
I find no fault with the intent of this bill. The measure simply states that it is an act to wind up the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition and to authorize the writing off of certain costs and the deferral of certain payments connected therewith. There is little doubt in the minds of many Canadians that we had a bang-up birthday party to celebrate our 100 years as a nation or that one of the glittering stars in that birthday celebration was Expo '67, the world exhibition held in Montreal. In fact, this star shone so brightly that it continues to glow under the direction of provincial and municipal authorities. In my view this exhibition has done much to strengthen Canada's international image. It helped the tourist trade, at least in central Canada. It encouraged our architects to think big and to create new designs. The hon. member for Carle'on-Char-lotte (Mr. Flemming) says it encouraged them to charge big, as well, and this tendency may be reflected in some of today's building costs.
As I was saying, the fair, the star of the occasion, continues to glow under the direction of provincial and municipal authorities with assistance from the federal government by way of a deferral of repayment amounting to some $5,500,000, payment of which had been due on June 28, 1968. It is now deferred until 1972. Like one of the previous speakers, I wonder whether this deferral has been arranged without any consideration being paid to the interest which is due. This is a question which, more than likely, will be researched by the committee.
There is an old saying that the man who pays the piper calls the tune, and I suppose it applies to parties as well as to other things. Since all Canadians are now being asked to pay for the party, I think it is only fair that they should be made aware of the size of the tab as they reach for the bill. In the public accounts of Canada for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1968, volume III we find these figures on page 29. Against a net loss from operations, we find a figure of $59,726,718. Amounts written off on transfer of capital assets to participating governments are listed as follows: City of Montreal, $135,094,953; Government of Canada, $59,876,285; Province of Quebec, $4,753,693. The loss on the disposal of the mass transit system is estimated as $199,724,931; the amount written off on the demolition of buildings and other assets is $291,160, and the loss on sale of other capital

assets appears as $426,880. The deficit, the net cost of the exhibition as of December 31, 1967 is listed as $273,588,537.
a (5:40 p.m.)
You will note that the Auditor General lists the total	net	cost of	the	exhibition at$273,588,537. Anyone who knows anything about the	cost	of parties	will	have to admitthat this	was	a good	one.	Obviously nothought was given as to the cost of the party or as to whom would have to pay the bill. Early in the game some people did become concerned, but they were reassured by the government of the day that the federal government's participation would not exceed $20 million. For example, during the first session of the 26th parliament	this	question was
placed on the order paper by the then New Democratic Party member Douglas Fisher, and is to be found at page 3016 of Hansard for September 30, 1963:
What is the estimated total contribution of the federal government to the world's fair including its share of the cost of the proposed upstream ice dam, the ramps from the Jacques Cartier bridge to the proposed lie Notre Dame, the bridges from lie Notre Dame to St. Helen's island and the proposed bridge from St. Helen's island to point St. Charles?
The question was answered by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai) as follows:
The federal government is committed under the statute and the agreement between Quebec and the city of Montreal to provide a maximum-
I emphasize the word "maximum".
-of $20 million to the world's fair corporation. The corporation is responsible for providing services on the completed site. The federal government has also agreed to pay on the construction of an ice control structure the amount required in excess of $2J milion to be provided by the city. The amount of the excess has not been determined pending the results of engineering studies.
The federal government is not responsible for providing access by the bridges mentioned in the question.
May I add that the federal government will, like many other countries and some provinces, have an exhibit at the world fair, for which it will assume the cost.
1 You will also find this same amount listed 'at page 29, along with the amounts pledged by other governments. These amounts are listed as grants received from participating governments. There is $20 million from the government of Canada, $15 million from the government of the province of Quebec, $5 million from the city of Montreal, for a total of $40 million. This leaves a balance of $233,588,537.
November 5, 1969
Today, the House was informed by the minister that this amount had escalated. I am sorry I cannot recall the exact amount, but it was a larger figure than the previous one.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is $285 million plus.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: According to my hon. friend, the total has now increased to $285 million. What can we do? As a nation we must pay our bills. However, these figures give the House some idea of the slap-happy, haphazard manner in which the Liberal government has mismanaged Canada's affairs. This government has shown a sense of irresponsibility which borders on insanity. The fact that this attitude persists to the present day is causing concern to many Canadians. As I have said, we must pay off our debts. But I cannot agree with the course that is proposed in this bill, which I think is unsound. I cannot help but wonder what Canadians generally are thinking about the irresponsible approach that this government adopts to our financial problems.
What did the Auditor General, for example, have to say about this irresponsibility? At page 34 of his report to the House of Commons dated March 31, 1968 he listed some examples. Some of these have already been cited by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Harkness) and the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Hales). I think they skipped some that are pertinent to the discussion, and one is as follows:
In the case of many appointments to senior positions, starting salaries were higher than the established minimum rates and frequently maximum rates were paid immediately or within six months of appointment. Thirty-three officers in receipt of salaries of $10,000 or more received increases during 1967 ranging from 20 per cent to 60 per cent. Of these employees, 10 left the Corporation's employ in 1967 and received salary termination payments averaging 27 per cent of annual salary.
Then, later he says:
However, payments were made to all employees including those who did not qualify because their former or comparable positions were assured. Twelve such payments aggregating $70,000 came to our attention during the year, the largest being $15,425.
I presume that that was paid to one individual.
Termination payments totalling $4,694,000 were provided for in the 1967 accounts but it is estimated that an additional $1,188,000 will be required.
These are astronomical figures and raise some doubt about the ability of the present government to manage our affairs.
Dissolution of 1967 Expo Corporation
If I may return to the bill, let me read to the House the words of clause 3:
The administration and control of all the properties, rights, franchises and other assets under the administration and control of the Corporation immediately before the commencement of this Act are hereby transferred to the Minister.
Think of the power that this clause alone places in the hands of the minister! May I say at once that I am not singling out the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The amount involved is less than the hon. member has stated, but I will be making reports on my activities, as does every government department.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I thank the minister for his intervention, and I was about to say that I was not being critical of the minister personally.


Alfred Dryden Hales: It would be too late anyway; he has sold us the goods now.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Yes, he has sold them now. It is his misfortune to be saddled with this particular burden, but having taken the kudos he must now be prepared to accept a bit of the blame.
Clause 4 provides still more power:
All rights of creditors against the Corporation and all actions pending against the Corporation are unimpaired by the transfer to the Minister of the administration and control of the assets heretofore under the administration and control of the Corporation; and all subsisting liabilities of the Corporation and actions pending against the Corporation may be enforced or continued against the Minister in like manner and to the same extent as they could have been enforced or continued against the Corporation.
The minister is going to be pretty busy. The clause to which I really take exception is clause 6, which provides:
The Minister shall dispose of the assets and liabilities to which this Act applies in such manner as the Governor in Council, with the concurrence of the Lieutenant Governor in Council of Quebec, may direct.
Under this government the people of Canada are losing control of their property and financial rights. Why could not the minister use the offices of the War Assets Disposal Corporation for the purpose of disposing of these assets? Since the government has been telling us every day that they are waging a war against poverty, the very least that the government should do, in our opinion, is to call for public tenders with regard to the disposal of these assets.

November 5, 1969

Dissolution of 1967 Expo Corporation
I say that we need greater efficiency in government management. These are not my views alone; these views were well expressed in the Sixth Annual Review ol the Economic Council oi Canada, where at page 157 the Council states:
The government sector has now become so large, and its revenues and expenditures affect directly or indirectly so many aspects of our economic and social goals, that it has become urgent to develop more effective mechanisms for managing our affairs in this critically important area of our national life. Governments today are facing critical problems of choice among many competing demands. Moreover, there is no profit calculus in the government sector to set standards of efficiency and performance.
We have had a classic example of that. All one has to do is to look at the criticism in the Auditor General's report with regard to the mismanagement of Expo's affairs. The council continues with this statement:
Yet greater efficiency in the delivery of public goods and services, such as health care and education, could conceivably result in very large savings in resources which could then be diverted to other pressing needs.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Canadians want to know what are the assets of Expo '67. They want to know where they are and what they are worth. Why is there all this secrecy about this particular disposal? What is the government hiding? We are being asked by the minister to give him a blank cheque covering the disposal of these assets which have been payed for by all Canadians. This literally denies all Canadians an opportunity to tender in respect of these assets. We are also being asked to pay off an amount of $125 million towards accounts receivable under Expo guarantees.
This type of procedure outlined in this bill only serves to destroy the confidence of Canadians in our democratic process. Certainly, it destroys the confidence of Canadians in this government and makes a farce, if I may say so, of the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) slogan "The Just Society". At this stage, we cannot call this government just or fair.
I hope the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) will give us some indication at an early date of the manner in which he plans to wield this almost totalitarian power placed in his hands by this bill. Many communities across Canada made an effort to celebrate our Centennial year. Many of these projects have not been paid for. In my constituency we had a number of Centennial projects. In my own home town of Lunenburg we have the only floating museum

in Canada. This was established as a Centennial project. This is one of the last floating replicas of the old sailing schooner, similar to the Bluenose. The Centennial Committee is requesting the people of this town, populated by a little more than 3,000 people, to contribute $60,000 to create a permanent display berth for this ship. Surely, the minister can realize the strain that this will place on these people.
Surely, if we are prepared to give money to Expo we should be prepared to pay some of the other deficits. I should like to hear from the minister on this matter of such vital importance to the people throughout this country. The truth is that this government does not run a tight ship in respect of financial matters. It has no real objective and no real course. As a result, it is sailing around in circles while the economy flounders in a whirlpool of inflation. It has no objectives and no priorities. The government has no vision, but I know the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce will welcome the opportunity of examining the wasteful and extravagant policies of his government when this measure comes before the committee. I hope the committee's recommendations will include measures to control the disposal of the assets of Expo. I hope that these recommendations will not be discarded by the minister and that he will give them careful thought and full consideration.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Speaker, may I call it
six o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the House that the Chair call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might ask the house leader to indicate the business for tomorrow and Friday?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we will continue with the item now before the House as the first item of business for tomorrow, that is item No. 8 on today's order paper. The next item of business will be item No. 11, the bill in respect of Children of War Dead, in the name of the Minister of Veterans' Affairs (Mr. Dube). This will be followed by item No. 19, a bill to amend the Canada Student Loans Act. We will then take up item No. 4, a bill to amend the Judges' Act, to be followed by item No. 23, a bill respecting the
November 5, 1969

expropriation of land. We hope to be in a position tomorrow or Friday to announce a somewhat more definitive schedule of business for the four days next week.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask whether this means that the Canadian National financing legislation is not included for this week?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That will
depend on the progress made on the bills I have enumerated. The ones I have referred to will be in a position of priority. If we succeed in giving second reading to them, the Canadian National financing legislation will be included.
Business of the House


Stanley Howard Knowles: asked this question, Mr. Speaker, in order to ascertain whether the minister had changed the order slightly from that announced last night.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: If we make progress, it is very likely that the Canadian National financing legislation will come before the House on Monday.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to standing order this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
574

November 5, 1969



APPENDIX &quot;A&quot;


[Stage Direction]
Monday, November 3, 1969
Canadian Consumer and Corporate Affairs Minister Ron Basford met today with United States Attorney General John M. Mitchell for a discussion on co-operation between Canada and the United States in anti-trust matters affecting the two countries. They referred to the 1967 Recommendation of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development on co-operation between member countries on restrictive business practices affecting international trade and they discussed placing in this context the informal "Antitrust Notification and Consultation Procedure" between Canada and the United States. This arrangement had its origin in discussions in 1959 between then Canadian Minister of Justice E. D. Fulton and then Attorney General (now Secretary of State) William P. Rogers.
Under this understanding the United States in enforcing its anti-trust laws and Canada in enforcing its anti-combines laws consult with each other when it appears that the interests of the other country will be affected by such enforcement. The primary object of this procedure is to avoid situations arising out of the enforcement of the restrictive business practices laws of one country that might give rise to misunderstanding in the other country, particularly in cases where it might appear that such enforcement had extra-territorial effect or constituted an infringement of the sovereignty of the other country.
The normal course under the procedure is that each country notifies the other prior to the institution of an anti-trust suit which involves the interests or the nationals of the other country and, except for particular time schedules or unusual circumstances, permits time for consultation concerning the contemplated suit. While not required by the understanding, notification is given during the investigative phase whenever possible. In all cases, each government keeps the other informed of significant developments in the litigation.
Consumer Affairs Minister Basford and Attorney General Mitchell noted that the notification procedure had been useful to both countries. The two cabinet members noted that the United States-Canadian Understanding had been the forerunner of the restrictive
business practices co-operation recommendation of the O.E.C.D. Council. This recommendation provides for intergovernmental co-operation on a purely voluntary basis without impairment of sovereignty and in accord with each country's laws and policy, in three areas:
1.	Notification of and consultation on antitrust actions,
2.	exchange of information on anti-trust matters where feasible, and
3.	co-ordination of anti-trust enforcement where possible.
The O.E.C.D., which includes 19 European countries, Canada, the United States and Japan, together with the European Communities, has a Restrictive Business Practices Committee which drafted the recommendation. Mr. D. H. W. Henry, Director of Investigation and Research under the Combines Investigation Act in Canada, is Chairman of that Committee and Assistant Attorney General Richard W. McLaren is a Vice-Chairman.
Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Basford stated that in their views, the procedure adopted by the O.E.C.D. strengthens the United States-Canadian understanding which has served to eliminate conflicts in anti-trust enforcement and has provided a common approach to problems affecting both countries. Of course, each country has the responsibility to enforce its own laws and the discussions under these procedures do not in any way bind a country as to what action it decides to take. The two cabinet members expressed the view that, in this time of expanding international trade, with special problems being posed by the multi-national corporation, and when most industrial countries have enacted antimonopoly laws, international co-operation in the anti-trust area is essential for carrying out anti-trust policy and to avoid conflicts in enforcement.
In addition, therefore, to continuing the notification and consultation procedure in accordance with the 1959 understanding, the two cabinet members agreed that the O.E.C.D. recommendation of 1967 should be actively implemented as between Canada and the
November 5, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES	575
United States in relation to restrictive business practices in international trade. Notification and consultation will continue under both arrangements. Each country will, insofar as its national laws and legitimate interests permit, provide the other with information in its possession of activities or situations, affecting international trade, that the other requires in order to consider whether there has been a breach of its restrictive business practices laws.
A primary concern would be cartel and other restrictive agreements and restrictive business practices of multi-national corporations affecting international trade. The
enforcement agencies of the two countries, each within its own jurisdiction, will where possible co-ordinate the enforcement of their respective laws against such restrictive business practices.
Referring to the close relationship that has developed over the years between the Canadian and United States anti-trust enforcement agencies, Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Basford said that to facilitate the implementation of the foregoing co-operative arrangements, it is intended that more regular and more frequent meetings between the agencies will take place.
21362-37J
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, November 6, 1969