1969-12-17

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First and second reports of Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development-Mr. Watson.
[Editor's Note: Text of foregoing reports appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. Ovide Laflamme (Montmorency) moved: that the third report of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, tabled in the House on Thursday, December 11, 1969, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingaie):: 
Mr. Speaker:: As the hon. member has pointed out, this motion can be considered by the House at the present time, under the terms of Standing Order 43, only if there is unanimous agreement to proceed on this basis. I shall therefore ask the House whether there is such unanimous agreement.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous
agreement. The motion cannot be put at this time.



IMMIGRATION


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, a number of hon. members recently have raised the question of immigration policy with particular reference to a reported decline in the number of immigrants in the first nine months of 1969. I believe I promised I would make some comments on this matter to the House.
While it is true that in absolute terms there has been an over-all decline, especially in immigrants from Europe, I can inform the House that for the year as a whole we can expect a total of some 165,000 arrivals, a decline from last year of about 10 per cent. However, I should point out that this figure still represents the fifth largest immigration movement to Canada in the past 15 years. Indeed, the figure for the first nine months of
20X2

December 16, 1969
Immigration Decline
this year is greater than the 12-month total for nine of the last 20 years. When it is considered that last year's figures included some 9,200 Czechoslovakian refugees, the extent of the absolute decline in year to year terms is less significant.
As members will have noted, the major variations in immigration from Europe include a decline of some 8,000 from Italy, 5,800 from the United Kingdom and 2,500 from France. Immigration from the United States at the same time rose 1,500 to 15,400 in the nine-month period-


An hon. Member:: Draft dodgers. You let them in.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and immigration from the Caribbean rose to 10,500 compared with 7,500 for the entire 12 months of 1968.
I wish to assure hon. members that the modest over-all decline has not been the result of a restrictive attitude on the part of the government. Events and conditions in Canada, as well as developments in Europe, have had a significant influence on recent trends in immigration to this country.
The decision to emigrate is the result of a host of what I might term push and pull factors, the majority of them outside the purview of immigration policy. That there has been a lessening desire on the part of Europeans to emigrate to Canada is indicated by a drop of 20 per cent in total applications from Europe; there were 324,000 in the first nine months of 1969, a decrease of 85,000 from the same period last year.
Looking at a few traditional sources of immigrants, applications from residents of Italy were down 33 per cent in 1968. This decrease in applications last year is being reflected in the reduced flow of immigration in 1969. The number of people wanting to come from Britain in 1968 was 24 per cent below 1967; in Germany the drop was 52.9 per cent. The decline in applications is showing up in a reduced flow of immigrants this year.
In Asia and the Caribbean countries, on the other hand, the number of successful applications has continued to increase. This has led to an increase in the number of persons from those countries settling in Canada. This increase, coupled with the decrease in immigrants from European countries, is producing a perceptible change in Canada's immigration pattern. The new pattern is highlighted by an increase in the proportion of arrivals from Asia and the West Indies which four years

ago represented only 10 per cent of total immigration into Canada. In the first six months of this year the proportion of immigrants from these areas had increased to 23 per cent.
As hon. members know, immigration criteria introduced in 1967 have an occupational content. A rating, in terms of points, is given for various occupations according to the demand in Canada at the time the application is assessed. When demand for an occupation lessens, the number of points which an applicant is awarded decreases. In 1968 and 1969, when demand lessened for certain occupations, ratings were diminished in consequence.
As an indication of our interest in encouraging immigration to Canada, I should mention that earlier this year we took various administrative steps which we hope will offset the external factors tending to discourage immigration to Canada.
These steps include increased promotional activity, the sending of teams into the field to stimulate applications through personal interviews, easier assisted passage loans, and so on.
I might mention that in material tabled in the House on December 10 members will have noticed a variation in refusal rates as between various countries. There are, of course, a number of complex factors bearing on the success or otherwise of applications and it is not possible to enter into detailed explanations in all cases.
However, taking France as an example, while it is a fact that the approval rate has been low and, conversely, the rejection rate relatively high, one of the reasons for this is that a very high proportion of applications came from non-nationals of France, many of them transitory or migratory workers with low skill and educational levels. Preliminary indications are that when non-nationals are abstracted, the refusal rate for French nationals approximates that of the United Kingdom.
In conclusion, let me make it clear that Canada needs immigrants and we are continuing our efforts to encourage them to come to this country. To this end the selection criteria are and will continue to be applied without discrimination as to race, colour, class, origin or creed. In the categories of sponsored immigrants and refugees not subject to the standard selection criteria, the exercise of compassion will continue to be a major consideration.
December 16, 1969

Immigration flow is influenced, often significantly, by external factors as well as domestic conditions. There have been variations in the past and there will be variations in the future.
For our part, we pledge to continue our efforts to keep the number of new arrivals as steady and consistent as possible with Canada's requirements and economic circumstances.


Mr. Sieven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I feel I would be remiss if I did not preface my remarks on the minister's statement by welcoming him back to active participation in the affairs of the House. For too long we have been denied one of his oratorical displays and his sharp partisan spirit in debate. It has been so long, in fact, that many of us were beginning to wonder if there really was a Minister of Manpower and Immigration in this government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member knows that in commenting on the minister's statement he should try to keep to the subject. It seems to me that he is now making rather extraneous comments.


An hon. Member:: But truthful.


Mr. Speaker:: I advise the hon. member accordingly, as required by the rules, to stay on the subject matter of the statement.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Having said this, I must say also that it is far from reassuring to listen to his statement on recent trends in immigration. It is obvious from what he has just said that the period of his long silence and immersion in the affairs of his department has produced little that is encouraging in Canada's immigration picture. The Cape Breton mountain has laboured and brought forth a West Indian mouse.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
I would be the last person to criticize, on grounds of race or colour, an immigration policy that emphasized the bringing in of West Indian and Asiatic immigrants. I do not believe these are valid grounds for judging the suitability of immigrants. But I do believe it is legitimate to criticize a policy that concentrates on immigrants who, by reason of climalic conditions in their country of origin and by reason of their standards of skill and training, inevitably pose great problems for everyone concerned with their relocation in a radically different, highly sophisticated, industrialized, urban society such as ours.
Immigration Decline
It is of interest to recall the many recent stories in the press about Australia's immigration policy. If I recollect correctly, one story last week said that Americans were entering Australia as new settlers at the rate of 4,000 a month. Other stories tell of heavy emigration from Great Britain, the Low Countries, Germany and Scandinavia to Australia. The reason given is the expansionist policy of the present Australian government and the heavy accent on resource development and economic growth "down under".
Certainly any skilled European worker, professional man or person with capital to invest in a small enterprise would look twice at the Canada of today before deciding to come here permanently. We are being bypassed by the most desirable type of immigrant because Canada today presents a picture of a dormant economy, a country obsessed with social welfare and constitutional programs, where economic expansion is at a standstill and taxes are multiplying in increasingly burdensome tiers.


Mr. Trudeau:: Talk about bringing forth a mouse!


Steve Eugene Paproski: It appears from what the minister has just told us that our manpower and immigration teams abroad have lost their effectiveness. Either they are unable to make Canada appear sufficiently attractive or they lack sufficient incentive. Perhaps the current austerity drive has weakened their effectiveness.
I would welcome a further statement from the minister at an early date that would explain how our once potent lure for immigrants has suddenly gone sour.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Guys like you.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: You are nobody until somebody loves you-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: -and you are nobody until somebody cares, and that is exactly what I expect from the right hon. gentleman.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, I am not against immigrants coming to Canada from Asia, the Middle East or the West Indies. I simply feel that the current flow of immigrants has been thrown out of balance to the point where immigrants from those areas are a flood and immigrants from Northern Europe a trickle.

December 16. 1369
Immigration Decline
Let us hope that the minister, now that he has re-emerged as an active minister in this chamber, will present us with a few answers and some practical means of readjusting the Immigration balance.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the fact that the minister says it is still the policy of the government, notwithstanding the actual decline in the number of immigrants, to continue efforts to encourage immigrants to come to this country on a non-discriminatory basis.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: There is discrimination.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Against West Indian mice?


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I have the floor or whether there is a debate going on between others in the chamber.


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I was about to say that although I welcome this attitude of the government I am afraid it is not fully reflected in the processes for the admission of immigrants. They are highly unsatisfactory at the present time. They are far too subjective. Too much is left to the discretion of individual officers under personality assessment. There is too much secrecy. Fifteen of the points for an immigrant who seeks 50 points to come into this country have to do with what is called occupational demand and are based on figures collected by the department, but these figures are kept secret from applicants, their lawyers and, indeed, from the Immigration Appeal Board which has the duty to review these matters. We have made a farce out of the special inquiry hearings and out of immigration appeal procedures by this policy of secrecy, and I hope it is going to cease before long.
Along with other members of the House I have been waiting for a long time for the fulfilment of the undertaking of the minister and his predecessors to spell out in clear terms the right of refugees to come into this country and the terms under which they may come. It is all very well to wait for emergencies such as that in Czechoslovakia. Unfortunately, however, there are refugees from other parts of the world, and I hope it will not be too long before their rights to come to this country are spelled out.
(Mr. Paproski.]
I notice a major decline in the flow of immigrants from Italy and I believe one of the reasons is that there are many Italians in this country who are able to look after their aging parents but cannot bring them here until they reach the age of 65. It is a real hardship when, without doing any damage to our labour force, families cannot be united because these young people who have made a success in Canada as citizens are not given the opportunity to bring parents and other close relatives to this country.
The Act needs revision. Revision was promised three years ago in a white paper but there has been no revision yet. What is happening in the department? What is the energetic minister doing about revision of the Act? Let us have a revision of the Immigration Act. The regulations introduced in 1967 have proved unsatisfactory in many respects. Let us have a parliamentary committee review them.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, anyone familiar with this field knows that the special inquiry proceedings and the Immigration Appeal Board are burdened with too many cases. If more personnel is needed they should be hired, despite the freeze, because it is important that the flow of immigration to this country not be impeded by the blockage that is happening at the present time.


Mr. Dinsdale:: It is shocking.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abilibi):: Mr. Speaker, I have not quite understood why the minister felt himself required to justify this drop of 10 per cent in the immigration figure for the first nine months of the year. However, it is my humble opinion, Mr. Speaker, that quantity is less important that quality in immigration.
We know that, particularly during the past few years, the government selection procedures have involved requirements for higher qualifications from would-be immigrants. I wonder, however, whether their moral qualifications are being given sufficient consideration. In fact, during the past five years, among those who appeared before our courts because of participation in demonstrations, mostly in recent months, we find that too often those involved are newcomers to Canada.
While we require technical knowledge from would-be immigrants, we find that a great many young Canadians, technical school or
December 16, 1969	COMMONS
university graduates, have to migrate to the United States or elsewhere if they are to put into practice what they have learned.
We do not need immigrants to develop our country as much as we need funds to produce more economically.
I have often heard some thinkers within the government, some great economists, state that immigrants eventually become consumers and thus contribute to the development of this country. That is not my opinion, for the immigrant comes to Canada provided he is sure of employment, and owing to industrialization and automation, he becomes more of a consumer than a producer. With the help of machinery, we produce more than we consume.
As to the reduction of prices, thanks to the increase in population, the argument of the government's thinkers does not hold water. In my opinion, there is no need to be concerned by the decreasing number of immigrants, particularly when we consider the situation in Canada today.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Motions.


Mr. Lewis:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, before we leave motions will the Minister of Transport make a statement to the House about his plans, should the air traffic controllers be forced to go on strike, and give the House at least that information he gave to the media yesterday during the question period outside the chamber when teacher did not permit him to come into the House?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Since he made statements outside the House with regard to the imminent strike by the air traffic controllers, could he make a statement about the matter to the House today? Particularly, could he inform the House about the present negotiations between Treasury Board
DEBATES	2015
Inquiries of the Ministry and the Canadian Air Traffic Controllers Association and tell us where the matter now stands?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the answer might more properly come from the President of the Treasury Board. However, I believe I can advise the House that as of this moment representatives of the government and of the air traffic controllers are meeting here in Ottawa wiih a view to resolving the matters which appear to be in dispute in the negotiations. We will not know until later today if these efforts are successful. We are willing to co-operate in any reasonable way and are still optimistic that the projected strike will not occur. If it should occur despite our best efforts, then I think it is correct to say that it would have a very serious effect on commercial transport and would effectively, because of the safety requirements involved, cause a cessation of most commercial flights in Canada.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister of Transport assure the House that he will keep the representatives of Treasury Board and of the Canadian Air Traffic Controllers Association together in discussions un.il they reach an agreement in order that a disastrous strike may be avoided?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, there is an old expression that it takes two to tangle. I can assure the hon. member that the representatives of Treasury Board will be prepared to continue negotiating non-stop in order to resolve this dispute.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the President of the Treasury Board intend to sit in on the discussions with the representatives of the air controllers? I notice that both he and the Minister of Transport are here while the meetings are going on. Does the minister intend to leave these discussions entirely to his officials or will he or the Minister of Transport, of both, sit in on these discussions in view of the tremendous importance these negotiations have for the people of Canada?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that advice. If either my presence or that of the Minister of Transport can be helpful, we are prepared to take any part we need to.
2016	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister says that he will sit in on these discussions if his presence will be helpful. We are coming close to the deadline. Surely the minister has made his decision. Does the minister not think that the matter is important enough for him to sit in on the discussions? I think the House has the right to know whether he will sit in on these discussions or leave the discussions to his officials entirely.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that it is not a question of whether I think the discussions are important; it is a question, rather, of whether I can be helpful. That ought to be the consideration.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. Has the government of Canada made the necessary arrangements to fulfil its obligations under international air agreements to foreign airlines flying into or over Canada? I believe my colleague from Gander-Twillingate raised a similar question earlier.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, it would be impossible for us to make these arrangements if the air traffic controllers were to go on strike. The carrying-out of that commitment on our part is obviously related to our ability to provide air control facilities. Should the strike come about, and I hope it will not, it would affect Canadian air space only because I assume international carriers would prefer to find other routes to their destinations instead of entering Canadian air space.


John Howard Lundrigan: A supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board, Mr. Speaker. While he is considering the matter, will he also promise the House and the people of Canada as well the international organizations involved that he will introduce a greater degree of flexibility into the negotiations in order that we may resolve the dispute, avoid a strike, and give proper recognition to the international aspects of the problem?


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Roy-al: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. What plans has the government to implement some of the recommendations of the Woods task force report so that the Canadian people will not be held ransom, as I think they now are, by strikes or threatened strikes in this country?

DEBATES	December 16. 1969


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the question of the Woods Report was raised in the Speech from the Throne. We said that in the present session we shall introduce legislation in this regard.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, may I address another supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. Canada has certain obligations under bilateral agreements. If we fail to meet our obligations under these bilateral agreements to provide the necessary air safety controls, what position does the minister think Canada may be put in as a result of our not fulfilling our obligations?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot forecast what the situation will be in those circumstances. I can only say that I assume that in such cases the agreement either stands or falls on the ability of the parties to carry out their part of it. If we do not have air traffic controllers on duty it is obvious that we cannot fulfil our obligations in that regard. It is as simple as that.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister whether, in the event there is a failure to reach a settlement, the government intends to keep the House in session, as would cer'ainly be the wish of hon. members on this side of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for having offered his co-operal ion. If we decide to act in that way, we shall be thankful for it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. Have any representa'ions been received from the international bodies which will be affected by the prospective strike? If so, what has been the response of the Canadian government to such representations, bearing in mind that the people at Prestwick have said they will not touch our aircraft with a ten-foot pole?


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


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker, I do not know who has the floor.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the right hon. gentleman rising for a supplementary question? The
December 16, 1969	COMMONS
Chair has recognized the hon. member for Shefford.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS AGENDA FOR NEXT CONFERENCE

Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question.
Can he tell us if the drawing up of the next federal-provincial conference agenda will be the responsibility of the chairman only?



AIR TRANSPORT


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, instead of playing
around with this prospective strike, does the government intend, in the event that a settlement is not arrived at, to bring in legislation in order to assure the continuance of Air Canada service while the processes of negotiation are continuing?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I think that is very much a hypothetical question at the moment, with respect. We hope that the negotiations will be successful. If they are not, then the House will be advised in due course of any action the government proposes to take.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, does the government intend to wait until a strike is under way before deciding on the course to be followed?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Nanai-mo-Cowichan-The Islands.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise with great diffidence and deference. I would like to know what was wrong with that supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understood the minister to have answered the question. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.


John George Diefenbaker: I again rise. I do not do so often.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
DEBATES	2017
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I want to find out how long the people of Canada are going to be played around with by this government in respect of this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: I will try again. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.



INFORMATION


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact the two reports of the Task Force on Information have been available for some time and the government has had an opportunity to decide the course it is going to follow, I ask the Prime Minister if he intends to make a statement to the House outlining the government's policy in respect to the information and what administrative machinery it is setting up to carry out that policy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is my intention to make such a statement before Parliament adjourns for the Christmas recess. I still hope to be able to meet that deadline. If I do not, it will be very early in the new year.
Mr.	Douglas	(Nanaimo-Cowichan-The
Islands):	A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the government already set up administrative machinery to carry out a program known as Information Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the hon. member wants me to make a statement, Mr. Speaker, he should wait until I make a statement to get the information.
Mr.	Douglas	(Nanaimo-Cowichan-The
Islands): I am not asking the Prime Minister to make a statement. I am asking him to answer a simple question with a yes or no. Has the government now set up the administrative machinery to implement a program known as Information Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I understand the hon. member is not asking me to make a statement on this but I may make one just the same.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I ask the Prime Minister if the sign "Information Canada" on one of the offices of
2018	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry the Privy Council section on Sparks Street means that this operation is already in effect?


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: The question I wish to direct to the Prime Minister is somewhat related to those asked a few moments ago in connection with the Task Force on Information. Will the Prime Minister ask the Minister of Labour to look at the current series of very costly unemployment insurance advertisements now appearing in the newspapers, the main effect of which so far seems to be to inspire taxpayers to protest their appearance?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has made a representation. He has to assume it will be considered by the minister concerned.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: My
question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Could the minister tell us what answer was given to the representations of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce yesterday respecting absolute restrictions on the inauguration of open-ended or major spending programs by the government of Canada during the current struggle against inflation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether the hon. member for Edmonton West would not be inclined to agree with me that this is the kind of information that should be given by way of a general statement on motions?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A supplementary question. Will the minister make a statement as to the replies that the government made to the representations from such an auspicious body as the Canadian Chamber of Commerce whose representatives came here at great expense to make its views known to the government?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: would simply like to say, Mr. Speaker, that the question was not asked. It was contained in a brief. It was not raised at the conference at all.

DEBATES	December IS, 1969



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: On Thursday last I directed some questions to the Prime Minister and the President of the Treasury Board with reference to the lay-off of war amputees. Has the minister investigated the serious and unjust lay-off of war amputees engaged in the Public Service of Canada? Would he now give us the particulars of his investigation?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I think steps have been taken to advise the hon. member of the specific circumstances in the two cases he raised. I may say in relation to the general policy, Mr. Speaker, that a scheme for the declaring of redundancy and lay-off procedures was evolved after very lengthy consultations with the employee representatives in the National Joint Council of Canada. Agreement was reached on a philosophy for declarations of redundancy and alternative disposal of such cases. The general principle was that merit should be the sole test in determining the order of redundancy and that as a consequence this would be the predominant factor, but that humanity and considerations of humanity would have to be taken into account. This gives rise to very serious problems of administration for departmental officials.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, to use a word like "redundancy" when dealing with war amputees is terrible.


John George Diefenbaker: Not only terrible but typical.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I put this supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board. Have the minister or his legal advisers seriously considered the Public Service Employment Act, section 16, in which by law, prior to the just society, veterans were guaranteed priority over other Canadians?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether the question is procedurally acceptable? I have some doubts. The question might be asked in another way if the hon. member wishes to pursue the matter.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: At your suggestion, Mr. Speaker, I will rephrase the question. Has the
December 16. 1969

minister considered the Public Service Employment Act in reference to the guarantee it gives to veterans, particularly the priority to war amputees over other Canadians in reference to employment in the Public Service of Canada?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I would like to point out that the employees in question have not been released from the Public Service but merely advised that they will no longer occupy the positions they now hold.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: If the hon. gentleman would just listen to the explanation he would be wiser.


John George Diefenbaker: The explanation is-


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The employees in question have been advised they will no longer occupy the positions they now hold. The priorities they enjoy in the Public Service as to preferential employment will be applied, such preference as they have, to their relocation elsewhere in the Public Service.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wish to direct one more supplementary question because this is important. I ask the minister to recheck to determine if Mr. Kent and Mr. Weir of Calgary were released from their positions together with other amputees across this nation? The minister is a soldier. He should know better.


An hon. Member:: He is a what?


David Lewis: In view of one of the answers of the President of the Treasury Board that merit would come first and humanity second, I ask my question seriously. Could the minister inform the House what percentage points are applied to each in the consideration of what is to be done with regard to employees of the government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: My question is for the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications. It relates to the recent inflation of his staff by the appointment of a senior productivity executive whose function I understand is to counteract inflation in his department. Can the minister advise if this

Inquiries of the Ministry new officer is to be charged with responsibility for working toward deflating the high postal rates now crippling the non-profit press?



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: I wish to ask the Minister of National Defence if it is
his intention to make a statement before the Christmas recess with regard to the new level of establishment for Canada's reserve forces?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I anticipate I will be in a position to make a statement or at least table in the House a very documented report. A statement would take 20 minutes.


An hon. Member:: It is worth it.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I hope to do it on
Friday morning in whichever way I deem best.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of National Defence a related question. Is he now in a position to answer the question put to his colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs yesterday regarding the lay-off of civilians at U.S. defence bases in Canada?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact I have a prepared answer here. There seems to have been a misunderstanding as to terms. The answer is that our representations to the United States authorities were successful on some points but not on all points. For instance, we were unfortunately not able to secure a lengthening of the period of notice of lay-off given to individuals, but we were successful in persuading the U.S. authorities of the need to implement their decisions in a way which would minimize hardship to those involved-for example, those living in houses on the base. In addition, as a result of our representations the United States authorities were willing to adjust the timing and scope of their announcement so as to help Canadian government departments in their efforts to assist those adversely affected.


Mr. Waller C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of
December 16, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry National Defence which is supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Mal-peque. On the basis of the negotiations he has had with the United States government, can he tell the House whether there is any truth in the rumour that the United States naval base at Argentia is to be closed some time in 1970?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think the minister wanted to answer my question. This is a matter of grave concern to the people affected.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the situation but the question as asked is not in order. The hon. member is asking the minister to confirm or deny a rumour. The hon. member will recognize that the question is not in order. Perhaps he might rephrase it.


Walter C. Carter: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Would the minister tell the House whether it is correct that the United States naval station at Argentia is to be closed in mid-1970?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I am not aware whether it is correct or not correct.



HISTORIC SITES


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a related question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Could the minister inform the House when all expenses incurred by the Fort Garry Horse militia during its tour of duty for the Historic Sites and Monuments Board at Lower Fort Garry last summer will be met by his department?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question should be placed on the order paper.


George Robson Muir: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I ask this question because of its urgency. A number of these militiamen are university students who worked during the summer for-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In view of the explanation given by the hon. member, perhaps the minister might like to reply.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. 
Speaker, I know the problem and am pleased to report to the hon. member that discussions are now under way and we hope to arrive at a conclusion today or tomorrow.



CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY


Mr. Paul St. Pierre (Coast Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister related to the report filed today by the Indian Affairs and Northern Development Committee, which recommends that the government declare to the world without delay Canada's full sovereignty over the waters within the Arctic archipelago. When may we expect a definitive statement on this question from the government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, may I remind the House that we did say in the Speech from the Throne we would introduce legislation on this subject in the present session. I expect it will be introduced early in the new year.



POLLUTION


Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have a related question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the recent sinking of the Shell Oil tanker S.S. Marpessa, the largest ship ever to sink to date and one of a type which I understand would be used to transport Arctic oil, what steps have the government taken to have Canadians present at the investigation into this sinking so that we may better judge whether or not oil tankers in the Arctic are or are not desirable from the point of view of the Canadian people?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, Canada is a member of IMCO, which is the international organization dealing with such matters. I am not sure whether we will have somebody actually involved in the investigation, but we will have full access to the report of the investigation.



REQUEST FOR REPORT ON BRUSSELS INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister of Transport now in a position to
December 16, 1969

report to the House on the recent international conference on oil pollution of the high seas held in Brussels?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, this conference has concluded. The chief of our delegation, our ambassador, is now preparing a detailed report which should be in my hands in a matter of a few days; it may be available over the weekend. As soon as it is received and we have all the background to the matter, I will carry out my commitment to make a statement to the House.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


Mr. Oza  Telrault@Villeneuve: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Can he tell us whether the Depar ment of Public Works has reached a decision as regards the building of office space for the Department of Indian Affairs in Val d'Or?


Mr. Speaker:: This question could be put on the order paper.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether, in view of the very alarming increase in the cost of living last month, the government proposes to take any new initiatives in its fight against inflation?
Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I should indicate to the Leader of the Opposition that the government has this matter under continuous review. At this time may I also take the opportunity of offering the Leader of the Opposition my sincere sympathy at the loss of most of his senior staff. I wish to wish those who are leaving every success in their chosen vocations, and congratulate them on their perceptiveness in deciding there wasn't much future in their present jobs.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I thank the minister for his interest and sympathy, but I am rising because I feel sympathy for the Canadian people. I think the Canadian people are entitled to an answer. Again I ask the minister whether, in view of the increase in the cost of living, the government proposes to take any new initiatives in the fight against inflation?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I was simply hoping that the Leader of the Opposition's new staff would present him with some suggestions to assist-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Edgar John Benson: -in the fight against inflation, which we are keeping under continuous review.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: Obviously the minister
cannot deal with it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the present exchange is not likely to be very fruitful. Perhaps we should try another subject.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not mind the joshing from the Minister of Finance but, if the question period is to be taken seriously in this House, when the Minister of Finance is asked questions dealing with important matters, either by the Leader of the Opposition or by any other hon. member, I think it shows contempt of the House and of Parliament if the Minister of Finance gives answers of that sort. We are raising questions of grave import to the people of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edgar John Benson: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Fairweather:: Try using a film strip.


Edgar John Benson: -each time the Leader of the Opposition has asked this particular question, one he has asked on many occasions, I have given a serious reply, and I will continue to do so. We consider inflation a matter of prime importance to this country. We have taken serious steps to reduce government expenditures and have directed our fiscal and monetary policies to the fight against inflation. We have indicated that if the present steps we have taken are not successful, then we will proceed with further steps. If we do
2022	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry have to proceed to take further steps, then these will be announced in the House.
This was the answer that I was trying to give the Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister or his staff read the white paper recently introduced in the United Kingdom parliament-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member is asking the minister whether his staff has read a white paper. I am sure he would not suggest this is a proper question.


Gerald William Baldwin: On the point that Your Honour has raised, may I say I simply want to ask whether a certain course is contemplated. The white paper suggests that the use of an early warning system with regard to prices and incomes, combined with definite guidelines, might be a reasonable way to counter inflat on. Has the minister given some consideration to this suggestion?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, we have given consideration to a great many suggestions, including suggestions from members on the opposite side of the House with respect, for example, to the creation of the Prices and Incomes Commission which is trying to establish voluntary guidelines, and this in spite of the derision which now comes from the opposite side of the House.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a further supplementary-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: No, Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a matter of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to the Leader of the Opposition. I did not realize he was rising on a question of privilege.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Finance has made a mistake which I should like to correct. The Prices and Incomes Commission was not recommended by the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The Prices and Incomes Commission was not recommended by the Opposition but by a task force of some sort set up by the government. I do not think the

DEBATES	December 16, 1969
Minister of Finance should be allowed to get away with that type of mistake in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I wish to apologize to the Leader of the Opposition. I had thought he had made a useful suggestion with regard to controlling inflation through the Prices and Incomes Commission. I am now informed he did not make that suggestion.


An hon. Member:: We could have told you that.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Will he make a statement of motions setting forth the official view of the government about the applicability of the Jay Treaty generally and in particular about the border crossing privileges of thousands of Indian peopie? Will he make this statement either this week or during the first week of sitting after the Christmas recess? I ask this question, Your Honour, in view of the fact that Thursday, the day after tomorrow, is the first anniversary of the blockade of the bridge at Cornwall Island, and also in view of the claim of the Indian people-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has asked a question. I do not think it is regular to pursue the matter in order to explain to the House why he has asked the question. It is a valid question and perhaps the minister might reply.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the problem of crossing the Canada-U.S. border by any Canadian citizen is under the jurisdiction of my colleague the Minister of National Revenue and I would ask him to comment on this.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, will the minister consult with his colleagues, the Minister of National Revenue and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, in order that he may give a firm undertaking now that the government will immediately stop the harassment
December 16, 1969

of Indian people at the border, at least during the period that the applicability of the Jay Treaty is in doubt?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I had on several occasions the opportunity of discussing this problem with the Minister of National Revenue, and this very day I have met Indians who made representations to me on this subject. I think they are to meet with the Minister of National Revenue immediately after the question period, if it can only come to an end.



WHEAT-ANNOUNCEMENT OF GENERAL DELIVERY QUOTA

Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board whether the board will be announcing any general delivery quotas before Christmas? I ask this because most farmers are very short of cash and would appreciate an early announcement-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: As the hon. member knows, Mr. Speaker, the Wheat Board was giving preference to the delivery of unit quotas. However, I was speaking to officials of the Wheat Board today and they indicate they will be announcing tomorrow a one bushel quota for the 255 delivery stations where there is space and where the elevator agents have requested a quota. The Wheat Board will also be announcing tomorrow, and some hon. members will be interested in this, a special quota of eight bushels per seeded acre for soft spring wheat.



ENFORCEMENT OF REGULATIONS RESPECTING MOVEMENT OF FEED

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement made on the CBC newscast last evening that Canadian Wheat Board regulations with regard to the movement of feed grain across interprovincial boundaries are being flagrantly violated, what action is the Minister without Portfolio taking to deal with the situation and ensure that these regulations are enforced?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the minister made it clear

Inquiries of the Ministry in previous statements in the prairie region that this matter is considered to be very serious indeed and that the Wheat Eoard and other agencies would be asked to take every step to enforce the existing quota regulations, even while we are looking at these regulations with possible improvements in mind. It is extremely important that the existing rules be obeyed because an infringement really amounts to a theft by those who break the rules from those who do not. Therefore we are appealing to the farmers of the prairie region to obey these regulations even, as I say, while changes are being considered.



FISHERIES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Sho-e):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry recently stated in Kamloops, British Columbia, that Japanese and Russian fishing fleets are causing great damage to the fishing industry, when does he intend to bring the matter of water boundaries to the attention of the United Nations?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: At the next Law of the Sea Conference, Mr. Speaker.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources how soon he expects a report on the investigation currently being made into the operations of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act and its effects on the gold mining communities?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, there is a continuing study being made. I have no indication as to when it will be completed, but as soon as it is and there is a government position in this regard it will be duly announced in the House.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs related to the question asked by the hon. member for Calgary North. What action is the minister taking to ensure
2024	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry that the rights of Canadian veterans within the Public Service of Canada are being upheld?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, there are very many veterans, some disabled, working in my department. Very few will be affected, and those who will be have only now received surplus notices. Every effort is being made to reassign them to other positions.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Mr. Speaker, I am aking the minister what he is doing about all the veterans in all departments of the Public Service.


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I have no authority, of course, to deal with other departments, but-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Jean-Eudes Dubé: -under the law veterans have preference with respect to obtaining positions.



POLLUTION


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe Norlh):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the grave results of increasing air pollution, as voiced by a special commi.iee of the National Research Council, will the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources indicate what action is being taken to protect the Canadian people?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, there is continuing review and consideration in my department regarding auestions of air pollution. At the present time, there is no comparable legislation to the Canada water bill in respect of air. I can assure my hon. friend that this is the subject of critical review by the government and various departments including my own, the Department of National Health and Welfare and others engaged in a studies of environmental questions. If, in conjunction with the provinces, we can reach an accord as to the best manner of tackling this problem, then we will indeed tackle it through federal legislation, if applicable.


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister a question arising out of
[Mr. MacEwan.J
DEBATES	December 16, 1969
the answer just given to the House by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources regarding air pollution. Does the statement by the minister mean that the proposed national clean air bill to be introduced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare has been abandoned?



SHIPPING


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to "the" cabinet minister from the Atlantic provinces, the Minister of Transport. Since he is interested in marine disasters, namely, the loss of a ship off the coast of Africa, is he in a position to report to the House on the results of the investigation by his department regarding the sinking of a vessel off the coast of Cape Breton as a result of which five lives were lost?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, as yet only an interim report has been received from the investigating team. I feel it would be desirable to wait until the full report is in, at which time I would be more than pleased to make it available to the House.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, when will the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development be making an announcement in respect of the request of the National Indian Brotherhood, made at a meeting with the minister on November 7 last, for a special fund to be used to assist Indians in carrying out research with a view to solving their own problems?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to meet with Mr. Andrew Delisle, president of the committee established by the Indians to inquire into their rights and their treat.es, and I have discussed certain proposals with him. He intends to start work early next year, and I have assured him that we shall provide the commit .ee with part of the money needed to complete its work.
December 16, 1969



TRANSPORT


Mr. R. R. Soulham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. I directed this question to the minister a few days ago and he took it as notice. My question concerned the defence by the government of the Canadian Transport Commission's railway costing formula before the Supreme Court of Canada. Can the minister now advise the House what action the government is prepared to take to defend the Canadian Transport Commission's costing formula before the court?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, if my colleague the Minister of Justice were here he would be able to answer the question more specifically, but I understand that the necessary steps have been taken and that the Canadian government will be represented in a way which I feel will be acceptable to the hon. member and to the House.



PAN-AMERICAN GAMES-INQUIRY AS TO FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO WINNIPEG

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is the minister now in a position to answer my questions and my letters regarding the request of the city of Winnipeg for assistance in connection with the deficit in respect of the Pan-American Games, in the same way as assistance was given to the city of Montreal in connection with the Expo deficit?


Edgar John Benson: have the letter in my office and will try to deliver it to my hon. friend this afternoon or tomorrow.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Government House Leader. Will he take whatever steps are necessary either to convene or have convened the organization meeting of the Public Accounts Committee not later than Thursday of this week?
21545-57}
Company of Young Canadians Act


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that instructions in that regard have been given. I am not sure what the situation is at the moment but I will inquire and report back to the House.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services. Would the minister make a statement on motions informing the House whether it is the hope of his department that the pay cheques for all public servants for the retroactive pay awarded up to six or nine months ago, and not yet paid, will be sent out before Christmas at least?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I have explained to the House on several occasions that the department is catching up very quickly. There has been a tremendous backlog of work. I should also point out that the Central Pay Office is right at the end of the pipeline-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister should not make a statement now. He was asked whether a statement would be made on motions.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: May I rephrase my question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister, the next time he is to appear in the House, make a statement explaining the situation because members are receiving scores and scores of letters-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, December 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pelletier that Bill C-171, to amend the Company of Young Canadians Act be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Orlikow (p. 1990).
[Stage Direction]
December 16, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Company of Young Canadians Act
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to make a correction to Hansard. I think Your Honour would agree with me that such a correction is badly needed. Last night some of Your Honour's constituents came to the House of Commons and at one point in my address as recorded at page 2003 of Hansard I am recorded as saying:
Mr. Speaker, before dealing with the Company of Young Canadians I should like to join Your Honour and other Canadians in the warm welcome to the company of old Cornwallian Canadians.
Now, sir, I do not think I used the adjective "old" in referring to those charming and delightful ladies who passed across my vision in the seats directly above me. I am reinforced further in that opinion, sir, by the fact that you, even as an independent member and our Speaker, would have immediately forgotten your impartiality and would have seized the occasion to raise your own question of privilege to say I was mistaken because it simply was not true. I must admit that if I made that statement it was not true. I hope I did not make it and I hope Hansard will be corrected so that the awful word "old" will be expunged from the reference to a group of charming, delightful and very young Cornwallian Canadians.
Now, I should like to turn to the subject of the Company of Young Canadians which is becoming one of the old issues in the House of Commons. First, I wish to restate the position advanced privately by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) and publicly by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) and myself last night. We think the measure which is before the House, is not appropriate as a long term measure but, as a short-term measure is appropriate. That is, we believe somebody should be in a position to protect the money already voted by this Parliament but not spent as yet by the Company of Young Canadians, if only for the one purpose of choking off those long distance phone calls to Hollywood which seem to be the stock-intrade of one or two members of the Company of Young Canadians in the city of Toronto. In other words, we have suggested that an amendment to the proposed legislation to set a limit of March 31, 1970, the end of the fiscal year, on the operations of the proposed comptroller is a reasonable one and something that we, as a responsible opposition, can accept. In this way we would be protecting, say, up to $600,000 from being improvidently spent,

Yesterday the government House leader indicated that such an amendment was acceptable and gave the House his assurance that this would be moved by him when the legislation is dealt with in the committee of the whole. I must say I was surprised that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, with all the money it spends on news reporting and services from Parliament, would so completely garble that proposition on its television news last night and on its radio news this morning. If the reporter responsible was wilful in trying to misinterpret the position of members of the opposition he should be fired, and if he was not wilful and did it as a matter of ignorance he should be sent back to the lowest form of work in the CBC until he learns to conduct himself responsibly and to understand what is going on in this chamber. I was furious at such an obvious misinterpretation of such a responsible position.
Then, too, my hon. friend from York South, the deputy House leader of the New Democratic Party, when our proposition was restated by myself very shortly before ten o'clock, stated that he was not inclined to accept it because his party had moved an amendment earlier in the evening. I do not find the two positions incompatible. I do not see why we could not make our decision on the amendment of the New Democratic party and then, that being out of the way, go on to what seems to be the main point.
The point is whether we should forsake the Broadcasting Committee as the instrument to deal with this bill and go to the Committee of the Whole where amendments can be moved. Eventually, when the last clause is reached, the House leader can carry out the proposal which he advanced yesterday. I think that this is really the course that we have to pursue if, as we all agree, the affairs of the CYC are in complete financial chaos at present and we, as the people accountable to the Canadian people, have to deal with that situation. We have to deal with it before whatever is left of the $600,000 or so goes frittering down various drains before we can lay some kind of restraint upon the operations of the company.
So it seems to me that we are forced to make our own decision on the NDP amendment as quickly as possible, then get into Committee of the Whole where we can make our amendments and our speeches so that, before we rise for Christmas, something will be done about a body that is a thorn in the side of most right thinking Canadians. I do
December 16, 1969	COMMONS
not think we can leave here before the end of the year without having taken some action.
I could state again the Conservative position. We think the company has such a bad name that it should be scrapped and a study made of some type of responsible organization, following which we should start again from scratch. Our friends on the other side differ in that respect. The Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) has said: "No, we will make some alterations in the structure and bring them before parliament at an early opportunity". But may I simply remind him that the name of the company is anathema from coast to coast to most right thinking young Canadians. In this respect, I am appealing for the majority of this country's youth, those perhaps who do not write or contact their members of Parliament and say: "We would not touch this thing with a 10 foot pole". The fact is that they would touch a different organization with a 10 foot pole, but all the tinkering we do with this organization will never make it acceptable to the young people.
When Parliament established the CYC we hoped to attract some young, altruistic volunteers who wished to be of service to their fellow Canadians. I should like to remind the House of the experience of one of the large car manufacturers who had what turned out to be a deadly lemon on his hands, a car that could kill people. That car company, one of the largest in the world, could have spent vast amounts on engineering redevelopment of this particularly deadly lemon, put forth all sorts of advertising and changed what had been a killer into what would be a good family car. Instead of this they took the other course. They scrapped the project and started out with a new car with a different name, but one which filled that particular part of their merchandising line. I say that this is an exact parallel with the CYC which makes sense.
In our committee hearings we heard enough evidence to justify our conclusions that there were personality conflicts within the CYC; that the structure was bad and the finances in such chaos, and that, above all thanks to its structure, it was very easy for some smart left-wing activist to march in through the door and somehow seize control of the company. That is precisely what happened. This fact indicates that people who have an animus towards our society also have the ability to seize the first vehicle that comes down the pike which would give them the opportunity. It turned out to be something on which the taxpayers of Canada have spent some thought
DEBATES	2027
Company of Young Canadians Act and a great deal of money. Nobody in their right conscience can permit a situation like that to continue. There is no justification for making even drastic changes in the company. I think we have to make a fresh start.
In my opinion, the committee did not hear the testimony of enough volunteers to give us an idea of the motivation which led them into the service of the company. There are all sorts of volunteers, some of them pretty sleazy characters and others who no doubt acted with the purest of motives. We also did not hear about an experiment that has gone on for some considerable time in Canadian society, and that is the Frontier College which brought vast benefits to the northern regions at small administrative costs. I think that their experience also would have been helpful to us. We heard from Professor Lotz who made a dozen suggestions about restructuring or setting up a viable structure, including, for example, research into projects so that one would know whether something was going to be workable or whether one was simply sending visionary fools rushing in where angels fear to tread.
We heard plenty from the city of Montreal officials who pointed the finger at the new president of the company who somehow bulldozed his way to the surface in the turmoil that beset the CYC over the week end. We heard about government moneys being spent through the CYC to help put out such interesting publications as ones explaining how to conduct a successful revolution; how to build, not one or two, but three varieties of Molotov cocktails; how to kill police horses; how to start riots, and the like. There is one gentleman associated with this endeavour who wanted to go to Cuba to bone up on revolutionary tactics. In writing to the Cuban authorities he stated that his chief qualification was that he had been in court charged with the illegal possession of dynamite, for which he received a suspended sentence. In addition, he had been a second time in court and acquitted on a charge of conspiracy, arising out of the explosion of some weapon- I presume dynamite-in which several people were killed. Third, he belonged to the CYC. He thought that this was a sufficiently refreshing approach to certain people in Cuba that they would forthwith ask him down there to bone up on revolutionary tactics.
In my opinion, the CYC has not yet played a vital role in any area, and I think the city of Montreal has made a legitimate request for a study of subversive activities in Canada.
Division

December 16. 1969
Just because it happened that the tail seemed to be wagging the dog on those two particular days does not mean this is not a very serious request. There should at least be some answer directly from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) as to whether or not a study is merited or whether sufficient information is being amassed behind the scenes to meet Mr. Lucien Saulnier's request. Be that as it may, I suggest that in dealing with the legislation before us now, and in dealing with the imposition of a financial comptroller, the interim measure should be sufficient to protect what money is still left in the till of the CYC. That is why we support the proposal that this measure be effective until March 31, 1970, to keep faith with the taxpayers who have put up this money. In this respect, the Conservatives agree with the government members.
I suggest that no surgery by the government, however skilled, can cure the CYC, judging from last week end's meeting of the CYC when it fell apart in many different directions. There were resignations here and there and power ploys all over the place. One project was continued because it was antiestablishment and not because anybody could prove that it had the least bit of reality or common sense about it. When you see that sort of thing going on you suspect that the rot is so ingrained in the organization there is no hope for it. You cannot just chop out a part here or there and do a transplant. This matter cannot be cured by a heart transplant, a brain transplant or any other kind of transplant. I think it is a matter for mercy killing at the earliest opportunity, and then, after a proper study, a new measure could be presented which the committee, with the experience it has had so far, could take a hard look at and report upon. What we have now, Sir, is simply unsatisfactory.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think there is agreement in the House that the order for second reading may be amended in such a way that the bill would be referred after second reading to a committee of the whole instead of to a standing committee.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, on that point I think there would be agreement. Are we to understand that the government is still of the same opinion it entertained last night with regard to the amendment, to be moved at the appropriate time in committee, dealing with the duration of the operation of the bill?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker. My colleague, the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Stanbury) will bring in an amendment under clause 2 which will have the effect of providing that the maximum duration for the application of the bill shall be up to March 31, 1970.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we agreed to this last night and of course stand by it. We shall have other amendments to move when we get to committee of the whole.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the second reading motion be amended by unanimous consent, as suggested by the President of the Privy Council?
DEBATES	2029
Company of Young Canadians Act


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: The question is now on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Faulkner in the chair.
On clause 1-
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, I deliberately refrained from speaking during the second reading stage so that the matter now before us might be expedited. This leaves me now to make my first observation, that one of the dominant characteristics of the entire record of the Company of Young Canadians is that things have been done in haste. As a result, there has been repentance at leisure.
The Company of Young Canadians has had a checkered career. I feel this is largely because an excellent idea, that of involving young Canadians in direct participation in voluntary activity, was perverted by a lack of proper study in anticipation in setting up the company. I believe this is so because the whole idea was conceived during the heat of an election campaign. As some hon. members have said, it was more an election gimmick than the implementation of a sound, social program and philosophy in dealing with young Canadians.
This sort of approach to social policy by the government has for a number of years now reflected the philosophy that can only be described in terms of the phrase "60 days of glorious decision". This slap-happy a'titude toward public policy has laid the foundation for many of the problems besetting Canada today. In passing I would refer to the problem of inflation and the major difficulty caused by the growing feeling of division and alienation in this nation.
The idea was borrowed from the United States of America. It was an attempt to capture some of the mystique of the Kennedy family which seemingly had a strong appeal to youth. In this respect we were actually importing United States culture. Here is further evidence of the schizophrenic tendencies of the government on the one hand to enthusiastically support an idea that was spawned in the United States, and on the other, with respect to cablevision, it takes
* ** !
December 16, 1969

Company of Young Canadians Act violent opposition to this sort of cultural invasion.
This idea, like so many other ideas that are borrowed from a culture that is not identical to ours-there are fundamental differences between Canada and the United States-was doomed to failure right from the beginning. It was said during the debate in this chamber setting up the CYC that Canada has had right from the beginning of sedlement an enviable reputation for voluntary activity in handling the problem of social policy. Religious movements such as the Jesuits, the Grenfell Mission in Labrador, the Fron ier College, the Salvation Army are typical. CUSO, Canadian University Students Overseas program, predated the programs which were later launched in the United States. I would venture to say the source of inspiration for some of the youth programs that were launched in the United States under the Kennedy administration came from the strong spirit of motivation of such volunteer groups. Because of this there was little room for a government-sponsored agency of the kind that we have come to know the Company of Young Canadians to be.
Over the years in this House ideas have been brought forward for the involvement of youth in participatory democracy. This was particularly true with regard to the events surrounding our centennial celebrations. I, along with many other hon. members of the House of Commons-some of whom are no longer present-enthusiastically embraced the idea of a youih parliament for Canada which would have had its beginning during our centennial celebrations. An inter-party committee studied this subject for some months and there was general agreement that the best means of getting Canadian youth involved in the political affairs of our nation was through the instrumentality of a representative youth parliament. For some reason the Liberal government of that day sank this idea beyond trace, notwithstanding the unanimous support for the idea, and Canada has not yet been successful in organizing a youth parliament. Instead, favoured treatment through funds, effort and governmental support was given to the ill-fated idea of the Company of Young Canadians.
I still keep in touch with young people across the country who are interested in being involved in some form of youth parliament. I know that in the true tradition of voluntary activity on the part of both young and older Canadians, they are still hopeful

that they will be able to get a youth parliament organized on a voluntary basis. They have even looked to the government for a contribution to a foundation fund that would provide some financial support to an idea of this kind.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I think we would all agree, in our retrospective wisdom, that a youth parliament would have had a much more beneficial effect, both for Canada and for Canadian youth, than the sad story of confusion, chaos and maladministration that has marked the trail of the CYC. That it was moving into areas that it could never occupy, areas that were already well filled by voluntary groups, is the reason the CYC never sent volunteers beyond Canadian shores. The legislation provided that this was to be one of its functions. The reason it never moved into the field of foreign service is that this area is already more than adequately covered by the voluntary university group, CUSO. It is significant that one of the committee's recommendations was that the CYC's ambitions in this regard be formally withdrawn in any rewriting of the act.
Unfortunately, the same haste and lack of planning that has dogged the footsteps of the CYC and the attempt of the government to get youth involved in public activities has marked this further review, this continuing agonizing reappraisal of the whole concept. Those of us who sat on the committee were under the pressure of a restricted time limit, having to bring in a report by December 5. As a result, the committee was transformed into a sort of robot. We had to meet that deadline regardless how deeply we probed in coming to grips with the multitude of problems confronting the CYC.
As a result of this, the committee's investigation turned out to be a fiasco. We changed the chairman in the course of our deliberations. Mr. Saulnier, whose charges arising from the unhappy events in Montreal on October 7 led to the committee inquiry, was supposed to have been the chief witness. Instead he was the last. He raised more questions than were answered. He made charges that could not be substantiated because of the very nature of the committee's restrictive terms of reference. As a result, the entire effort was abortive and created problems rather than solving them.
There was also selectivity in the calling of witnesses. This was demonstrated by the fact
December 16, 1969

that one of the young Canadians who was active in the early, formative years of the company, Mr. Duncan Edmonds, a man who was involved in governmental activities in Ottawa at that time, made an emergency trip to Ottawa and at a press conference advocated in the strongest possible terms that the CYC, one of his brain children, be put out of its misery in order that the idea of the involvement of youth in public affairs might survive.
In addition, the committee was supposed to travel. Newspapers published headline stories to the effect that the committee would divide itself into small groups in order to visit some of the CYC projects in the field. Notwithstanding these headlines and the advance publicity given before the committee hearings got under way, there was no opportunity to visit these projects.
Now in order to try to bring a very nasty situation under control, we are now short-circuiting the normal processes of Parliament so as to bring some fiscal control and responsibility to the administration of public funds. This is why the members of my party support this measure. Above all else, the chronic maladministration of public funds must be brought under control. The matters that brought the committee together in the first instance remain unsolved. Indeed, confusion in the committee was compounded for the reasons I have briefly outlined.
The simple truth of the situation is that the company was taken over by an element of young people in Canada who can hardly be regarded as truly representative. This has been demonstrated by the stories that have come from Toronto over the week end, when the council that was brought into being only a few weeks ago found it necessary to dissolve, and this at a meeting that was, to say the least, bizarre, reflecting the Alice in Wonderland atmosphere that has pervaded all the deliberations on the subject of the Company of Young Canadians.
Reference has been made to Mr. Jim Lotz who appeared before the committee-an anthropologist, a community development worker and a sociologist. I suppose that all of these descriptions would apply to the work he is doing in Canada in many areas of social reform. He doubted very much that a group of this kind could work under the auspices of the government. In particular, if I may quote him directly in this regard, he said that "people who want to solve problems by revolution don't know their history".
Company of Young Canadians Act
These are the fundamental issues with which the government must come to grips if the charade that has lasted for about four years is to end. Members of the official opposition on the committee voted for the immediate dissolution of the CYC in order that something more constructive and positive could be created from the ashes. As long as agony and indecision on the part of the government continues in regard to this disastrous experimentation-which is what it has been called-in government involvement in this sort of volunteerism, the idealism of Canadian youth which has been expressed in so many positive ways and excellent voluntary social acts and programs, will be besmirched.
We support the idea of a financial comptroller to bring a sense of responsibility to the expenditure of public funds. We suggest that some of the more "way out" projects that have been revealed in recent days be cancelled forthwith; indeed, some already have. The hydroponics experiment in the city of Toronto should at once be denied access to public funds. As I read the account of this interesting experiment in social action in the city of Toronto, it seems to me that hydropornography would be a much more apt description of an activity that has been supported with public funds.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
A number of worthy social programs in this country are withering on the vine because they lack public support. I have already mentioned the youth parliament. If the government is looking for ways in which to spend money on positive programs for social action, I strongly recommend that it come to the assistance of the hard-pressed friendship centres which deal with basic social problems in our urban centres, including those faced by the Indian and Metis population. These centres and voluntary agencies have depended almost entirely upon private support for the continuation of their work. If the government wants to support voluntary participation of a positive kind, this is one approach it might take.
There is within the Privy Council a Committee on Youth which is reviewing all these matters. I trust that committee will come to a decisive conclusion to end the disaster of this experimental activity of social involvement by Canadian youth and that we will as quickly as possible, as was recommended by the
2032	COMMONS
Company of Young Canadians Act members of this party who were on the committee, end the agony by putting the company out of its misery. Then let us get on with the business of the positive involvement of youth in the affairs of this country.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I rise to say a few words on this bill and also to propose some amendments which I hope the ministers concerned will consider with favour. Let me say first that whatever the reason may have been for setting up the Company of Young Canadians, it was and still is a good idea. It is a good idea to have this organization, but in my opinion only on one condition.
What was the idea behind setting up the company? Was it to create a vehicle by which young people in Canada could genuinely participate as those who have grievances against society, in the decision-making regarding matters which concern our daily lives? Was the idea to create another Boy Scout club or organization that would be a kind of conforming service club in which young people might participate? In our view, if the intention is-as some members of the official opposition have indicated-to have a Company of Young Canadians which will be no more than a kind of well-meaning, do-gooding service club, we do not need public funds to create that sort of conforming organization. We could have this in many other ways. Many of us have contributed and continue to contribute to private organizations seeking to assist the needy people of this country. If the idea was to provide that kind of help to needy people, this is not the way Parliament should do it.
We should help the needy people by pursuing the kind of economic and social policies which will lift them out of their need in whatever direction it may be-full employment, lowering the cost of living, increasing pensions, and so forth. We do not need an organization to give people charity. That need not be sponsored by the public treasury. We have the responsibility and power in Parliament to decide what is needed today for the needy people of Canada as far as lifting them out of their misery is concerned.
I understood the Company of Young Canadians was to be an organization which, to put it very simply, would promote dissent in Canada on a responsible basis. I understood that was needed in this country then and is needed now. This idea deserves public assistance by some kind of organization, particularly of young people, to help those who have been forced to live in slums, those who are
[Mr. Dinsdale.l
DEBATES	December 16, 1969
rooked as tenants by landlords, and to help native peoples and others who are suffering from discrimination and a particular kind of injustice. This organization could help to organize these people to get up on their hindlegs and scream like mad against the establishment which placed them in that position.
If the Company of Young Canadians will not do that kind of job, as far as I am concerned there is no need to expend a single dollar of public funds on it. If they do the job right, we will have the establishment worried, the establishment meaning not only those in government at the federal, provincial or municipal levels but all those in Parliament and in the legislatures. They will be criticized and will have their shins kicked, and that is good for democracy. There is nothing worse for a democratic system than having everybody conforming with what is the established norm in society. There is nothing easier than for those in power-I am not pointing my finger at this government-to get into a rut and think what they are doing is the only thing that can be done.
From my study of history, it is true of every government in the world, no matter what its colour, that the easiest thing for it to do is get into a rut and see only the good it does and not see under the surface or really sense what the people feel they need day by day. As far as I am concerned, that was the purpose of creating the Company of Young Canadians. The company was to have as one of its main objectives the job of making sure that the government was made aware of the grievances certain people suffered. Its purpose was to make the government aware of their anger, their frustrations, their resentments, their criticisms and their hollering against the authorities who placed them in that position. I suggest this is worth while.
It seems to me that only the most complacent members of a democratic community could be annoyed with people who raise their voices against the conditions in which they find themselves, or annoyed with the people who make it their job to help the disadvantaged in society get together, organize and voice their protests. That is the only purpose of the Company of Young Canadians.
I do not object to some assistance being given to a youth parliament or any other exercise in which young people might take part in order to better understand their citizenship. I hope they understand it better than some adults. Let me interpose here that while I am not a victim of the youth cult, I think it
December 16, 1969

is necessary for all of us who are middle-aged or over to realize that young people are not looking at a perfect world. We cannot pat ourselves on the back and say we have created the best society in Canada, or in the world, and the youngsters must accept it. There is a great deal wrong with our society and there is a great deal that is disturbing about the world. The young people of Canada and of other countries are complaining about the evils of society and demanding that they be corrected. Surely this is a matter for congratulation rather than condemnation.
I am not talking about those young people or older people-and they are in every age group-who are extremists and go beyond what is considered an appropriate line. The line differs. For some people opposite the line will be in one place, the line for members of the official opposition will be in another place, and the line as far as I am concerned will be pretty far out. If we are to change the fundamental structure of society in order to get rid of its evils that exist, it will not be done by people who sit back complacently and never get angry about the situation.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
It is a good thing to be angry about evil, to express indignation about human suffering and to bang the table about it. Those who do that are not to be condemned. That is the purpose of the Company of Young Canadians. If it is to perform that function, there must be independence for the company from the government and from other agencies. I emphasize that I am saying independence for the company. I at not saying there should be independence for every volunteer to do as he likes. I am saying that the company should be set up properly, and that the council and executive director should be given sufficient room in which to perform their work without being controlled by government, bureaucratic organizations or anything of that sort. Therefore, the company itself must be independent.
I have listened to a great deal of criticism of the Company of Young Canadians. I could make a great deal of criticism, because all of us know about the projects which were irresponsible and the action of some volunteers which undoubtedly was irresponsible. But who in heaven's name is responsible for that situation? The minister and others on the government side have said the act as it now stands gives no power. I say, blow that. I do not accept that, because for three years until October of this year there was a provisional council, every member of which was appointed 21545-581

Company of Young Canadians Act by the government. There were three or four executive directors, each one of whom was appointed by the government.
As a lawyer, let me remind this assembly that every time a volunteer was hired, a contract was signed with him or should have been. When you sign a contract, you have a right in law to put into the contract anything to which the two parties agree. If the provisional council and the executive directors had had any imagination and capacity, they could have avoided all the difficulties that have occurred-because they did not occur over a period of two or three months, but over a period of one or two years.
I say with all kindness to the minister that he was wrong when he said he had no power. He did not have power as a minister, but the council did, and if the right people had been appointed and given guidelines they could have laid down conditions which the volunteers would have had to observe. It is that which is responsible for the mess in which the Company of Young Canadians became involved.
People complain about the kind of persons who became volunteers. Let me say two things about that. Even those of whose acts I disapprove, I admire for having offered their services. The reason you sometimes get certain kinds of people in this type of work instead of others is that too many of our young people just like too many of our older people, have been absorbed by the system of values in our society and are more anxious to go out and make money than to give their services to this kind of organization for very little money.
Those people who gave their services obviously were dedicated to the purposes for which the Company of Young Canadians was founded. From among them it could have been possible for the council and executive directors to choose people who had the least hang-ups instead of those who had the most. It was within their power to look at the applications, make some inquiries about these people and sift them, instead of appointing, as is my impression, almost everyone who came and offered himself or herself for the job.
Of course, there were people who abused their position and took advantage of it. That is not the fault of the people who abused it in the first instance; it is the fault of the government and the type of council and executive directors who appointed these people because they were either unwilling or unable to judge
2034	COMMONS DEBATES	December 16, 1969
Company of Young Canadians Act the persons they appointed as volunteers. I think it is a disservice to condemn those people who offered their time, their lives and whatever competence they had to a worth while cause for almost no pay. I am not prepared, and I hope no member of this House is prepared, to condemn the young people who gave their time and services for almost nothing, in most cases, in order to do a job for their country in accordance with the principles in which they believed and for which they thought the Company of Young Canadians was established.
Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to make a lengthy speech. I have indicated the general outline of my approach to this matter. Flowing from what I have said, however, I cannot accept a bill which sets up a Czar over the Company of Young Canadians. That is not an exaggeration. It sets up a complete dictator over the Company of Young Canadians, and from the wrong angle. I do not approve of a dictator or a Czar from any angle, but this approach is certainly from the wrong angle. He will control the program, the projects and everything else merely by ordering that certain moneys shall or shall not be paid. There is in the bill before us nothing which talks about policies or programs, nothing which tells us what the objectives or the new situation is to be.
We see by clause 1(2) that no payment of any money shall be made by the company and no contract or other arrangement providing for the payment of any money by the company shall be entered into or have any force or effect unless approved by the comptroller. That means that a stamp, a piece of paper or anything else cannot be purchased without the O.K. of the comptroller. Further, it means that the council and the executive directors cannot enter into a contract with any volunteer or anyone else for any project unless the comptroller approves.
I think the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) was frank enough yesterday to say-and if I am wrong he will correct me-either during his speech or in answer to a question during the question period, that this is a sort of trusteeship. He is right, except that it is not a form of trusteeship in any meaningful sense, because the trusteeship proposed by the committee, even though I personally am not happy about it, was one which would deal with programs, projects, objectives and the total ambit of the company.
The trusteeship to be established by this bill is such that one man will be able to say

what is and what is not to be done merely by agreeing or disagreeing with the payment of a certain amount of money. I cannot think of a worse way to develop self-confidence on the part of the volunteers, to instil any sense of responsibility in the company or promote any purposeful work by the volunteers. Therefore, I think this proposal is wrong in principle and wrong fundamentally. I think we could easily get what we want without having this kind of dictatorship written into the act.
I want to make clear, as have some of my colleagues who have preceded me in speaking to this bill on second reading, that we share everyone's concern and are just as anxious as anyone about the financial accountability of the company, about the fact that money has been wasted and that money has obviously been misused. We believe there ought to be financial accountability. I think, however, that can be achieved without making this man a total dictator over the company.
Therefore I move, Mr. Chairman:
That clause 1 be amended by:
1)	inserting after the word "shall" in line 11 the following words, "have supervision over the expenditures of the company and shall".
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I shall come back to that in a moment and make clear what it means. The second part of the amendment reads as follows:
2)	deleting subclause (2) and substituting the following therefor: "The comptroller shall be a co-signatory on every cheque issued by the company and no cheque issued by or in the name of the company shall be valid without his signature".
I am not guaranteeing that this is the best language, although it is simple enough. I am suggesting that we can achieve complete financial accountability in this way, and that we will avoid giving one man complete dictatorship over the company. The first subclause as amended by me would read:
(1) Forthwith upon the coming into force of this section the Governor in Council shall appoint a comptroller of the company who shall have supervision over the expenditures of the company and shall hold office during pleasure and shall be paid by the company such salary as is fixed by the Governor in Council.
This would establish that the role of the comptroller is to supervise the expenditures of the company, not its program or its policies. The second part of my amendment is to delete subclause 2 and substitute something therefor, so that instead of saying that this man has control over every penny that may be paid out, and over every contract, he shall
December IS, 1969	COMMONS
be a co-signatory on every cheque issued by the company, and no cheque issued by or in the name of the company shall be valid without his signature. My understanding, from the minutes of the committee hearings and from what my colleagues who are members of the standing committee told me, is that there are now four possible signatories for the company and that any two of the four can sign cheques.
It is quite normal for any organization to set down that one of two signatories shall be such-and-such an officer. The secretary-treasurer of a company, a corporation, a union or any organization may be one of the signatories on cheques or any documents signed on behalf of the organization, and one, two or three others may be co-signatories. This is normal procedure. This amendment, in effect, states that the comptroller shall be one of the signatories on every cheque issued by the company. He will therefore be able, as cheques are required to pay wages or salaries, to buy anything or to rent an office, to see what the cheque is for and refuse to sign it if in his judgment it should not be done; and he may then bring it back to council. If he refuses to sign it, the cheque is not good. In that way the money would be controlled.
I urge my amendment upon the Secretary of State, the Minister without Portfolio and the other ministers who are present. I do not insist on the particular wording I have used, but I urge them to favourably consider my approach. If my amendment were adopted, the comptroller would have supervision over the expenditures and in an indirect way he could affect some of the projects or programs by saying, "In my view this cheque should not be signed by me." He may then go back to the council or to the executive director and argue with them about it.
My amendment does mean that the council members and the executive director would remain in their positions. The people who form the program, who make the agreements with the volunteers and who make the decisions in the first place would remain, and only when money had to be paid out by cheque would the comptroller come into the picture. It would also mean that once a cheque was issued to pay the expenses for a project, the project people would not have to come to Ottawa for every pop bottle they wanted to buy or every penny they wanted to spend.


The Chairman:: Order, please. I am sorry to Interrupt the hon. member but his time has
DEBATES	2035
Company of Young Canadians Act expired. Is there unanimous agreement to allow the hon. member to complete his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


James Hugh Faulkner: There is no unanimous agreement.


Mr. Stanbury:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question?


James Hugh Faulkner: Unfortunately, the hon. member's time has expired and there is no unanimous agreement to allow him to continue.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, there might be unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to give an expanded reply to the question.


James Hugh Faulkner: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Richard J. Stanbury: I think the hon. member's suggestions should be considered and I think he should have an opportunity to make them clear. Let us take, for instance, the example of Wards Island to which reference was made earlier today and last night. If the comptroller decided that he should not pay the salaries of those volunteers, and the council then instructed him that they should be paid, what would be the position of the comptroller and what, in the opinion of the hon. member, would be his responsibility?


David Lewis: There are two things I might say in answer. This is not entirely fair, but I think my point will be clearer if I answer it in this way. First, the situation would be the same as it is under subclause 2 of the bill. That is to say, no payment of any money shall be made by the company and no contract or other arrangement providing for the payment of any money by the company shall be entered into unless approved by the comptroller, regardless of whether the council decides otherwise. The same applies to the amendment I propose, except that the comptroller does not come in at every stage of the contract or payment, as is here the case.
Wide discretion is given to the council and to the executive director, but when a situation such as the Wards Island case arises, I hope the comptroller will be the kind of person who will have the courage to say that it is a waste of money and a misuse of it, that he will not sign the cheque and that he wants
December 16, 1969

Company of Young Canadians Act the council to sit again and reconsider its decision. There must be a confrontation, because if the council happens to be irresponsible, which seems to be the case at present, they will not listen to the comptroller.


Mr. Otto:: And then what happens?


David Lewis: What happens under the present bill? Under the present bill the council says, "We want the Wards Island project to continue". The comptroller then says, "You cannot make any payments".


Steven Otto: And the contract cannot be entered into; the comptroller decides that.


David Lewis: I was given a specific example and I am dealing with it. In this case the contract is already made. I said in answer to the minister that in my amendment the situation is no different, no better and no worse than it is in the present bill. The comptroller would be in exactly the same position. The council would say, "The Wards Island project is to continue" and the comptroller would say, "I will not sign the cheque". Those are exceptional situations, and such confrontations will have to take place-they will clear up the situation. I hope that very soon the Secretary of State will bring forth legislation which will change the structure of the company. But even then he will have to have some kind of accountability, and the accountability which I suggest, in my humble view, unless I am very much mistaken, is a great deal better than what is suggested in the bill, from the point of view of the principle of the company.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Even without this extension of time, Mr. Chairman, I was going to take 30 seconds to draw the committee's attention to the fact that we have no intention of interfering with subclause 3, which also contains a very considerable power whereby the comptroller may demand and obtain all documents, books, accounts, etc. That, together with his authority to refuse to sign cheques if he thinks the money is going to be abused, gives him all the power that is needed for financial accountability without direct interference with the program, although he will have indirect power to interfere with the program. I just do not know how to devise a comptroller who does not have an indirect control over the program.
The president of the Treasury Board is not a dictator. As everybody knows, he is a good-natured, genial, generous man, but there is no

doubt that he affects the programs of every department of government by saying, "This is the limit of the expenditures you will be allowed to make." There is no way you can have power over finances without having indirect control of a program.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a brief, simple question for my edification? Is it his intention, by this amendment, to provide that the comptroller would not have the power to interfere with or prevent the programs of the Company of Young Canadians continuing to the extent that was determined by the council and the executive director?


David Lewis: No. You have two different approaches. Mr. Chairman, I really feel badly about taking up all this time of the committee. I suppose that since we are in committee I can speak more than once, although I do feel uneasy about it. As I say, you have two different approaches. First, there is the approach in the bill. Every time the council wants to make a contract with a volunteer or with anybody else in relation to a project, and every time the council and the executive director decide on a project, they have to go to the comptroller and say, "We have this project. We want to enter into this contract. Would you please approve it?" That is what the bill now means, so that at every step the comptroller must O.K. in advance every decision made by the council and the executive director; otherwise, the decision is completely frustrated.
The approach I suggest is that the council and the executive director have the initial and continuing responsibility of deciding on the projects, of entering into contracts, of choosing the volunteers-I hope much more responsibly than in the past. Once that is done and the contract is signed, then and only then, I imagine, can the comptroller, when the time comes for signing the cheque and in his view it is for something that is against the public interest or is a misuse of funds- somebody is using the money to finance somebody's living, as was suggested in the case we dealt with-use his power and refuse to sign the cheque. It is a reversal of the process. Instead of making the comptroller responsible and more important than the council and the executive director, it is the other way about.
This procedure is comparable with that of a board of directors of a corporation which decides on a certain policy. I have read cases on this in the law books, although I have'
December 16, 1969

never practised commercial law, where a signing officer has refused to sign a document which the board of directors has decided to sign, and then there has been a confrontation. It may happen in all businesses, but the person who has the signing power-


Gerald William Baldwin: Like the Minister of Finance.


David Lewis: That is right-does not have in a corporation the kind of power that is given in subclause 2 of this bill. My suggestion is not at all brilliant; it is taken from the practice in many corporations, associations and organizations, where you have the financial control without the czaiist power proposed in this bill.


James Hugh Faulkner: I might point out to the committee that in the interests of procedure the debate at this point should be strictly relevant to the amendment. If there is to be discussion on the amendment, I would certainly be prepared to hear it, but if not I will put the question.


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that the amendment, as it now reads, might perhaps be indeed a quite normal and efficient legislation or internal rule for a quite normal, efficient and above all normally disciplined society, in short, for an already existing company that would abide by the rules followed by companies. I do not know these rules any better than my hon. friend from York South (Mr. Lewis), but I agree with his definition of them.
But here we have something quite different. I think that by cancelling subsection (2), as proposed by the hon. member for York South, we risk putting the Company in a still more serious situation than the present one, because one can foresee-I do hope it does not happen but one must nevertheless think about it-that before the new measures intended to transform completely the structure of the Company are applied, the present council will not view with any particular liking the actions taken by the financial comptroller, who is to be appointed under this act. For example, the following absurd situation could occur, where the council and the Company would sign a contract with a third party and where the comptroller would be compelled to refuse his signature, even though the contract in question would be considered legal. This could lead to legal action either against the Company itself and the council, or against the comptroller himself.
Food and Drugs Act
I believe in fact that the powers of the comptroller and his authority to prevent in the future, and for a very brief period, the Company from venturing into further absurd undertakings will have the following effect: before assuming its share of the responsibilities and providing the money required for any project, the council will know that it must obtain the signature of the comptroller.
I therefore submit, Mr. Speaker, that this amendment would render the comptroller's function practically ineffective or, at any rate, would reduce it to a dangerous extent.


James Hugh Faulkner: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the minister. It is five o'clock and private members' hour is upon us.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Pensions; the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather)-Immigration; the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams)-Taxation.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo) moved: that Bill C-17, to amend the Food and Drugs Act (listing of ingredients), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Carried.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the said motion be adopted? :
2038	COMMONS DEBATES
Division


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
December 16< 1969
++NAYS


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Carried.


Mr. Haidasz:: Mr. Speaker, I said no.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.


Stanley Howard Knowles: that Bill C-18, to amend the British North America Act 1867 (abolition of the Senate) be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Maybe I should do the same thing, Mr. Speaker. Carried.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to suggest that, instead of our going through the whole list of public bills and calling them out one by one, I would be prepared to proceed with Order No. 47.


Mr. Bell:: Let us stick to the rules, Mr. Speaker.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)



CRIMINAL CODE

[Stage Direction]
During the taking of the vote:
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I was in attendance at the meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. As I understand it, we are voting on a bill to abolish the Senate. Surely the Chair must consider whether such a vote can be put to this assembly. The bill is an amendment to the British North America Act, which sets up the terms and conditions of the Senate. That affects all hon. members.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that according to the rules the matter cannot be discussed at this time. The question has to be put to the House. We are in the process of having the matter decided by the House, after which the hon. member can, if he so wishes, raise the matter for further consideration.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
After the taking of the vote:


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I voted against the bill, notwithstanding my feeling that the bill should never have been accepted in the House since it purports to amend a statute which it is not within our competence to amend.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It seems to me it is against the rules of the House to debate a matter that has been decided, and when it is not possible for others to reply. I submit that this bill constitutes an amendment to the British North America Act, that it was accepted by the Chair, and-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I accept the hon. member's point of view and suggest that we should not debate the matter at this point.


Mr. McCuicheon:: Mr. Speaker, I did not vote because I was paired with the Hon. Paul Martin.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



AMENDMENT TO MAKE POLLUTION OF INTERPROVINCIAL WATERS AND THE SEA A CRIMINAL OFFENCE

David Anderson: that Bill C-26, to amend the Criminal Code (pollution), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, for a moment I intended to remain in my seat in the hope that this bill might receive the same generous treatment as the bill of the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman), but since I understand other hon. members wish to express views on my bill I think I had better rise to introduce it. The purpose of the till is to amend the Criminal Code. It is most unfortunate that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) has just left the House, because in recent speeches outside this place he has made it clear that he approves of the intent of this bill. For example he spoke in Toronto recently of pollution and of the possible need to make the pollution of our waters a criminal offence.
The purpose of the bill I am presenting to the House today is to do precisely that. If I may have the indulgence of hon. members for a moment or two, I should like to refer to the actual wording of the bill so hon. members can judge its importance for themselves. The bill seeks to amend the Criminal Code and to make owners, lessees or persons operating any industrial plant, oil refinery, chemical works, sawmill or other plant or works, or any other persons, who discharge or throw or allow to be discharged or thrown any noxious waste product, raw sewage, oil, sawdust, chemical or other matter or thing into a river, stream or other water any part of which is interprovincial, or which flows into any interprovincial waters, or into the sea which has the effect-and I stress these words-of endangering the lives, safety, health and comfort of the public, guilty of an offence.
The object of the bill is to make it perfectly clear to anyone who embarks upon a commercial or industrial undertaking that would

December 16, 1969
Criminal Code
result in pollution in any way, shape or form of an interprovincial stream or of any other interprovincial waterway, that he would be entirely responsible for the consequences of any consequent pollution.
At present we have a medley of laws and regulations. We have regulations made pursuant to the Fisheries Act, regulations under the Department of National Health and Welfare, under the Department of Transport, and particularly under the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. Although all of these regulations relate to one aspect or another of water pollution, very few relate to the whole subject of pollution, and none make pollution per se an offence if it endangers the health and comfort of the public. This is what this bill seeks to do.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I do not want to belabour it indefinitely because I think other hon. members of the House may have a few words to say on this, while I hope other hon. members will not say anything, in order that we might refer the bill to a committee before the six o'clock deadline. All I should like to say is that the intent of this bill, from what we have read in the newspapers, meets with the approval of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. No harm surely, can come from sending this bill to a commit.ee. This is precisely what we should do this afternoon.
In view of the fact there are 18 minutes left for other people to express their views, I will resume my seat after once more urging hon. members of this House that just as we have been successful this afternoon in sending the excellent bill of the member for Waterloo, to the committee on health and welfare, so should we send this one to a committee this afternoon.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious from the applause with which this bill was greeted by hon. members on all sides of the House that the Canada Water Bill which we are presently considering and which is still before the House, is not deemed to be an adequate answer to the problems of pollution control in this country. We should support this Bill because it does one of the things I have already mentioned in connection with the Canada Water Bill. It assumes some authority on behalf of the federal Parliament on a national scale, and therefore purports to make it an offence to pollute waters anywhere in 
Canada. It also provides a very severe penalty for doing so.
I am not sure I would agree in every respect with this Bill, because it is very short. It is a bill by itself and not part of any other proposal or water act. Perhaps it should be extended to make it a more effective anti-pollution measure. However, I do think that referring it to a committee for considera ion together with the Canada Water Bill when it arrives there, would be a very wor.hy objective. I do not intend to talk this bill out. I merely want to say that I support its principle. I do not say this unkindly, but it does bear out some of the cri icisms that have been made of the Canada Water Bill as it now stands. The main one is that the federal government, under the Canada Water Act-


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Would the hon. member
permit a question?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Yes, certainly.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: As I listened to the hon.
member I understood him to say he was in favour of the bill as proposed. I noticed when the hon. member rose and was recognized, the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) was also on his feet. I am wondering whether the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken), if we can reach an understanding with the hon. member for Ottawa West, would agree with me to dispense with our remarks if that hon. member suggests to the House that we vote on the Bill after he has concluded his remarks.


Mr. Francis:: In order to make the situation clear, Mr. Speaker, let me indicate that I wish to make a number of remarks to the House.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I think that was hardly a legitimate question; nevertheless, I accept the spirit in which it was offered. If the indirect suggestion was that I should sit down and shut up, let me say I am going to do that in just a moment.


William Arnold Peters: It was only suggested if the Liberals agreed to a vote, but apparently they will not.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Nevertheless, I was about to conclude my remarks. I think this bill would strengthen the water bill as it has been presented. The two reasons I was in the process of giving were, first, that this measure would make pollution a national offence and, second, it would assume some of the federal powers which do exist; they would be put into the
December 16, 1969

legislation and made much stronger. I hope this Bill comes to a vote. If it does not, I hope this type of amendment will be moved when the water bill is before the standing committee.


Mr. Bruce Howard (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few remarks on this bill. I, too, hope it will come to a vote this afternoon. I am constantly shocked by the news from various parts of Canada concerning the problem that is dealt with in this bill. I think action in this regard is long overdue. I refer to the fact that many communities in Canada dump raw sewage into our waterways *without any treatment whatsoever. The nearest one is just across the river, the city of Hull. It offends the national capital area in that it is dumping raw sewage into the Ottawa River. It is a tragedy that cities like Hull and other communities in Canada are allowed to get away with this kind of thing. That is not the only such community; the city of Banff, in one of Canada's national parks, is still dumping raw sewage into the river. It is about time the Parliament of Canada exercised its power and made this an offence, as is suggested in the bill before us.
It is suggested that section 165a of the Criminal Code be amended to provide a fine of $25,000 for the first offence and $50,000 for the second offence in respect of communities, institutions or businesses that offend the provisions of the section. I believe we should be doing this kind of thing in Canada and putting the heat on communities such as the one across the river which are so backward and unwilling to bring themselves into line wi h modern Canadian thinking. I therefore endorse this bill and hope it will pass the House today.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: intend to be only a few minutes, Mr. Speaker, because I fully endorse this bill and should like to see it put to a vote and referred to the committee. Let me point out to hon. members that we now have all kinds of pollution measures on the statute books of Canada. The reason we have pollution from one end of Canada to the other is that the regulations and the legislation which we have passed, which are on our statute books and have been for years, have never been enforced by government departments or governments in power.


An hon. Member:: What legislation?


Randolph Harding: There is all kinds of legislation including the National Harbours Act, the
Criminal Code
National Health Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act and the boundary waters act. If you check the regulations you will find there is enough legislation now to clear pollution in Canada, if it was enforced. These laws are not being enforced.
As the hon. member who spoke about the Canada Water Bill pointed out, it appears to be insufficient in many of its provisions. I for one would very much like to see this bill given second reading and referred to the committee, so that members could see for themselves the need for amending legislation which would really put teeth into measures designed to cure our pollution ills in Canada. I hope that whoever follows me will allow ample time for the bill to be passed and referred to committee this afternoon.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in my mind that every member in the House at this time is as concerned as the hon. member who moved this bill with the very serious problems of the pollution of our waters.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
This bill is a very commendable effort to deal with the problem but not, it seems to me, in a way which would really be significant enough in respect of mounting an over-all attack on the problem. It deals with the problem by means of an amendment to the Criminal Code and purports to provide a fine or possibly another type of penalty upon conviction. The first question which I ask is simply; How can we possibly fine or convict the chief offenders in respect of our waterways, the municipalities which discharge their sewage without treatment into almost every navigable waterway of this nation? It is true the federal government has undertaken an attack through the agency of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation by means of a program which makes it possible for municipalities to borrow funds to instal sewage treatment plants on reasonably favourable terms, with forgiveness of a portion of the loan.


An hon. Member:: They have run out of
money.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The hon. member says, "They have run out of money". I am sure the hon. member has done some estimating concerning the amount of money needed to provide primary, secondary and tertiary treatment in the various plants across this country. I am sure he is satisfied that the amount of money is

December 16, 1969
Criminal Code
not hundreds of millions of dollars, but billions of dollars. There is no way to avoid this kind of investment. The simple provision of a criminal penalty of this nature will not provide sewage treatment plants of the type that will have to be provided. The attack on and control of pollution in this nation will have to be an over-all, co-ordinated attack providing not only the stick but the carrot, providing not only the incentive but the capital and technical means and know-how by which this can be done.
The government is preparing major legislation which will come before this House. I submit to hon. members that the procedure by which we must deal with this problem should be on a much broader front than the one envisaged in this bill. In the Ottawa area we have perhaps some of the most glaring examples of pollution. It is not necessary to go very far to see these. Hon. members can walk behind the Parliament Buildings and see the paper mill on the other side of the river which discharges chemical foam 365 days of the year. This is an indication of the pollutants that go into the river, chemical as well as mechanical.
Not long ago when they drilled for the footings for the Macdonald-Cartier bridge they went through 30 feet of sawdust at the bottom of the river before they hit bedrock. The sawdust came from the days of the sawmill operations on the Ottawa River. The sawmills which operated for generations left their heritage, which is lying on the bottom of the river today. I remember a former director of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, who had been the deputy minister of fisheries before he assumed that post, giving a speech in this city in which he described the days in which 30 salmon inspectors were engaged between the city of Montreal and the falls near the Chateau Laurier on the Ottawa River. The freshwater salmon were driven out of the river and became extinct in that waterway because of pollution.
The Rideau River in the Ottawa area is another source of major pollution, again right under the noses of those of us who live for a good part of the year in the national capital. I suggest the problem of the pollution of the Rideau River will not be solved by passage of this bill, because the pollution of that river is a problem of long-term control of land use and planning, including facilities to stop pollutants coming from individual homes which are badly located, with faulty septic tanks because of the type of development which did 
not carry with it any orderly plan in respect of land use.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would permit a question I should like to ask why he thinks the progressive communities which have installed primary, secondary or tertiary treatment plants for sewage should be penalized because of the backward communities in Canada which have not enough civic pride to spend their money on this kind of sewage treatment plant for the benefit of the whole country.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, I have complete sympathy with the hon. member's motive in asking the question. There is no reason in the world that we should penalize people for taking this step. What is the use in trying to improve the problem in the manner put forward by this bill when there is a constitutional problem involved? A law that is not enforceable is not one which can achieve its purpose. Is the intention to impose fines on the municipalities along the Rideau River, every one of them being a source of pollution? All I am suggesting is that these communities, by a combination of funds being provided for these installations together with the incentive to do so, should somehow be persuaded rather than bullied, coerced, or whatever it may be called, to take part in an orderly procedure to eliminate the pollution to which they are contributing.
I suggest to hon. members that the passage of legislation such as that contained in this bill, without such accompanying measures, would fall short of achieving the purpose in mind. I know there are many hon. members who would like to speak on this subject and in deference to others I am prepared to yield the floor at this point.


Mr. R. J. Orange (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest this motion be amended so that it might be referred to the committee which will be dealing with the Canada Water Bill. I am sure the committee will look into the aspect of penalties so far as the water bill is concerned. Therefore, I wonder if there could be unanimous consent to having this bill transferred to the Committee on National Resources and Public Works.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
December 16, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES


Robert John (Bud) Orange: I move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the hon. member for Missisquoi, (Mr. Forest:
That the motion be amended by striking out the words "and reference to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs" and substituting therefor "reference to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-171, to amend the Company of Young Canadians Act-Mr. Pelletier-Mr. Bechard in the chair.
Albert Béchard: When the committee rose at 5 p.m. it was considering clause 1 of the bill and the amendment thereto of the hon. member for York South.
On clause 1-


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Chairman, I only wish to conclude briefly the remarks I was making before recess.
The only argument against the amendment of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) I still have to put forward is that, under the proposed amendment, the comptroller that this bill intends to appoint would only have a purely negative role. Indeed, the second part of the amendment reads as follows:
The comptroller shall be co-signatory on every cheque issued by the Company and no cheque issued by or in the name of the Company shall be valid without his signature.
This is designed to give the comptroller a purely negative authority. I am afraid it is
Company of Young Canadians Act inadequate, in view of the particular circumstances that I have already pointed out.
In my opinion, section 10A(2), on the contrary, assigns to the comptroller a positive role, if I may say so, and I quote:
No payment of any money shall be made by the Company and no contract or other arrangement providing for the payment of any money by the Company shall be entered into or have any force unless approved by the comptroller.
This provision assigns a positive role to the comptroller and I think that we would not want him to be a man whose only power would be, as the saying goes: "to shut the stable door after the horse is stolen." On the contrary, we want that comptroller to have real control.
In a previous speech, someone said that I had used the term "financial trusteeship". I uphold those words. I believe that it is indeed a financial trusteeship which is proposed in that bill as an emergency measure. And in my opinion, so that trusteeship is truly effective, the comptroller appointed must possess preventive powers, otherwise the council of the Company might present him with accomplished facts, commitments and previously signed and legally questionable contracts which could lead to legal proceedings.
Thank Heaven, this difficulty has not been encountered yet by the Company and I believe Parliament would not wish to be responsible for causing it to experience that type of trouble which could result in legal action.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I find the amendment unacceptable and, besides, I fail to see what is wrong with the proposal as drafted.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I would like to reply to the minister. I listened to his excellent French very carefully and I want to say three things to him. If the condition of the Company of Young Canadians, of its council and of its executive director is now so bad that they cannot even be trusted with the kind of financial control which my amendment proposes, then I join the ranks of those who say that the company should be ditched completely. I would have preferred if the minister had introduced a simple pro jet de loi, a simple bill saying that the act establishing the company is defunct, erased from our statute books.
[DOT] (8:10 pjn.)
I am serious, Mr. Chairman. If the situation of the Company of Young Canadians has
2044	COMMONS
Company of Young Canadians Act reached the point where even the stringent comptrollership which my amendment suggests is not enough, and we cannot trust the council and the executive director at all- even under these circumstances-I think the hon. member for Annapolis Valley and my colleague, the hon. member for Fraser Valley West, are perfectly right, and you should ditch the thing. You cannot preserve the life of an organization when you pass the kind of law which discourages every potential volunteer, who will say, "What the devil will I do in this kind of organization where I have a czar sitting over me, looking over every act of the company? That is not what I want to join." The new arrangement which the minister proposes will not remove that basic discontent and that basic doubt in the minds of young people who might be interested in entering this field.
If that is the situation, Mr. Chairman, then I think the minister who is a friend of long standing is-and I use this word with hesitation but deliberately-too cowardly to say, "This company is no good any more and I am going to wash it out." I say to the minister that that in effect is what he is doing. He is saying that the whole idea of the company as initiated, as originally thought out, is not workable. The minister says he is going to have a trusteeship because the company is not any good, and it cannot be allowed to work even under the most stringent financial controls. Then wash the thing out. Why try to fool Parliament and the young people of Canada that he is hanging on to it when in fact he is throttling it?
When the minister decided that a trusteeship had to be imposed, why did he not accept the committee's report? Why did he have the committee established in the first place, if he intended to impose his trusteeship? A Standing Committee of Parliament recommended the imposition of a trusteeship of three people. Why could the minister not have made a simple amendment imposing a trusteeship that a committee of this House proposed? Why not follow the committee's recommendation for a trusteeship not limited to the czarist nature of this bill, a trusteeship that has some responsibility for programming in a direct way and that could really make the Company of Young Canadians work?
I now come to a legal rather than a poli'ical argument. Of course, for any legal argument there are as many opinions as there are lawyers. I say to the minister that my amendment does not endanger the company from

DEBATES	December 16, 1969
the point of view of lawsuits one bit more than his bill does. His bill says:
No payment of any money shall be made by the company and no contract or other arrangement providing for the payment of any money by the company shall be entered into-
That is in the future.
-or have any force or effect unless approved by the comptroller.
I say that is as true for the contracts now in force as it is for any that may be made in the future, and if this bill came into force tomorrow the comptroller could say, "The contract with the volunteers in Toronto on the Wards Island project is now terminated," and he would be in just as much legal difficulty as if the proposition I make were adopted. We will have precisely the same legal situation if the comptroller cancels any of the contracts now in force with somebody else, under signature by the company. The minister should know that. If he does not, I draw it to his attention. There is no difference. The only difference is that his bill makes the comptroller czar over everything, programming included, whereas my amendment provides for accountabili y of the expenditures of the company and does not entirely wipe out the spirit, principles and objectives of the Company of Young Canadians.
I plead with the minister to accept my amendment. He can have his law offices change the wording. As I said this afternoon, I am not a particularly skilful legal drafter, and he can have the wording changed by his legal officers. My amendment would achieve everything necessary to protect the funds of the company, to make sure they are not abused, and yet it will not say to the potential volunteers in Canada, "This company is entirely under the control of one man who has complete control over programs, over projects, over everything in the company." That will not go across; it is not retaining any of the spirit of the Company of Young Canadians. My amendment retains the principle that the company can have its own programs and set its own course, subject to the authority of the comptroller to refuse to make the money available if in his view this endangers the integrity of the company or abuses the funds which Parliament has voted to it.
This is all I can say, Mr. Chairman. If the minister will not be moved, if he wants this czarist power in the bill, I suggest he will do himself harm. He will merely justify the suspicion in the minds of many of us to your left
December 16, 1969	COMMONS
that the government is really seeking a way to kill the Company of Young Canadians while at the same time wanting the credit that goes with appearing not to kill it. The government cannot do it; nobody is going to be fooled by it. This bill kills the spirit of the Company of Young Canadians, and nothing else. I think I have given the minister some suggestions which would avoid doing that.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Chairman, I feel that the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) is taking too seriously the case I made against his amendment, and I should like to point out two things very calmly.
First of all, according to every information available, the volunteers of the Company who are aware of this bill approve it. It gives them a feeling of security to know that from now on, they will be able to work within an organization which will not be constantly subjected to charges of malversation levelled against the Company, but which might reflect at any time on any volunteer, no matter how honest and upright he may be himself.
My second remark will be in the form of a question to the hon. member for York South.
I would ask him to describe to us the process by which some large American labour unions, for which he has often pleaded with great eloquence, are put under financial trusteeship. I would ask him also to describe to us the process under which some American unions can place some local units under financial trusteeship within 24 hours through a mere decision of the executive.
Does that mean that those labour organizations want to destroy their locals? When a provincial government decides to establish financial trusteeship over a town which has been badly run, does it intend to destroy the town?
To speak of cowardice, of a covert intention to destroy the Company of Young Canadians is, in my opinion, accusing the government of presumed sins. In my view of the attitude of some members of the House and of the great ballyhoo in some newspapers, it would have been only too easy for the government, on the basis of all these opinions, to proclaim the end of the Company of Young Canadians' activities, whereas what we are actually doing is to reassert our faith in the concept. To do this, however, we must convince the Canadian people that we have taken appropriate steps to protect the assets that is rightfully theirs.
DEBATES	2045
Company of Young Canadians Act
There are differences of opinions between the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) and myself on the eventual consequences of the bill we have introduced. I respect his opinion, but I fail to understand why he should attribute hidden intentions to us when the whole thing was dealt with openly in a parliamentary committee. Moreover, the hon. member has served organisations, that I know as well as he does, where the process of financial trusteeship is very strict and speedy, although it does in no way purport to suppress the unions involved.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Chairman, I have just listened with interest to the running debate between the Secretary of State and the hon. member for York South. I can assure you that I do not intend to be drawn into the legal aspects of this argument. I would suggest, however, to the hon. member for York South that from a medical standpoint he was probably using some incorrect expressions because as I understand it, in Wards Island there was not any physical contact.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I have listened to some of the speeches regarding the Company of Young Canadians and it seems to me that a great many of us in this House have come to the very sad conclusion that the only thing to do is bury it as soon as possible. Of course, I realize it is necessary to carry out some sort of wake in order to have an interim period in which to wind up the business, including the Volvos and the $600,000, and perhaps Ward Island and a few other things. Really, that is about all that is left of nearly $8 million taken from the pockets of the taxpayers. About all that has been accomplished is the sowing of the seeds of destruction, immorality and sedition.
There were a few good volunteers. I know the disappointment that they must feel deep in their hearts. To these young people I express my sympathy and regret, as I know the members of this House do. They carried in'o this field their bright ideals and honest intentions to create out of the weaknesses and social poverty of this country a new Canada. But they went into this work without any structure or ground rules to make what they could of their very high ideals.
I well remember sitting here the day Mr. Pearson brought in this brainchild of his. It
2046	COMMONS
Company of Young Canadians Act was to be the counterpart of the Peace Corps. There were visions and hopes that stirred the imagina ion, and many members spoke in warm and glowing terms of this Company of Young Canadians and the things it might accomplish. But alas and alack, the government failed and Parliament failed entirely to lay down any ground rules and direction. Now they and they alone must take responsibility for this failure.
To show how badly Parliament dealt with this matter I should like to refer to page 6548 of Hansard. I asked the then minister of justice what the ground rules were, and Mr. Favreau's reply was:
Mr. Chairman, I do not believe the matter of relative provincial federal jurisdiction is involved here. The Company of Young Canadians will he a group of volunteers whose purposes are as follows. The Company of Young Canadians should be the instrument of the government of Canada to support, encourage and develop programs and activities in the field of social service in Canada and abroad. This company would be based on the provision of volunteers. This program will serve to co-ordinate the activities of those who in the social field will implement the purposes of the Company of Young Canadians.
We read the words of Mr. Vidal, one of the directors of the company who states, according to reports, that there were not any ground rules, none were laid out. Just imagine bringing in a group of young people without any qualifications! At least we have qualifications for this place-we have to get elected. It is no use blaming the company. What would happen with any group, young people or not-and we have some very fine young people in this country-who were allowed to operate without any ground rules, any program or any direction? Just imagine, no qualifications to be a volunteer! Any and all could come, no matter what their background or character-no qualification for education, no experience, and above all, no program set out for them to work under. There were not even any priorities. Mr. Pearson has gone, Mr. Favreau has passed to his reward. Man is mortal, both in politics and life.
The five directors appointed by the government and the ten directors appointed by the company had no specific training, and as far as I can learn there were no rules even for the volunteers. What an injustice was done to the Company of Young Canadians the day the bill was passed! But what could one expect? Some very fine young people were attracted, but many with cruel disappointment and disillusionment had to leave for other fields. Others, not so desirable, were attracted and

DEBATES	December 16, 1969
as time went by even Marxists were on the payroll. What a way to run the country!
Mr. Chairman, I have here a newspaper article written in 1967 which states:
The Company of Young Canadians, an unkempt collection of youthful layabouts, held a five-day meeting in Orillia last fall. The 69 members who turned up for some or all of the sessions spent $4,738 on transportation alone; $226 on telephone calls and $3,930 on food and accommodation. All this produced not so much as a single report.
One would have thought that 1he government at that time would have taken action to see that ground rules were laid down by the directors appointed by the government. However, Ihere was not a single report. I believe the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister advised the House that none could be expected, although he believed that a member of the staff had kept some record of the session. In that area the Company of Young Canadians could have done good work. There is a development at Cahiague, which is near the town of Orillia. An old Indian village has been redeveloped there and every summer, students under the direction of a professor, do lots of work in the area. Nothing constructive resulted from the Company's reckless spending of $8,000 of the taxpayers' money on a meeting. Mr. Chairman, what a disgraceful blot the government left on the young people of this country by creating the CYC. Does this not remind you of the lady who abandoned her baby on the doorstep? The blame and responsibility in this matter must be accepted by Parliament, and particularly by the government because it created this organization. The government must also accept the moral responsibility for spending the people's money long after it was warned that there were difficulties connected with the CYC. We must keep in mind that the Company was under the direction of the Prime Minister's office, and that the appointed executive director was well paid to carry out his duties.
o (8:30 p.m.)
Let us look at some of the warnings that were given. The Montreal Gazette, in an article published in September, 1967, warned that the CYC had become infiltrated with radicals and Marxists who were attempting to take over the CYC. What did the government do after it became known that the organization had been poisoned in this way? It was warned about the field worker in British Columbia named Lyn Curtis who wrote an article in a communist newspaper and thereby launched a direct attack against the "rotting middle
December 16, 1969

class". This matter was brought to the government's attention and the Prime Minister of the day, Prime Minister Pearson, admitted at that time that he never thought all those mistakes would be made. I ask, Mr. Chairman, what else can you expect when you form a company of young people without any ground rules, priorities, qualifications or necessary ingredients for the setting up of a company of this sort if it is to do the work it should do?
The government was warned by the Leader of the Opposition, who asked for a full probe into the Company's work. The hon. member for Guelph also brought the matter to the attention of the House, as I did, by referring to the article I alluded to that had been written in 1957. But the matter was glossed over and nothing was done to correct the problem until Mr. Saulnier made his appeal, saying that the Company was linked with groups supported and financed by foreign powers not sharing our views. All this is pretty sad and the government is responsible for this blot on the collective escutcheon of our young people. After all, the government permitted this to happen. It set up this Company without laying down any framework, priorities or aims.
I do not believe that there can be a resurrection of the CYC. The resurrection can only occur within the consciences of members of the Company, because the damaging picture is there for all to see. I do not believe that those who had bad reputations in the CYC should be allowed to tarnish the efforts of any new members because newcomers should not work under the handicap of previous mistakes in trying to renovate the present Company. In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, it would be completely wrong of us to saddle any new group of youngsters with an albatross of previous corruption and wrongdoing with which they were not connected.
Perhaps the kindest thing I can say is this: the company was created from an ideal, and the dream ended as a sad delusion. In the light of the Wards Island disaster and the fiasco over the week end, we should consider the timing of the wake. Infectious moral problems must be treated radically and obliterated as soon as possible. Parliament ought to correct the mistake it made when it passed the bill setting up this company without specifying what regulations or qualifications should govern it or the people enlisted to serve with the company.
Company of Young Canadians Act [Translation]


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Chairman, we are now studying Bill C-171 designed to appoint a financial comptroller to the Company of Young Canadians, together with an amendment moved by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) who would rather have us appoint somebody with the sole power of countersigning cheques than give dictatorial powers, to use his own words, to a comptroller over the Company of Young Canadians.
I must admit that the hon. member for York South did not come up in his plea with very strong arguments. I have much esteem for him as a lawyer as he pleads his cases very skilfully and very subtly. I suspect him to have some sort of afterthought, in the most acceptable sense of the term. Even though his arguments do not seem to have much weight, he has in mind a conclusion he does not dare pass on to the House.
In any event, as a layman, I do not see much difference between the appointment of a financial comptroller and the appointment of someone who can sign cheques, because finally if he wants to do this signing properly he will have to look into all the activities of the Company of Young Canadians. He will all the same be able to use his right of veto. It seems to me we are being driven from the frying pan into the fire and that someone is trying to get us to use the old expression: much of a muchness.
Most hon. members have probably felt at one time or another a certain heartbreak as they were to speak in the House. Within themselves, as I do this evening, they are probably saying: I am convinced it is urgent to vote in favour of this bill so that a comptroller be appointed to watch over the Company's finances, because the situation is so very complicated. In practice, I do not think that could happen, but, in theory at least, some 900,000 could be squandered, more or less, in a matter of hours.
The government is being wise in asking the House to act quickly. Personally, I know that the matter is urgent and that I would be failing in my duty as a member if I did not express, in this debate, the view of my constituents, that is of the municipal boards, the welfare associations, the social services and the town-planning services. As a matter of fact, they have been supplying me with documents for over a year.
December 16, 1969

Company of Young Canadians Act [DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
I have about one tenth of it on hand, and I am sure that when I return home for the weekend, if I have not stated my position on that question, I shall be accused of cowardice.
This is more especially true as the Opposition has put me in an extremely difficult position because they attacked the bill in a partisan way, while I am about to express views which, at least at first sight, might not be exactly in line with what the government proposes tonight.
Mr. Chairman, I think that hon. members must approach arduous problems with courage and consider them objectively and honestly.
I would have liked it just the same if the hon. members opposite who all voted for that bill with the best intentions, which moreover were summarized this morning in the Toronto Globe and Mail by Mr. George Bain-


Albert Béchard: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I hope that the contents of the article he wants to quote relates to the amendment before the House. The debate seems now to become general while we are discussing the amendment proposed by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) to limit the role of the comptroller who would be appointed under the bill.
I would ask the hon. member and the members of the committee to restrict their comments to the amendment under study.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for your rulings. Perhaps it is appropriate to say that I did not explain myself clearly enough as to how to approach this problem.
The member for York South claims that an amendment is necessary so that the comptroller can only countersign cheques, while the minister maintains that a comptroller must be appointed.
In order to show that the conclusion of the member for York South leads nowhere, I say that he is straying from the subject-matter of the debate. Otherwise, the only thing to be said is that either the member or the minister is right.
The member for York South is wrong in asking simply for the appointment of a cheque co-signatory because this would not serve the purpose of the legislation.
First, I want to prove that the matter of the Company of Young Canadians is a serious

one. In fact, some outside elements are responsible for contaminating, disintegrating, disorganizing, in short, rotting this organization. Parliament must have some control over it. It would not be enough to adopt the amendment of the member for York South.
I call upon your indulgence in order to prove my point. Otherwise, I would simply rise and say: The hon. member for York South is wrong and the minister is right. But I believe that neither of them is right.


Albert Béchard: Order. I fully
understand the feelings of the hon. member but presently, the members of the committee are well aware that we are discussing a particular amendment.
I think it is necessary that the hon. member should limit his remarks to this amendment so that, when the committee has dealt with the amendment, hon. members might discuss in general terms the bill now before the committee.


Mr. Asselin:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.


Albert Béchard: The hon. member for Charlevoix on a point of order.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Chairman, I comply with your ruling, but as the previous speaker said, how can an amendment be discussed without referring to the heart of the problem?
To refer to the essence of the matter does not mean to refuse to discuss the amendment, for that constitutes an entity. The Chair will understand that if the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres wishes to refer to the essence of the matter, that relates to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I would like you to give us your instructions as to how the matter must be debated.


Albert Béchard: I thought I had been clear enough in asking the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres to be relevant. According to the rules, when an amendment, a section of a bill or simply a bill are being discussed in committee, we must remain exclusively within the ambit of the subject. We have now before us an amendment to sec'ion 1 of the bill, which provides, as I said earlier, for limiting the role of the comptroller. The committee members will agree that we must restrict ourselves to this amendment.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I want to do what you do not allow me to do. With all due respect, I must just the same prove that the member for York South is wrong.
December 16, 1969	COMMONS
I should be allowed to state my position, or I shall simply say that he is wrong and resume my seat. If you wish, I shall sit down and speak later.
I am quite willing to resume my seat without a word if you ask me, Mr. Chairman. However, I shall speak again later on in the debate.
I want to prove that the member for York South is wrong and I have to rest my argument on something. The member for York South will not refuse to admit that I am right. He spoke all afternoon, infringing the Standing Orders, if what you say is true, Mr. Chairman. Several other members were also out of order.
I have sat through the whole debate, and I am not aware that they were called to order, except once, when the Chair said: I should like to advise everybody to keep as much as possible to the subject under consideration.
Therefore, we will keep within the subject matter which is the appointment of a comptroller of the Company of Young Canadians. According to the amendment moved by the hon. member for York South, the role of the comptroller would be reduced to that of cosigning every cheque issued by the Company.
I am ready to resume my seat if you will not allow me to make my case, as everyone has done this afternoon, except that I may appeal from your ruling, or else ask for leave to speak again later to continue my speech.
I shall submit to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, before going any further.


David Lewis: Let the hon. member continue his speech.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Chairman, could we not ask for the unanimous consent of the House to allow the hon. member to continue?


Albert Béchard: Order, please. I do not want to get into an argument with the members of the committee. The Chair has not forbidden the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres to proceed with his speech, but it is asking the hon. member, as all members of the committee, to discuss only the amendment before us. In commenting on this amendment it is obviously possible to make up a point, but not to argue indefinitely in a general way on the bill creating the Company of Young Canadians.
DEBATES	2049
Company of Young Canadians Act


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I will do everything possible to co-operate with you. I thank you for being so generous and lenient.
If we decide to appoint a comptroller, he will be appointed to a serious organization which has deteriorated lately. This is why we want to remedy the situation. As regards the policy which led to the creation of the Company, I will quote an article from the Toronto Globe and Mail which reads as follows:

"The Company of Young Canadians will, I believe, continue a good Canadian tradition reaching back to the Jesuit missions of New France right on down to the Grenfell medical outposts of Labrador and the bush-camp classrooms of Frontier Colleges. Its members will also serve in due course ... in villages and towns over the seas ..."
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)

Mr. Chairman, as I was saying, in my opinion, some hon. members had been a little too partisan in dealing with the subject, since they blamed the government for establishing that organization, and then leaving to itself without any guidelines. I should like to remind the hon. members of the opposition that the establishment of the Company was approved unanimously and that nobody then raised any question as to its activities. Therefore, the whole parliament must assume the responsibility for it. I think that in order to solve this problem once and for all, we should consider it objectively, realistically and honestly, by asking ourselves what we want exactly. Is it simply a matter of winning the next election or correcting a situation which leaves a lot to be desired?
According to the minister, we should appoint a comptroller. The hon. member for York South tells us: No, let us simply appoint a co-signatory.
However, neither solution is satisfactory because in this mess, the Company of Young Canadians betrayed the confidence parliament had placed in those people who claimed to devote themselves to social animation. There have been many charges. There is no smoke without fire, and in view of the seriousness of certain accusations of malversion and mismanagement in every part of the country, especially in my riding, the solution offered by the hon. member for York South, which is simply the appointment of a co-signatory, is not satisfactory. To me, it does not come up to the expectations of the majority of hon.
December 16, 1969

Company of Young Canadians Act members and the majority of Canadian citizens, who are worried about what is happening in that cauldron which is called the Company of Young Canadians.
We could solve this problem not by appointing a co-signer but simply by freezing the funds and stopping the activities of the Company of Young Canadians, by launching a judicial inquiry into their activities, so as to know what happened. Thus, whenever we establish an organization to perform the task the CYC was entrusted with, we shall know what is to be done in order to make a success of it.
So I come back to the expression I used a while ago and which I am not in the habit of using because I express my opinions in a rather definite way. I urge the government, on behalf of the majority of the people whom I meet and whom I know, to put an end to all that. Let us not appoint someone to countersign cheques, as the hon. member for York South said. That hon. member had a better reaction towards the end of the discussion with the minister, when he said: "Let us put an end to it, if it is to be like that".
Let us put an end to it, Mr. Chairman. Let us know where we stand because the Canadian people are worried about such a waste of public funds, for subversive or other purposes.
I believe the amendment moved by the hon. member for York South is sterile and superfluous.
There is the only possible remedy: we should indeed grant the demands made by such reliable men as Mr. Drapeau and Mr. Saulnier. They have given ample proof of their ability. They are not out of place when they come here. They have proved to be great Canadians and they are assuming considerable responsibilities. As for me, I am going to vote in favour of the bill introduced by the minister, without even knowing what he is going to suggest later on, because, in my opinion, this is a final step.
The people would be more reassured and feel happier if we voted against the amendment of the hon. member for York South and if the government simply decided to freeze the money, to suspend the activities of the CYC and to conduct a legal inquiry in order to find out what happened. Such a course of action would result in the setting-up of another organization, established on the basis of acquired experience. We would thus give to those who are unable to find an audience in Canada, a voice which, this time, would be

sincere, honest, objective, constructive and beneficial instead of letting them go astray on the path of revolution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few observations on the first clause of the bifi.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I rise on a point of order. I think my hon. friend will appreciate that I raise the point of order in a friendly way. I am not assuming that he is about to violate any rules, but if it is the case that most members who want to speak wish to speak generally, rather than specifically to the amendment moved by the hon. member for York South, I wonder whether we could take a vote on the amendment and then let the debate proceed.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, with respect, my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre is perhaps anticipating my remarks. I assure Your Honour that what I have to say is quite relevant to the amendment moved by the hon. member for York South; my comments are directed to whether we should accept the amendment and, indeed, the bill. In order to discuss these matters I may have to take five or six minutes of the committee's time, and I do not think this would be unreasonable.
There is an old expression that the road to Hades is paved with good intentions. High-minded people of the very best principles and intentions are often quite incapable of realizing that others are not always motivated by the same good intentions. When the company was originally formed I was a member of this House, as were many other members here this evening, and I think we all agreed with the general aims and objectives of the organization. Although a lot of us had misgivings about how it would work out, the company was the responsibility of the then government and Prime Minister, who appropriated the Company unto himself and his staff. But we all agreed it should be given a fair chance.
The legislation we passed removed this organization from the control of Parliament, and an attempt was made at the same time not to hamstring any of the creative ideas that our young people might have. I think this was the first mistake. The hon. member for Simcoe North has pointed out that repeatedly the members of this House gave warnings of trouble that was brewing, but nothing
December 16, 1969

was done. Even though the government of the day failed to heed our warnings, I should have thought that the example set by another organization over which parliament again has no control, namely the CBC, would have been sufficient to make the government aware of what was happening.
It has been found that organizations that are created by Parliament but are beyond the control of Parliament become infiltrated with people who wish to use public funds to promote their own political, social and economic philosophies to the exclusion of all others. This has been the case with the Company of Young Canadians; and there is plenty of evidence that the same thing has been happening, but for an even longer period, within the CBC. I submit the government should have heeded the warnings which have been sounded for a long time.
However, nothing was done about the situation until recently when we were given what were almost incredible reports about what had been taking place within the CYC. The full details are common knowledge and have been placed before the House by many members. I will not repeat them, other than to say if anyone had read about these things in a book or a comic strip or had seen them in a Mack Sennett cartoon, they would simply have laughed and said it could not possibly happen. Yet it has happened, and happened in this Parliament, and for this the government is responsible.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
The Company of Young Canadians can be likened to Voltaire's description of the holy Roman empire-neither holy, Roman nor an empire. The only company I can compare the CYC with is Atlantic Acceptance. The CYC certainly is not made up of very young Canadians. It seems to be made up of rather middle-aged Canadians who are experienced, like the Russian students who come to this country. As for being Canadians, I should like to ask the Secretary of State how many of these people on the executive body of this organization are Canadians. It appears that not very many of them are. Apparently, there is one from Buffalo, one from Los Angeles and one or two recent immigrants from Europe. It appears that this is not a company, not made up of young people and not very Canadian. The Secretary of State probably does not have this information at his fingertips but before we complete the committee
Company of Young Canadians Act stage perhaps he could obtain this information.
The question we must ask ourselves now is what is to be done? There is an amendment before us moved by the hon. member for York South. I do not think anyone in this House is averse to having young people do what they can to help out in respect of the undesirable social conditions we have in this country. We have a lot of social problems here. The way we treat our Indian and Eskimo people has become a laughing stock in other countries. This is particularly true when the Canadian representative to the United Nations sanctimoniously lectures other countries on their treatment of minorities. I remember on one occasion when our representative was doing this, Canada and Sweden got a lecture. The South African ambassador nudged me then and said: "The goody-goodies are getting it now." There are plenty of things in our country that need looking into.
All of us were young at one time. We now hear a great deal about the generation gap. I do not think it is that great. Most of us were pretty idealistic. Perhaps we have lost a little of our idealism and become blase, if you wish. That is unfortunate because young people, though they lack a certain practicality, have ideas and want to do things. There should be no mistake about that. The impression has been created in this House that the only young people interested in taking part in this kind of organization are extremists, anarchists and the like. The impression has been created that these are the progressive people and represent the youth in Canada. That is nothing but a lot of boloney and only wishful thinking on the part of those who foster this impression.
I have attempted to bridge this generation gap by making contact with these young people. It is true there is a small group who have an interest in promoting Leninist and Marxist doctrines. I know some of my friends to the left are anxious to see these doctrines advanced but a great many of the young people in Canada do not go for this old hat approach. They know that these old-fashioned ideas are not applicable to our society. It is a gross mistake to think that the young people want to push forward these old-fashioned Marxist and Leninist doctrines. This is simply not true.
There has been an objection to having a supervisor. The hon. member for York South has objected to supervision over this body.
December 16. 1969

Company of Young Canadians Act The hon. member for Fraser Valley West said last evening that we should account for all the moneys spent by the company but we should not interfere with its programs. I thought that was a rather odd observation. I presume the hon. member was speaking on behalf of his party when he made that remark. Presumably the hon. member would agree with the amendment moved by the hon. member for York South. Apparently all that is wanted by that group to my left is an accounting of all the money spent but they do not care how it was spent. I find that rather unacceptable.
There has been some criticism of the government's proposal that there should be some supervision. I see nothing wrong with this, because if any groups ever needed supervision quite clearly that group did. I am afraid I will have to disagree, not only with the amendment, but also with the proposition of the government. It must be pretty obvious to everybody that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. It will be very difficult to make this organization smell any sweeter no matter what you call it. The name of this organization is clearly "mud". We better get rid of it here and now.
I do not wish to create the impression that we are not anxious to see an organization of young people doing the work that this one was intended to do. The government should set up a new organization, avoiding the mistakes that have been made, with a supervisory body. If it does not want to do that, then let it give the millions of dollars that are thrown down the river by this organization to other organizations that are self-starters like CUSO, the Frontier College and others. This is something the Government might well bear in mind.
While I may not disagree with the idea of supervision of this organization, providing there is a time limit, I feel that we should complete the funeral. I would go along with supervision but not on a permanent basis. For this reason, I cannot support the amendment or the general proposition of the government.


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. I should like to seek the advice of the committee. I indicated before that I thought the debate at this point should be strictly related to the amendment before the Committee. I am concerned that there may be others who wish to move amendments. This may be difficult as long as the amendment is before the Committee because sub-amendment must necessarily be related to this amendment. If other members

wish to speak on this particular amendment I shall be pleased to recognize them, but if members prefer to deal with clause 1 in a general way, perhaps I could put the question on the amendment by the hon. member for York South at this time. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Hugh Faulkner: The question is on the amendment moved by the hon. member for York South. All those in favour will please rise. All those oppose will please rise.
Amendment (Mr. Lewis) negatived: yeas, 10; Nays, 73.


James Hugh Faulkner: I declare the amendment lost.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Mrs. Maclnnis:: Mr. Chairman, our party has been endeavouring to have changes made in this bill because we do not feel we can support it in its present form. As a matter of fact there are certain things in respect of the Company of Young Canadians which have us really worried. This bill, however, does not solve anything. We do not know what else the government has in mind. We have not been told. All this bill proposes to do is hamstring these young people by appointing a comptroller who will have control over their finances and their programs. Any of us who have had dealings with young people do not believe we can get young people to work under conditions in which they are tied down hand and foot. We do believe the financing should be controlled. We have suggested this. Other members have suggested that with control of the finances there should also be control over the programs. We do not believe that is necessary if the person in charge of the finances has sufficient intestinal fortitude to deal with the situation.
What concerns me and others is that the young people turned to this government for leadership and believed they would get it through this line of volunteer work. Three years ago they were welcomed by a government composed, to a large extent, of the same people who make up the government today. They were told there was room for a large organization in this country which would send young people out, not to do Boy Scout or social service work in a mild way, but to do pioneering work in which they would have an opportunity to use their ability and initiative in giving help in this country where it is needed. We were told in this House by the then prime minister, and other ministers of
December 16, 1969

the government, that this would be a great crusade which would give the young people a real objective which would be worthy of their initiative and whatever they could provide in the way of ideas.
Now, after a period of time, the young people find that they have been sorely let down by the government. It is quite true, as the hon. member to my right said, no ground rules or any framework in which to work were laid down. I was a very new member of this House at the time the bill went through. I did not speak on it, but at the time I had reservations in my mind precisely about the lack of a framework and controls. I remember saying to a number of people that the volunteers will be just as successful as their contacts with the older, more experienced organizations and people. This is part of the reason I wish to say a few words tonight.
The young people are looking for leadership. They thought they had found it in this government. Now, they are being told their influence had been so bad on this country that they are not fit to be left alone, either financially or in respect of their programs. We are taking a step which will strangle them and tie them up in every possible way. The young people will not be fooled by this sort of thing. This action will have the effect of driving away many good quality young people who have been looking for leadership.
When people do not find good leadership from the government they look for it in other places. If they look in undesirable places it is precisely because they have been let down and left to their own devices far too much by this government over the past three years. I do not like to feel that this legislation cannot be amended, even at this stage, because I think amendments ought to be made which would make it possible for the Company of Young Canadians to be saved even though far-reaching changes and restructuring are necessary. I do not believe, as do hon. members to the right, that by some kind of easy facelifting we will have a new and better Company of Young Canadians. If we do what they prescribe we would have euthanasia, mercy killing. They say, in effect, put the whole organization to death now, then wait for the resurrection and everything will be all right. I do not believe that for a minute. The same problems that we have at this stage would rise to haunt us in the reincarnation.
This government is not grappling with the problem. It is saying of the Company of Young Canadians that it stinks, that it is
Company oj Young Canadians Act terrible and we must get rid of it. The government pushes the panic button and tries to shuffle the young people around. I do not think we should be misled by the shouting and pressure which has been building up for the past few days. I think we should look calmly at the situation. Undoubtedly, bad things have happened in the Company of Young Canadians. We have heard reports of the bad things which have occurred in both Montreal and Toronto. I do not doubt these things for a moment. Fortunately, however, Toronto is not all of Canada, even though some people there seem to think so, nor is Montreal all of Canada even though some people there seem to think so. Those of us who come from other parts of Canada know of projects in respect of which the Company of Young Canadians has done a good job. We resent very deeply having all members of the CYC tarred with the brush which undoubtedly has been used on some unfortunate characters in the Company of Young Canadians.
In my city of Vancouver 1 could point to projects where young Canadian volunteers have been doing a magnificent job, either under the auspices of the Company of Young Canadians or under the auspices of other organizations which are off-shoots of this idea. The young people in this city have gone to work. I think of the splendid work done by a young Canadian volunteer among the young Indians who want to get on their own feet in the new and difficult city conditions in Vancouver. They are becoming very fine young citizens, indeed so much so that they are now running a gas station on their own and are making a success of it. I can think of another group of young Canadian volunteers who are working with young mothers who are on social assistance. These mothers had nothing to do except sit at home and look after their children. They are anxious to get out in the world and play a part either in voluntary work or in employment or by upgrading and educating themselves. Several young girls in the Company of Young Canadians have been working with these people in co-operation with social workers. I admit that these are social workers of a very enlightened type.
In Vancouver there are classes now where these mothers are learning to become oriented and where they are being prepared for work. A lot of this activity is going on. A nursery school has been built there, and a happening was arranged for young people last summer which was well organized in every way. There were no regulations broken at that
December 16. 1969

Company of Young Canadians Act time and the young people had a splendid time. These are the projects of which the young Canadian volunteers have made a great success. These volunteers are going among their fellow Canadians who have not had a chance for self-expression in their lives. They are not trying to re-organize the lives of these people or stirring them up to do all kinds of lawless acts. What they are doing is trying to he.p them stand on their own feet. These CYC workers use government agencies and community agencies to provide jobs and training for the people, and in many cases they create jobs which were previously nonexistent to get these people off relief and into productive work. That is what these volunteers are doing.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
I object very strongly to having these volunteers swept under the rug, called all kinds of names, and abandoned by a government which gave birth to the organization in the first place. I think that this government has let down the young people of this country very badly. They are pandering to public clamour and worry over some of these projects. 1 do not like public funds to be wasted, and undoubtedly this has been the case in some of the projects. I understand that about $900,000 would be saved by the appointment of a comptroller of the company. I know this is a lot of money and the taxpayers do not want to see it wasted, but what about the $27 million that will be spent without the flick of an eyelash on the construction of a Canadian pentagon which we need as badly as a cat needs two tails? Yet, we are prepared to do it instead of other urgent things which the country needs such as helping the old age pensioners who have to get along on bread and tea this Christmas because we do not have money to increase their pensions, or instead of easing the difficult situation of the retired civil servants. Why are we putting up a $27 million pentagon? Surely, that is a waste of funds beside which the pecadilloes of the CYC are rather tame. These are the things about which we should be asking.
I cannot resist pointing out that in the department in which I am most interested, the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, there is a $100,000 budget for a consumer advisory council which so far has not been able to provide much advice or help to consumers so far as one can see. About $600,000 is being voted for a Prices and Incomes Commission which so far is tiptoeing around
[Mrs. MacInnis.J
urging people to please pull in their belts and not ask for higher wages or put higher prices on their goods at the present time. Surely, these things should be looked into when we are looking into the spending of government funds and possible places where some fat could be trimmed.
I could point to other examples. However, I do not urge that the CYC faults be overlooked or their misdeeds brushed aside, but simply that the whole problem be seen in perspective. We cannot say that we will wipe out the CYC because we cannot wipe out the young people of this country. Either we are going to use them in new social pioneering action along proper lines or we are going to drive them to frustration and into ways of acting which will be much more distasteful to us than even the present activities of some of the young volunteers.
I suggest that what the government should do at this stage is, first, even before this bill is passed, have the minister tell us what the government proposes to do to give the young people a chance to pioneer in the field of social work and to give them a wholesome outlet for their energy and initiative. In the second place, they should redraft the bill to establish control over the funds of the company so as to protect the taxpayers, while leaving the programs to the company.
The government should also realize that these young volunteers are not kindergarten kids who must be followed into every project, whose noses must be wiped and who must be led around by the hand. Young people will not work like that, but they will respond well if they are given decent leadership. It was because this government did not give them leadership that they got into the kind of trouble about which complaints have been made in Montreal, Toronto and elsewhere. This is what should be said at this time.
To fully appreciate what young people can do, let us take a look at CUSO which was set up satisfactorily and which expects responsible behaviour from the young people. As the hon. member for Simcoe North said, it had the proper framework and terms of reference. As a result, CUSO volunteers bring credit to Canada wherever they go. It is time that we dealt with the CYC in a manner that will enable it also to do creditable work within the country just as CUSO is a credit to us abroad.
I would like the government to propose an amendment which will make it possible for us to accept this bill, and I would like to know
December 16, 1969
what they propose to do in the future. What are their long range plans with regard to the field of work which should have been performed by the CYC to avoid all the young people of this country being rebuffed and sent down paths of which we disapprove? I would like to see them doing the pioneering work in this country which is their rightful heritage.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Mr. Lalulippe:: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to express my opinion and that of many Canadian taxpayers about Bill C-171, entitled: "An Act to amend the Company of Young Canadians Act."
It would be better if this organization had never been established because its creation was detrimental to the Canadian people, and the taxpayers' money was dilapidated since it served purposes that were senseless and contrary to the ideal pursued by this parliament.
It is not a question of blaming what was done in the past but rather of taking steps for the future. And if we want to govern with justice, we must abolish this baneful organization which should never have been established.
Besides, when this Company of Young Canadians was formed, I was the only member to oppose its establishment. I knew what would happen because I had forebodings. One only has to read the official record of the time to realize that I am right. Then, Mr. Chairman, I am not responsible for that situation and since I have to place the blame on someone, I shall blame all those who voted for that bill.
In fact, the pocketbook was handed over to the first comer, without the slightest worry. It was said: Here is the pocketbook, it is yours. Now, when I hand over my pocketbook to somebody, I take a good look at him. Such a situation prevailed in Parliament that the pocketbook belonging to all Canadian citizens was handed over to people which used it for adverse purposes. We cannot take any more chances.
I agree with the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) that the activities of the Company of Young Canadians should be suspended. This waste must be stopped right now and we must fight this dreadful plague which should never have fallen upon Canada.
We have paid the piper. We shall pay for the damage done in Montreal. The taxpayer's money and hard work will be used to rebuild what has been destroyed at the cost of so 21545-59
Company of Young Canadians Act many sacrifices. We have the right to stop that. We must, in our own conscience-and I put every member of Parliament in front of his own conscience and responsibilities- refuse to go any further. We have already gone too far and we have already taken too many chances in creating an organization which should never have been born.
We have given our pocketbook indiscriminately. Those who meddled with it were allowed to do so freely, without any control. Nobody was ever placed in front of his responsibilities as regards the creation of the Company.
Mr. Chairman, some responsible citizens were certainly aware of what was going to happen. Responsible members of the Parliament knew where the money of the taxpayers would go and what would be done with it. Some meant well but because of that, today we pay the piper.
Mr. Chairman, since we have to deal with irresponsible amoral people, utterly devoid of social understanding and without any scruples, we ought to put an end immediately to the blunder we made. We no longer have the right to make them. People will not tolerate any more nonsense and misdeeds against justice and Canadians.
I feel this is a matter of ethics. If the government wishes to spend money, let it hire moralists to teach citizens and make them face up to their responsibilities.
I think a great many of our young Canadians have no sense of responsibility. I do not know who is to blame but even in our universities some people are to blame for that because some of our young graduates have no sense of responsibility. Many try to destroy rather than to build.
I want to reassure serious citizens by telling them that we must take our responsibilities as regards the awful deeds we have witnessed. The Company of Young Canadians must disappear. We must work more closely, more socially and more humanely at creating other organizations that will not cost millions of dollars but practically nothing.
If young Canadians want to help their country, there are all kinds of organizations such as the Chambers of Commerce, social agencies and associations likely to give them the opportunity to show their abilities. After they have proven they are capable of taking responsibilities, we shall be in a position to achieve something. Until then, we are not justified in allowing such a fanatical organization to exist.

December 16. 1969

Company of Young Canadians Act
We have to restore justice, because we have dealt unfairly with our fellow-citizens by establishing an organization which has done everything possible to demoralize Canadians and to ruin the social structure which we must protect. We must therefore prevent it from carrying on its activities any longer.
It is essential to appoint a comptroller for a limited period and thus to prepare the Company's demise. He should be immediately appointed for a limited period and restore order within the Company, before it ceases to exist.
I insist on the fact that all the amendments moved up to now by the New Democratic Party are out of order, because they advocate the appointment of a comptroller who would have almost no responsibility so that the Company can continue to be up to its old tricks or do even worse perhaps than in the past. And we will be the ones to pay for this.
Since this is a question of justice and morality, if we have some money to spend, let us use it to build a sound society, by reorganizing its elements, so that one day we may have a truly just and responsible society.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I apologize for speaking at this time, but I shall only be a moment. Pursuant to Standing Order 6(5) I would like to move, seconded by Mr. C'lson:
That today's sitting be continued beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of completing the Committee of the Whole stage of Bill C-171.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, although the rules do not permit it the committee might be willing to give me unanimous consent to show our willingness to accept to some extent what the minister proposes.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Gerald William Baldwin: We object, then.


William Arnold Peters: Could we have clearly defined to what we are supposed to be agreeing?


Gerald William Baldwin: We are not agreeing to anything.


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 6(5) I will temporarily interrupt the proceedings of the Committee of the Whole, which is provided for in the Standing
[Mr. Latulippe.l
Order, to take the Chair. At that time I will put the motion which has been presented to the committee by the President of the Privy Council. At that time if ten members object, the motion is deemed to be withdrawn.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, so that there won't be confusion when you are in the Chair, may I suggest that there is a certain form in which the motion might be agreeable. It would require the addition of certain words to the motion presented by the government house leader.


James Hugh Faulkner: I will entertain some discussion at that point, if it is a question of refining the motion.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
And the Deputy Speaker having resumed the chair:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I might put the motion as presented by the hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald). Pursuant to Standing Order 6(5), Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) moved, seconded by Mr. Olson:
-that today's sitting be continued beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of completing the Committee of the Whole stage of Bill C-171.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to sit for half an hour past the usual adjournment time or until committee stage is finished, whichever shall come first.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the reservation we would make.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would like to amend the motion to this effect, it is quite acceptable to this side.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the minister agree that a House order be made to that effect?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think the House understands the consensus, assuming there is consensus. All those opposed to the motion as amended please indicate.
There not being more than ten members opposing, the motion is deemed to have been adopted.
December 16, 1969


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I thank the hon. members.
Motion as amended agreed to.
And the House having resumed in committee:


Martial Asselin: Mr. Chairman, I listened very carefully to what the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) said last night about the bill now being studied.
The way this bill was drafted by the government surprises me very much. A committee of the House sat for many weeks in order to get at the truth and to find the reasons for unrest within the Company of Young Canadians. Once again, the government does not take into account the recommendations of the committee and simply asks the House to pass hastily a bill whose sole purpose is to provide for the appointment of a Comptroller of the Company of Young Canadians.
That is why, Mr. Chairman, we often wonder what the committees of the House are for. Even though committees' recommendations are not binding upon the government, I suggest it should have taken into consideration not only the committee's recommendations but also its terms of reference.
According to the minister, this legislation must be passed, and when it is, another one will be passed, without our being told about its substance.
That is the reason why my colleague for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) objected to the bill being introduced without hon. members being told of the nature of another bill to be brought forward later on.
We also wonder whether the government's bill does not come too late. Following the exchanges between the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and Mr. Saulnier, Chairman of Montreal's Executive Committee, even before the committee held its first sitting and Mr. Saulnier made his statement in Montreal on the Company of Young Canadians, even while the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) was aware of the deep-rooted unrest within the Company of Young Canadians, no action was taken while it was still time. The Secretary of State merely summoned the Director of the Company once to his office, to ask him what was going on and whether a volunteer of the Company was going to be thrown out.
That was all the control exercised, whereas what was required was the taking over of the management of a company that was spending 21545-591
Company of Young Canadians Act public funds. The inquiry revealed expenditures of $7,000,000.
In Montreal, the inquiry also revealed that many volunteers were just agitators-not dissenters, those we accept in our modern society-seeking the destruction of democratic institutions existing in Montreal and elsewhere in the province of Quebec.
The Secretary of State was aware of that. He had been warned long before the Chairman of Montreal's Executive Committee made a public statement. But it was the great silence. Had it not been for Mr. Saulnier's statement, we would not know anything more about the doings of some members of the Company of Young Canadians.
The government, finding itself cornered when a royal commission was called for to investigate the matter in depth, decided to entrust a parliamentary committee with the consideration of the whole problem.
According to the report of that committee, where a minority opposed the general recommendations, it would simply be necessary to place the Company of Young Canadians under trusteeship, to review its objectives, to renew its structures so that we may know how the funds allocated to that organization are spent.
We have the striking example of a government which advocates greater participation by hon. members in public affairs. When it was suggested that the committee be given more leeway, the government did not pay any attention and the introduction of the bill now under study is another example of how little concerned the government is about the work of committees. It is the cabinet which decides. The policy is spelt out by the government, not even by the members of the party in office.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, I agree with the statement of my colleague from Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan). We wish to know which steps the government intends taking in order to settle the problem of the Company of Young Canadians. It does not follow that we of the opposition are against the activities of young people who wish to improve our society through social development for the benefit of those who are without voice, as the law says. But we wish to purge the company of its undesirable elements, to give it a new structure and new objectives. And if the minister would let us know the provisions of the new proposed legislation, perhaps this debate would not be necessary.

December 16, 1969

Company of Young Canadians Act
We are not satisfied with the minister's explanations.
He is responsible for what is happening within the Company of Young Canadians. The government also is responsible, but it does not try to hide its inefficiency or its slackness behind a bill they want us to pass with an unseemly haste. Let them introduce a well thoughtout bill, that could offer a satisfactory guidance to the Company of Young Canadians and we might gladly work hand in glove with the government to make that organization more efficient.
Mr. Speaker, I have nothing more to say. Perhaps, when the bill is read for the third time, I will express my views in more detail. But I must say right now that the government has been remiss in its duties; it has not warned the Parliament of the malaise that existed among the Company of Young Canadians. And when we know that the Company has spent 7 million dollars of public funds we are entitled, as representatives of the people, to know how this money has been spent, and in what direction this Company, that a Liberal government has established, intends to carry on its job.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, as I have already participated in the debate on the motion for second reading of the bill, my remarks will be rather brief.
It was probably noted that in concluding my speech yesterday, I proposed an amendment that was perhaps premature. In fact, I have learned that the government, through its leader in the house, intended to amend section 2 so as to limit the duration of the comptroller's tenure of office within the Company of Young Canadians. I believe that my amendment is no longer necessary and I now rely on the leader of the government in the House and on his promise.
However, I believe that section 1 of the bill entrusts the comptroller with too little power. After the charges laid against the Company of Young Canadians up to now, the comptroller should have a much clearer mandate.
Like many other members, even ministers, I think that the Company of Young Canadians should be abolished and that we should let it go at that. It might even be too fine and well!
I think we request the abolition of the Company because we feel they have acted contrary to the mandate entrusted to them. That is why I feel that we must not merely ask the government to abolish the Company

of Young Canadians but look into the reasons for doing so.
In addition, we must find out whether the public charges made by either the chairman of the executive committee of the city of Montreal or any one else were justified. Personally, I have no doubt about it, but I feel that as a result of the claims of those people, a full inquiry is indicated.
With regard to clause I of Bill C-171, the comptroller should be granted more powers so that he might not only look into the operations of the Company from now until March 31st, but also have the right to scrutinize the files. That is what the chairman of the executive committee of the city of Montreal requested, namely who had spent the funds of the Company, and to which purpose. It would certainly be a good thing to know.
That is why, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe):
That clause I, sub-clause 10-A be amended by adding thereto, immediately after paragraph (4), the folowing:
(5) The comptroller shall have power to carry out any investigation into the uneasy administrative circumstances of the Company of Young Canadians, the charges made by the President of the Executive Committee of the City of Montreal in relation to subversive manoeuvers by certain members of the Company of Young Canadians, and generally, the various aspects of the activities of the Company of Young Canadians.


James Hugh Faulkner: Is the committee ready for the question?
Amendment (Mr. Laprise) negatived: yeas, 3; nays, 57.


James Hugh Faulkner: I declare the amendment lost.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Expiration
James Hugh Faulkner: Shall clause 2 carry?


Mr. Nowlan:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, in view of assurances which have been given should the government not be proposing an amendment at this time?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I wish to move the following amendment:
Bill C-171 is amended by deleting clause 2 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
"2. This act shall expire on the earlier of
(a)	March 31, 1970, or
(b)	a day to be fixed by proclamation."
December 16, 1969
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


James Hugh Faulkner: Shall the amendment
carry?
Amendment (Mr. Macdonald, Rosedale) agreed to.


James Hugh Faulkner: Shall clause 2 as amended, carry?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I quite appreciate it is ten o'clock-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: We gave you an extra half hour. I do not intend to make a speech. For the purpose of the record, before we pass on to clause 2-are we on clause 2?


An hon. Member:: Yes.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I wonder if the Chair had time to consider the legality and propriety of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Abitibi, that we so hastily voted on, and whether in fact it was in order.


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. Of course, the Chair has considered it. I do not see how a point of order can be raised now. In fact, the amendment as proposed by the hon. member for Abitibi was put to the committee and a decision has been taken. As I understand it we are now at the point, "Shall the title carry?".


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I want to point out that it is ten o'clock, so we still have a half hour. I do not intend to take any more time. In spite of the fact that much has been said in the last two days, and the minister has been here for the greater part of those two days, he has made no statement whatsoever about what is to be in the next bill that is to come before this House. I assume, perhaps incorrectly, and the minister can correct me if I am wrong, there is going to be a bill placed before this House. The minister said earlier that he would do that on Friday. He stated he could not tell us the details of that bill because it has not passed cabinet. We on this side understand that, but we still feel very strongly that he should at least define the bill in a general way, as he did for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and Radio Canada last night. We have heard nothing from the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
Company of Young Canadians Act


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: If anyone wants to prolong the debate they can raise a point of order, and I will answer questions. I want to make it clear to those in the fourth estate, the news media, who should perhaps go to Senator Davey- that the suggestion of March 31, 1970 came from this side of the House.
The debate last night was not delayed by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, but perhaps by a misunderstanding on the part of someone in some other part of the House. It was said over the CBC this morning that the opposition intervened and amended a compromise suggested by the President of the Privy Council. This is completely contrary to the truth, and I would like to have that reporter checked by Senator Davey.
Be that as it may, we are moving into a period of amicability and compromise. We have heard nothing from the minister on this question of what the intention of the government is. Do we still have his assurance that a bill is to come before this House for first reading on or before Friday? I admit there is not much time. Having heard some of the generalities that the minister stated to the press, we on this side do not intend to take any more time at this stage of the bill.


An hon. Member:: Good.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Someone groaned or made an objection. I will sit down and let him speak. Our position is going to be made perfectly clear. When third reading of this bill, is moved we will be moving an amendment to send this bill back to the committee so the committee can recommend the dissolution of the Company of Young Canadians.


James Hugh Faulkner: Shall clause 2 as amended carry?
Clause 2 as amended agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
James Hugh Faulkner: Shall the bill as amended carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Bill reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time? Next sitting of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

December 16, 1969
2060	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, would it be the intention of the House to proceed with the usual adjournment motions? There are eager and impatient members here anxious for an answer to that question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think by leave only can we proceed with the late show, but I take it there is such disposition.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, would you be good enough to call the second motion? The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is not here for the moment, but we are drumming him up from somewhere. No doubt he is having a glass of ginger ale.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Fundy-Royal.



IMMIGRATION-DR. KAZIMIERZ LASKI- REQUEST TO ENTER CANADA

Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I will gladly defer to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre when he has had his nourishment. I understand that in India his diet was tea and Arrowroot biscuits. It would have been much better had I followed that diet many years ago.
The Minister of Manpower and Immigration was asked about the admission of Dr. Kazimierz Laski to Canada for the purpose of accepting an invitation to teach economics at York University. Dr. Laski is a Polish Jew and has been a member of the Communist party. I am informed that he has been a Communist most of his adult life. Despite his political views, his renown as an economist is undisputed. Dr. Laski renounced his affiliation with the Communist party because of the policy of that party in Poland with regard to anti-Semitism. He went to Prague, and from Prague went to Vienna where he has been teaching. Apparently it is easier for a Polish Jew, ex-Communist, to get admission to Austria than to get admission to Canada.
Dr. Laski was offered a teaching post by York University. He was also offered posts in


Paris and Tel Aviv. Apparently it is easier for a Polish Jew, ex-Communist, to teach in Paris and Tel Aviv than in Canada. Canada has refused to admit Dr. Laski. I have no way of knowing, and neither has Dr. Laski, why this is so.
This afternoon we heard an interesting statement from the minister, who said that humanitarian considerations were still paramount to the immigration department. This does not apply to Polish Jews who happen once to have been Communists. It is ironic that someone who apparently sees the error of his ways is penalized and restricted in his movement to this country. What is to me insufferable and illiberal, as it surely is to a very distinguished member of the Liberal party-the Minister of Manpower and Immigration-is that the reasons for Dr. Laski's rejection have not been given. I find this an intolerable affront to a citizen and an intolerable affront to Parliament. That is why I posed the question in this way. The bitter irony, of course, is that Canada herself is lessened by this administrative decision because it just happens that Dr. Laski might add to our knowledge about ourselves and the world.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say at the beginning that I have no knowledge of Professor Laski's ethnic, racial or religious background. No such information was sought by the immigration department. As my hon. friend knows, no decision in respect of a person's admissibility is based upon any such factor. I hope my friend was not inferring in his remarks that there was any such attitude or prejudice in departmental administration in this case, because if he was I think it was quite unworthy.
It has not been the practice, as hon. members know, to debate publicly the details of immigration cases because it would involve a breach of the confidential relationship which exists between the department and those who seek admission to Canada. To debate in detail such cases would obviously necessitate divulging information which the department receives from the individual as well as from other sources.
In view of the importance which my hon. friend and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) have attached to this case, and because a refusal of a visa is
December 16. 1969

based on security considerations, I thought it might be useful to depart at least slightly from the practice I have mentioned without creating a precedent for the future.
Professor Laski was refused an immigrant visa because he is a prohibited person under subsection (1) of Section 5 of the Immigration Act. This prohibits the admission of persons who are or have been, at any time before or after the commencement of the Immigration Act, members of or associated with any organization, group or body of any kind concerning which there are reasonable grounds for believing that it promotes or advocates subversion by force or other means of democratic government, institutions or processes, as they are understood in Canada.
In order to determine whether an independent applicant for an immigrant visa is admissible-Professor Laski was an independent applicant and was not seeking admission as a refugee-he is interviewed at a Canadian immigration visa office abroad to determine whether or not he is able to meet the selection criteria in respect of his work qualifications, is able to pass a medical examination and whether or not he is prohibited by reason of criminality or because of the possibility of his being a risk to Canada's internal security.
In this connection 1 would remind hon. members of the report of the Royal Commission on security, which membership included a former distinguished member of this House, the Hon. M. J. Coldwell. I believe in considering such a case-


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



TAXATION-WHITE PAPER ON REFORM-PREPARATION OF SLIDES

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, on December 10 I asked a question in which I set out certain facts as to documents and proposals for tax reform. This related to a film that was prepared in order to sell these proposals to the Canadian people. On December 10, I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) a question about a film prepared by him in which he discusses, with film illustrations, certain recommendations in "Proposals for Tax Reform", which I have already categorized as a red manifesto. The minister is endeavouring to sell his ideas and his recommendations to the Canadian people. If he goes on the "Nation's Business," by way
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion of T.V., sets out certain things about the manifesto which he likes and believes that the people like, I have no quarrel with that. All members of Parliament and parties have the same privilege. But when he deals with eight different tax subjects, some of which are individual tax reforms, capital gains, business and property income, and so on, which are discussed in a document containing 96 pages-approximately 500 paragraphs-and reduces that to ten paragraphs, then he is selecting what he believes is palatable and saleable to the Canadian people. The Canadian people are paying for his propaganda. Those who are opposed to this "Red Manifesto" should have the same opportunity, the same resources, to prepare another film pointing out what I consider to be a grave mistake which will reduce the nation to a socialist state and a group of bookkeepers.
For example, the minister speaks in glowing terms about a capital gains tax and naturally, to a person who has never made a capital gain, this sounds like icing on the cake. However, what the minister has really done has been to abolish the whole idea of capital gains and categorize any capital gain as income, whether in the stock market or the result of selling property. A capital gain, if and when it is determined in accordance with his law, will be added to the other income and will become part of taxable income. He has not told the taxpayers, even though they are paying for his picture show, that companies and individuals will be forced to sell stockholdings. They will lose control of their own enterprises and a foreign power will own and control not part of our resources, but all of them. He has not told them in his picture show that the lower income tax bracket people, which he estimates to be 750,000, will be confined and imprisoned to that income for life, because the moment the income exceeds the new exemptions their rate of tax immediately increases. He has not told the Canadian people the truth, by film or otherwise, that the middle income people will carry most of the tax burden. Nor has he told the people what he is going to use the money for. Nor has he told the people the truth about how much money taxing capital gains' income will really net. How many businesses and farms will the government end up owning through confiscatory policy?
He talks of a billion dollars as if he were saving the average man that amount of money when actually to the low income tax bracket group, who should be off the tax rolls now, it amounts to only $30 million. If a
December 16. 1969

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion family has managed under the former tax laws to build up a bundle, this family will be able to retain that wealth. But the little person, the average man, will have to face stiff competition in order to accomplish what others in the past have done without the burden of the "Red Manifesto."
In brief, he is guilty of a new philosophy for Canada for which I coin a new phrase. I call it the Goebbelization Propaganda Method. This is a new system of by-passing Parliament, of using the people's resources- which he will efficiently collect under the guise of tax reform-to sell a brand new social philosophy to the people. He will then not implement the tax until the dying days of this government and go to the people for their votes without giving them an opportunity to actually check their pocketbook. When his Goebbelization is implemented, when his propaganda becomes a fait accompli, it will be too late. Once we have taken this fatal step, once the people have been reduced to bookkeepers like himself, even though they will turn against the minister and his government later, he may have received a mandate for another four years.
I cannot think of better phrases to use than those used by a far more experienced parliamentarian than I who said this:
There were caesars before Caesar-and after him-who dealt in bread and circuses.
Like the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson).
Caesar was high priest not only of the corrupted religion of the day, but of a debauched electorate as well. He poured out the public moneys from the treasury for their amusement: he manipulated the price of their bread; he told them always that these blessings came from Caesar. And it was quite a while before the Roman people tumbled to the fact that the big party was on them, after all.
Over-inflated payrolls, printing press money, and government largesse for political purposes may corrupt the electorate as surely as vote stealing at the polls, and much more successfully.
In other words, selection has been employed. He has selected for this film what he thought would sell his tax reform to the Canadian people but he has failed to tell them what actually exists in the 96 pages I have categorized as the "Red Manifesto".
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister without Portfolio):: The Canadian public might want to reflect on what appears to be the hon. member's opinion of their intelligence, as appears

to be implied in what he said. It seems to me that they certainly have the good sense and judgment to make up their own minds about the proposal put before them by the government in the white paper. Contrary to what the hon. member is suggesting, I feel that the intelligence and good sense of the Canadian public is such that they will be able themselves to assess the material in the slides in question if they should ever happen to see them.
I am informed that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) personally decided upon the contents of the slides prepared to illustrate the proposals of the white paper. Draft material was prepared by members of the minister's staff and the Department of Finance. The slides were produced by the National Film Board under strict conditions of secrecy and supplied to the Department of Finance for use in the minister's explanation of the white paper at the time of its release and in subsequent weeks.
I am informed that the cost of the slides was $3,141, including art work and production. The material in the slides was drawn from the white paper, and I submit that the slides are no different in substance from the press summaries of the white paper distributed both to the press and to hon. members and which I gather they found to be both useful and informative. As hon. members have noted these summaries covered only extracts from the white paper.
To sum up, I submit that the slides were only a different way of communicating to the public the proposals in the white paper and, as hon. members know, copies of the white paper have been sent out in large numbers across the country to members of the public who requested them. One would think, looking at the matter with any degree of objectivity, that whether the public looks at the white paper, at press summaries, at slides or at articles in the press, they are getting information as to the nature of the proposals about which, I am sure, they are able to use their own good judgment.
I submit that on balance, after considering the proposals and after public discussion about them, they will in substance be found to be linked with the government's aim of having an equitable system of taxation in Canada.
December 16, 1969



PENSIONS-REQUEST FOR INTERIM INCREASE PENDING WHITE PAPER ON SOCIAL SECURITY

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday December 3, as recorded in Hansard at page 1551, I put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro). I might point out that on that day Christmas was still over three weeks away. My question was as follows:
Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that having to wait for the government to produce the white paper on social security is resulting in considerable delay in increasing the amount of the old age security pension, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether the government will consider granting an interim increase in those pensions as a way of saying Merry Christmas to our retired people?
The reply of the Minister of National Health and Welfare was one in which, albeit there were a couple of interruptions, he made two references: first, to the acceleration that takes place annually in the old age security pension and, second, to the Canada Assistance Plan. I suggested that I would not comment on the acceleration which in January will be at the rate of $1.58 a month for in my view that is hardly to be called an increase in the pension, particularly when the so-called cost of living increase is running 2 or 3 per cent behind the actual increase in the cost of living.
So, Mr. Speaker, although it is so close to Christmas now that the chances of the government doing anything for our old people are pretty slim, there is always next Christmas, and perhaps if one keeps at this week in and week out, month in and month out, even this government might some day do something. Mr. Speaker, these white papers may be pure and lily white but they are certainly causing an awful lot of delay in this House of Commons.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is what they are for.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My
leader has made a very pertinent comment. I suggest that it is not fair to ask our old people, of all our people, to wait for their glimpse of the just society until we get this white paper on social security.
I do not know what the white paper is going to suggest or foretell, but surely it is going to call for some improvements in the lot of our older and retired people. Surely, it is not going to recommend any cut-backs.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Surely, it is not going to leave things as they are. There is only one way those who will produce the white paper can move, and that is up so far as the pensions of our retired people are concerned. That being the case I suggest that a payment on account, an interim adjustment, could well be made without waiting for the white paper itself.
I recognize this is a suggestion that is being made in a number of quarters. The veterans' organizations are suggesting that there be an interim increase in the basic pension and in the war veterans allowance until a final decision is made. I realize that if we give this interim increase with respect to one group requests will be made that it be given with respect to others, but I think it is perfectly justifiable for us to make this suggestion.
I believe we all agreed with the interjections that were made yesterday when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) asked a question about old age pensions and got the reply that a white paper is coming. As he and several other members said, do you expect the old people to live on or to eat white paper? In effect, that is what the government is asking many of our retired people to do for another six months, another year and maybe longer. In fact, many of our retired people will die before there is any increase in the pension if they have to wait and live on these references to the proposed white paper.
I know that one of the stock answers is for government spokesmen to tell us how much the government has done in the field of social security over the last 50 years since the party now in power first got into that field. But the fact is that in relative terms, in terms of what is happening now with the higher cost of living, and with everybody else getting an increase, it is unfair that our older people, our retired citizens generally, our retired veterans, our retired civil servants and all the rest have to wait until we get a white paper.
I am not asking that any adjustments made now be the final answer. I know that after we have an over-all look at things a pattern will be developed. But in the meantime, assuming the government is going to move forward I think it is fair to ask for an interim adjustment of a reasonable magnitude, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary who is going to answer tonight has been given instructions or authority from the department to say that yes, the government does want to say Merry Christmas to our older people, not just with words but with something that is solid and substantial.
December 16. 1969
2064	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion [DOT] (10:30 p.m.)


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, I share the hon. member's desire that the Department of National Health and Welfare give me the authority to say yes to a certain proposition he has made tonight. The financial difficulties of our old age pensioners are of deep concern to my minister, to the government and to all of us. The over-all situation is at present being studied and I refer here to the government study in depth of social welfare in Canada.
Many suggestions are usually made to deal with the immediate need. I shall make reference tonight to two suggestions made most frequently to provide for the immediate needs of pensioners at Christmas. The first suggestion is to advance the payment due on December 30 by some two weeks to give pensioners more financial flexibility during Christmas, but this would only postpone the problem. Of the 1.5 million pensioners in

Canada 500,000 are entirely dependent and a further 300,000 partly dependent on the pension and the income supplement. These people administer their incomes on a month to month basis. If they waited six weeks until the next cheque, it would place an intolerable strain on their resources.
The second suggestion made is that the government make an additional payment-a Christmas bonus-of perhaps $100 to each pensioner. From the figures I have been given this would cost approximately $150 million. Regrettably, it is not possible, I am informed, to provide this amount of money now. The problem is acute and that is why the government is taking steps to remedy it as soon as possible.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How about answering the question that was asked?
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.35 p.m.

Wednesday, December 17, 1969 The House met at 2 p.m.



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 C-169, an Act to grant to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1970.

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, without any amendment, Bill C-2, an Act to amend the Judges Act; and also A message informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bills, to which the concurrence of this House is desired:
Bill S-12, an Act to prevent the introduction into Canada of infectious or contagious diseases.
Bill S-13, an Act to amend schedule A of the Bank Act.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the House I should like to table a copy of a letter dated December 11, 1969 from the Japanese Ambassador informing me of the restraints being applied by the Japanese government on exports of certain products to Canada during 1969. These restraints are being applied by the Japanese government following consultations between representatives of the Japanese and Canadian governments.
If the House approves, I propose that the ambassador's letter be printed as an appendix to Votes and Proceedings.
21545-60i
Discussions have been held with the Japanese authorities regarding the levels of their exports to Canada of certain man-made fibre textile products, including polyester-cotton fabrics, which are not included in the list annexed to the ambassador's letter of products subject to specific levels of restraint. Discussions with Japanese representatives are continuing on this matter.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
As hon. members will be aware, similar products are also the subject of discussions being held between Japan and the United States. We are keeping ourselves informed of the progress of these discussions. It will be appreciated that at this stage of confidential talks between ourselves and our various trading partners it would be inappropriate for me to go into details. A further report to the House will be made at a later date.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I should refer to the statement made by the Minister of Finance a moment ago. I believe he asked for leave of the House that the letter to which he referred be included in Votes and Proceedings. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For text of letter see today's Votes and Proceedings.]



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion under Standing Order 43. I base my reasons for obtaining unanimous consent on the serious implications of the statement reportedly made yesterday by the Minister of National Revenue in which he threatened Indian leaders of the St. Regis reserve that any further demonstrations against government policy could be suppressed by the Canadian army.

December 17, 1969
Questions
I therefore ask for consent to move the following motion:
That this House express its concern that it is the apparent policy of the government to intimidate and prevent peaceful protest by the Indian people against government policies which work serious hardship on the Indian people.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the rules the minister cannot take the floor to say whether the statement contained in the motion is true or untrue. The only thing he can say is whether he consents, along with other hon. members, to the motion being put to the House at this time. Is there unanimous consent under the terms of Standing Order 43?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no such consent.



PRICE STABILITY

[Stage Direction]
to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by the committee; and to delegate to subcommittees any of its powers except the power to report directly to the House of Commons.
That 12 members of the House of Commons, to be designated at a later date, act on behalf of the House as members of the said committee, seven of whom shall be required for a quorum.
That when a quorum is not present, the chairmen of the said committee or of its subcommittees be authorized to proceed with meetings for the purpose of receiving and printing evidence; and
That a message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this House for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems advisable, some of its members to act on the proposed special joint committee.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of Standing Order 21, this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the House.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
On the order: -Government notices of motions:
December 15, 1969-The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs;
That a special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons to be known as the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Price Stability, be appointed to consider reports of the Prices and Incomes Commission, and such other related reports or papers as may be referred to the committee, with powers to report from time to time its observations and opinions thereon; to send for persons, papers and records; to sit during sittings and adjournments of the House; to print from day

Mr. Broadbenl: For the fiscal year 1968-69 and the current fiscal year up to September 1969, what has been the number of projects, the forecasted federal government expenditures, and the actual government expenditures for the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce Industrial Research and Development Incentive Act Program?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: FY1968/69
FY1969/70
1 (to March 31, 1970)
Forecasted Expenditure $31,300,000 $34,400,0001 2 (to Sept. 30, 1969)
Actual Expenditure $19,592,000 $ 5,448,000=
3 (to Sept. 30, 1969)
No. of Projects 408 272s


ADVANCEMENT OF INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM
Mr. Broadbent: For the fiscal year 1968-69 and the current fiscal year up to September 1969, what has been the num-
Forecasted
Expenditure
FY1968/69	$ 9,000,000
FY1969/70	$11,000,000*
*(to March 31, 1970)	* (to Sept. 30, 1969)

ber of projects, the forecasted federal government expenditures, and the actual government expenditures for the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce's Program for the Advancement of Industrial Technology?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Actual	No. of
Expenditure	Projects
$ 4,304,000	127
$ 1,709,000=	79s
3 (to Sept. 30, 1969)
December 17, 1969


DEFENCE DEVELOPMENT SHARING AND CAPITAL EXPORT MODERNIZATION PROGRAMS
Mr. Broadbent: For the fiscal year 1968-69 and the current fiscal year up to September 1969, what has been the number of projects, the forecasted federal government expenditures, and the actual government expenditures for the Department of Industry, Trade and
Questions
Commerce's Defence Development Sharing Program and Defence Capital Export Modernization Program?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Defence Industry Productivity Program-Defence Development Sharing and Industry Modernization for Defence Exports:
Forecasted
Expenditure
Actual
Expenditure
No. of Projects
FY1968/69

FY1969/70	$37,000,000*	$11,568,417* 1 2	1 5781 (to March 31, 1970)	2 (to Aug. 31, 1969)	3 4 5 (to Aug. 31, 1969)


SCIENCE COUNCIL OF CANADA
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Is the government presently giving favourable consideration to excluding government scientists from being represented on the Science Council of Canada?
2.	Is the government presently giving favourable consideration to increasing the number of social scientists on the Science Council of Canada?
3.	Is the government giving favourable consideration to establishing a permanent House of Commons Committee on Science Policy?


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: 1. The government is not at this time considering exclusion of government scientists from being represented on the Science Council of Canada. However, governmental representation on the 29 member Council has been modified from that of ten members to five members and four associate members. Consideration is also being given to making all new member appointments to the Council from outside the public service.
2 and 3. Not at this time.


ACCESS TO LINES OF CREDIT WITH BANK OF CANADA
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 65
Max Saltsman: 1.	Who are the fifteen money market dealers who have access to lines of credit with the Bank of Canada and are entitled to bid in the Treasury Bill auction?
2.	When were they given this access to the Bank of Canada?
3.	What criteria was used in the selection of these money market dealers?
4.	Why are only fifteen selected for this function?
5.	Was there a competitive tender for the right of access and to bid for Treasury bills and if not, for what reason?


Edgar John Benson: 1.	All primary distributors of Government of Canada marketable securities, of whom there are approximately 200, are entitled to bid at the weekly Treasury Bill auctions. Included in this group of primary distributors are the money market jobbers who are at present eligible to enter into purchase and resale agreements with the Bank of Canada within agreed limits; because of the banker-client relationship that is involved and because the number changes from time to time the Bank has not made a practice of publishing the names of such jobbers.
2.	Access to purchase and resale agreements with the Bank of Canada was established in 1953 for bond dealers who were performing a jobbing function in respect of short-term Government of Canada securities. Since that time some dealers have withdrawn from this group and others have been added to it.
3.	The basic considerations used in determining whether a bond dealer should have access to purchase and resale agreements with the Bank of Canada relate to the record of performance of the jobber with regard to the money market securities in the major Canadian financial markets and include the extent of his participation in the Treasury Bill market, the size of inventory of short-term Government of Canada and other money market securities which he is normally willing to hold, the extent to which he makes markets in such securities, and the amount of capital and the expertise of the personnel resources he is willing to devote to money market operations.
4.	There is no pre-determined number of money market jobbers. The number has changed from time to time.
5.	No. See (1) and (3) above.

December 17. 1969
Questions


NORMAL DUTIES OF ICEBREAKER &quot;JOHN A. MACDONALD&quot;
Mr. Thomson: 1.	What would the Coast Guard icebreaker John A. Macdonald normally be doing if it were not accompanying the SS Manhattan through the North West passage?
2.	Did the diversion of the Macdonald to the Manhattan project involve any additional expense and, if so, what amount?
3.	For the period of time Captain Tom Pullen of the Department of Transport is serving on the Manhattan, who paid his salary?
4.	Were the services of Captain Pullen offered to the Humble Oil Company and its partners or were they requested by them?


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. The John A. Macdonald would have been employed assisting with the support of the northern resupply operations, in hydrography and oceanography, and investigating late season operations in Strathcona Sound.
2.	More fuel may have been consumed because of a period she operated in heavier ice conditions than would have been the case had she not accompanied the Manhattan. Other ships had to operate longer to assume that part of her work which could not be postponed. Additional cost approximately $20,000.
3.	The Department of Transport.
4.	Originally the Humble Oil Company requested assistance in obtaining the services of an experienced Canadian Arctic ship master. The Canadian Government also wished to have an official Canadian representative on board who would be able to effect liaison between the Department of Transport, the Canadian Coast Guard icebreaker, the U.S. Coast Guard icebreaker and the Humble Oil Company people during the passage. Agreement was reached with Humble Oil Company that Captain T. C. Pullen could fulfill all these roles.


&quot;MANHATTAN&quot; PROJECT-REQUEST FOR PERMISSION
Mr. Thomson: 1.	Did the Humble Oil Company or the United States Government request permission from the Canadian Government to send the Manhattan through the North West passage and, if so, on what date was the request made, by whom and in what way?
2.	Would the government be prepared to make public a copy or text of the request?
3.	On what dates were meetings held between Canadian public officials and the sponsors of the Manhattan project?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: 1. The Canadian Government, through its various departments, has been in constant communication with the United States Government and the Humble Oil Company with respect to the voyage of the Manhattan through the Northwest passage. The sponsoring oil companies and the United States Coast Guard consulted with appropriate Canadian authorities in the planning of the operation, and the voyage took place with the concurrence and the participation of the Canadian Government.
2.	No.
3.	As the meetings were held on a continuous basis and a great deal of the discussions took place by telephone it is not possible to state the actual dates when meetings were held on this topic.


NEWFOUNDLAND-CNR PASSENGER SERVICE EMPLOYEES
Mr. Marshall: 1.	What are the names of all employees of the CNR in Newfoundland who were employed in association with Rail Passenger Service?
2.	What was their official job classification and rate of pay before discontinuance of the Passenger Service and their present classification and rate of pay?


Gérard Loiselle: 1 and
2. The Management of Canadian National Railways advises that it is not the practice to disclose information from employee's personal records.


CANADIAN NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS MICROWAVE PROGRAM
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Has Canadian National Telecommunications System commenced work on a $3 million microwave program augmenting existing communications facilites in the Yukon and Northwest Territories and, if so, when did this project commence, and when is it anticipated that it will be completed?
2.	Were any specific studies undertaken as a basis for the above expansion plan and, if not, on what criteria was the microwave expansion based?


Gérard Loiselle: The
Management of Canadian National Railways

December 17, 1969

advises as follows: 1. Yes, commenced in July-1969, expected to be completed late 1970.
2. Yes, studies were undertaken on a number of alternative arrangements to expand facilities to the Mackenzie Delta Area, including the use of satellite communications. The plan selected involves the extension of the Company's present radio facilities in the Yukon and will provide the facilities at an earlier date and more economically than any of the other alternatives considered.


BUYERS OF CANADA SAVINGS BONDS
Mr. Saltsman: For the period 1958 to 1968, what is the breakdown for each issue of Canada Savings Bonds by buyer, i.e., individual, corporation, financial institution, etc.?


Edgar John Benson: Only resident Canadian individuals were eligible to purchase the 1958 Series of Canada Savings Bonds.
For Series 1959 through Centennial and for the Special Replacement Series, dated May 1, 1968, eligibility was broadened to include purchases registered in the name of the estate of a deceased person, or in the name(s) of the legally constituted executor(s) or trustee (s) under the will of a deceased person or in the name of the administrator of the estate of a deceased person. No breakdown of sales by class of buyer is available for these series.
Eligibility was further expanded for the 1967-68 and the 1968-69 Series of Canada Savings Bonds to include corporations, businesses, churches, endowments, trusts, clubs, charities, fraternal and other associations resident in Canada. Corporate purchases amounted to $40,631,000 out of a total sale of $1,526,305,000 for the 1967-68 Series and to $61,874,000 out of a total sale of $3,366,762,000 for the 1968-69 Series. The amount of Canada Savings Bonds purchased by financial institutions is included with corporate sales and no separate classification is available.
For the 1969-70 Canada Savings Bonds issue presently on sale, the eligibility was modified in such a way that only individuals, estates of deceased persons, trusts established for or on behalf of one or more individuals, religious institutions, charitable organizations and other non-profit making associations might buy Canada Savings Bonds, provided they were bona fide Canadian residents.
Questions


SIDE-VIEW MIRRORS-MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
Mr. Mather: 1.	What motor vehicle safety standards have been set for convex side-view mirrors?
2.	Is legal action being considered, similar to that announced by the U.S. Government in respect to Fiat motor cars, to enforce safety standards in this area?


Gérard Loiselle: 1. The standard in Canada is CGSB No. 97-GP-lll: Rearview Mirrors; Passenger Cars and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles.
2.	No legal action can be taken pursuant to the requirements of Standard 97-GP-lll until the requirement is made mandatory by Bill C-137.


RAILWAY CROSSING-SIGNAL DEVICES
Mr. Mather: 1.	How many public highway railway grade crossings in Canada have protection devices warning motorists of the approach of a train?
2 How many such crossings have just signs to mark the crossing location?
3.	What approximate percentage of the crossings without special warning devices are eliminated or improved annually?


Gérard Loiselle: 1. As of
December 31, 1968 there are 5,294 crossings where mechanical protection has been installed or Orders have been issued directing installation of protection.
2.	There are 26,186 crossings equipped with only standard or reflectorized crossing signs.
3.	Approximately 2 per cent of the unprotected crossings are eliminated or improved annually.


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT-RESEARCH STUDIES
Mr. Peters: 1.	For the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, what specific research studies have been undertaken by the Transportation Policy and Research Branch of the Department of Transport?
2.	Who are the individuals involved in these studies, and when is it anticipated that these studies will be completed?


Gérard Loiselle: 1 and 2. If by
specific research studies is meant research studies undertaken by consultants the following studies have been undertaken:
Questions

December 17, 1969
Fiscal Year 1968-69
1968-69
1968-69
1968-	69
1969-	70 1969-70 1969-70
1969-70
Estimated com-
Study	Name of Consultant pletion Date
Appraisal of economic ef- Stanford Research Institute Completed
fects of providing a fixed
crossing of Northumberland
Strait between P.E.I. and
Mainland
Study extent of truck han- Touche, Ross Bailey & Completed died goods included in Mar- Smart itime Freight Rates calculations of the CNR.
Evaluation of the efficiency N.D. Lea Associates	Completed
of Canadian Urban Transportation
Montreal Airport peripheral Kates, Peat, Marwick & Co. Completed land development study
Transportation study of Port Hedlin Menzies & of Churchill	Associates
Yukon Aerial Reconnais- Canadian National sance	Railways
Evaluate future role of rail- Hedlin Menzies & ways in development of re- Associates sources in Canadian Northwest
Meteorological Methodology Dr. M. Inagaki Studies
Oshawa Airport Benefit Cost Prof. R. W. Crowley	December 1969
Analysis Study
Study related to transporta- Lyse Burgess	Completed
tion problems in the Gaspe
Peninsula
Study to examine equipment Leif Steineger	Completed
and methods of working Prince Edward Island Ferry Service
A study to forecast future Professors A. M. Stevens January 1970 demand for aviation services and F. R. Wilson in the Atlantic Provinces
Completed
Completed
November 1970


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT-INVESTIGATION REGARDING FISHING OPERATIONS BY UNITED STATES SPORTSMEN
Mr. Peters: 1.	Did the Department of Transport undertake an investigation recently regarding the operations of United States tourist operators and sportsmen in flying to isolated Canadian lakes and bringing back across the border over-the-limit fish harvests?
2.	If so, what were the results of this investigation, and what action is forthcoming from the Department of Transport?


Gérard Loiselle: 1. No.
2. See answer to part 1.


FEDERAL BUILDING, LA SARRE
Mr. Laprise: 1.	Since the beginning of 1969, how many times has the Department of Public Works called for tenders for alterations to the federal building in La Sarre?
December 17, 1969

2.	How many of these calls for tenders were cancelled, and for what reasons and who were the tenderers?
3.	Which were accepted, who were the tenderers, what was the amount of each tender, and to whom were the contract or contracts awarded?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Five.
2.	Five: February 12, 1969 Tender Call-
General modifications to Post Office. Contract awarded on February 28, 1969 to Les Entre-prises Pionnier Ltee for $9,700. Due to the contractor's lack of action and delay, his contract was withdrawn by the District Office on April 21, 1969, under terms of Clause 17 of the General Conditions of D.P.W. Form 353. Tenderers:	Les Entreprises Pionnier
Ltee., Forget & Plouffe, Constructions Filia-trault, Jolicoeur et Ste-Croix Ltee., Adelard Pelletier Inc.
April 30, 1969 Tender Call-Modifications to Canada Manpower Centre and new fire escape. No contract awarded because bids were too high. Tenderers: Constructions Filia-trault, Les Constructions St-Amant Inc., Transit Construction Ltee.
August 13,	1969 Tender Call-General
Modifications to Federal Building, Phase A. Tender call cancelled because the bids obtained exceeded the funds available for this project. Tenderers: Adelard Pelletier Inc., Les Entreprises Honel Inc.
September 17, 1969 Tender Call-General Modifications to Post Office, Phase B. Tender call cancelled when lower bidder, Jolicoeur & Ste-Croix Ltee., disqualified because of lack of security deposit and second bid was considered too high in comparison to the departmental estimate. Tenderers: Jolicoeur et Ste-Croix Ltee., Adelard Pelletier Inc.
October 8, 1969, Second Tender Call, Phase A (See August 13 above) Cancelled because bids were too high. It is now proposed to combine Phases A and B and call new tenders. Tenderers: Jolicoeur et Ste-Croix Ltee., Adelard Pelletier Inc., J. A. Albert Jean Cie Ltee., Transit Construction Ltee.
3.	None.


RAILWAY COMMUTER SERVICES, MONTREAL
Mr. Danson: What has been the amount of profit or loss on the railway passenger commuter services to Montreal?


Gérard Loiselle: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: Canadian National has reported a loss for the
Questions
year 1968 of $1,704,473 under section 314J (9). Canadian Pacific has not reported under this section.


CLOSING OF RAILWAY STATIONS
Mr. Comeau: 1.	How many railway stations have been closed in Canada in the past three years?
2.	How many have been closed in the Province of Nova Scotia and where were these stations situated?
3.	How many railway stations are scheduled to be closed in Canada, and where are these situated?
4.	Is it the intention of the government, through the C.T.C. to accept the removal of railway services between Halifax and Yarmouth?


Gérard Loiselle: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. Applications were approved involving the removal of 790 Agents or Caretakers since January 1, 1966, the most of which resulted from the introduction of Customer Service Centres and Master Agency Plans.
Provincially these were situated as follows: Newfoundland, 4; Nova Scotia, 13; Prince Edward Island, 7; New Brunswick, 17; Quebec, 100; Ontario, 234; Manitoba, 23; Saskatchewan, 153; Alberta, 207; British Columbia, 32.
2.	Agents or Caretakers were removed from twelve stations during the same period, namely at: Mount Uniacke, Judique, Port Hastings, Port Mouton, McIntyres Lake, Merigomish, Stewiacke, Mabou, Clarksville, Iona, Heather-ton, Debert.
3.	While the Canadian Transport Commission is unaware of any schedule for the closing of railway stations, it has presently before it applications requesting authority to remove agents or caretakers from 378 stations in Canada, the majority of which result from proposals to implement Customer Service Centres and Master Agency Plans. Provincially they are situated as follows: Nova Scotia 9, New Brunswick 1, Quebec 116, Ontario 81, Manitoba 2, Saskatchewan 149, Alberta 1, British Columbia 19.
4.	Dominion Atlantic Railway operate a daily passenger train in each direction between Halifax and Yarmouth with an additional train in each direction on week-ends in respect of which the Canadian Transport Commission has received an application which will be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the National Transportation Act and the Railway Act governing the discontinuance of passenger train service.

December 17, 1969
Questions


ADDITIONAL CHRISTMAS STAFF, POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
Mr. Coales: 1.	What was the total additional help required by the Post Office during the Christmas rush in 1968?
2.	What is the anticipated additional help required for the Post Office Department for the Christmas rush during the present year?
3.	What will be the method used by the Post Office Department in selecting the additional staff that will be required during the Christmas period?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General and Minister of Communications):: 1. 59,784.
2.	64,000.
3.	The method of selection of Christmas help is similar to that used for the selection of all other persons appointed under the Public Service Employment Act and Regulations. Sections 10, 12 and 13 to 20 of the Act apply and Sections 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 15 to 26 of the Regulations apply. Appointment is by merit subject to statutory preferences for veterans, citizens and local residents. Applications for Christmas employment in Post Offices are received directly and through Canada Manpower Centres.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFIT APPLICATIONS, SUDBURY
Mr. Serre: 1.	How many applications for unemployment insurance benefits were received by the Sudbury office during the months of July, August, September, October 1968 and 1969?
2.	How many applications were rejected?
3.	What was the amount of money paid during each of the same months?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: 1.	The following are the initial applications for unemployment insurance benefit received by the Sudbury office during the months in question:
	1968	1969
July	597	2242August	538	1350September	565	1522October	724	1287
2. The number of claims not established by reason of insufficient contributions in the qualifying period were:
	1968	1969
July	105	463August	95	412September	151	453October	200	3543. The amount of unemployment insurance benefit paid through the Sudbury office during each of the months in question was:	1968	1969$	$July	134,854	249,119August	187,541	452,081September	226,585	594,910October	210,024	692,629


SALARY AND WAGE INCREASES, ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY AUTHORITY
Mr. Lambert (Edmonton: West):
1.	What was the date of the last general salary and wage increase granted to all major separate categories of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority employees prior to April 1, 1963, its effective date, and what was the percentage increase?
2.	From April 1, 1963 to date, what have been the dates, (both of publication and coming into force) of any general salary and wage increase for all major separate categories of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority employees and what was the average percentage increase for each such increase?
3.	What cumulative average percentage increase does the salary and wage level of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority employees as at present date reflect when compared to the relative salary and wage level of April 1, 1963?


Gérard Loiselle: The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority advise as follows:
1.	The date of the last general wage increase granted to the St. Lawrence Seaway Bargaining Unit employees prior to April 1, 1963, was January 1, 1963, and the percentage increase was 5 per cent.
The dates and percentage increases of the last general salary increase granted to the St. Lawrence Seaway excluded employees prior to April 1, 1963, were as follows:
Employee Category	Increase Date	Percentage IncreaseProfessional	July 1, 1961	5.7%
Administrative and Senior
Technical	October 1, 1961	5.2%
Clerical and Junior
Technical	October 1, 1961	5.2%

December 17, 1969

Questions
2.	From April 1, 1963, to date, the dates way employees and the average percentage of publication and coming into force of gen- increases were as shown in the Table which eral salary and wage increases for all major follows: separate categories of the St. Lawrence Sea-
Dates
Employee Category	Publication
Bargaining Unit	May 8, 1964
Employees	May 8, 1965 Aug. 4, 1966 Aug. 4, 1966 July 17, 1968 July 17, 1968
Excluded Employees	Apr. 1, 1964
Professional	Dec. 15, 1965 July 7, 1966 Dec. 21, 1966 June 30, 1967 June 28, 1968 Aug. 20, 1969
Administrative	Aug. 21, 1964
and Senior	Dec. 15, 1965
Technical	July 7, 1966 Dec. 21, 1966 June 30, 1967 June 28, 1968 Aug. 20, 1969
Clerical and	Aug. 21, 1964
Junior	Dec. 19, 1965
Technical	July 7, 1966 Dec. 21, 1966 June 30, 1967 June 28, 1968 Aug. 20, 1969
3. When compared to the relative salary and wage level of April 1, 1963, the present salary and wage level of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority employees reflects the following cumulative average percentage increase:
Cumulative Average
Employee Category Percentage Increase Bargaining Unit Employees	58.0%
Excluded Employees:
Professional	53.0%
Administrative and Senior
Technical	52.5 %
Clerical and Junior
Technical	58.0%


RAILWAY LINE, MATAGAMI TO HUDSON BAY
Mr. Laprise: Have studies been undertaken with a view to the construction of a CNR branch line from Matagami
Coming	Authority
Into Force Percentage Increase	
Jan. 1, 1964	3.5%
Jan. 1, 1965	3.5%
Jan. 1, 1966	20.0%
Jan. 1, 1967	8.0%
Jan. 1, 1968	7.0%
Jan. 1, 1969	6.5%
July 1, 1963	3.9%
July 1, 1965	6.5%
Jan. 1, 1966	12.6%
July 1, 1966	4.0%
July 1, 1967	4.0%
July 1, 1968	6.0%
July 1, 1969	7.0%
Oct. 1, 1963	3.7%
July 1, 1965	5.2%
Jan. 1, 1966	14.0%
July 1, 1966	4.0%
July 1, 1967	4.0%
July 1, 1968	6.0%
July 1, 1969	7.0%
Oct. 1, 1963	3.7%
Oct. 1, 1965	5.2%
Jan. 1, 1966	14.0%
July 1, 1966	4.3%
July 1, 1967	6.5%
July 1, 1968	6.0%
July 1, 1969	8.0%
to Hudson Bay, and (a)	if so, when did such
studies begin (b) if not, undertake such studies?	is the CNR planning to


Gérard Loiselle: The Management of Canadian National Railways advises	
as follows: No. (a) Not applicable; (b) No.	
SPRAYING OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY BY CNR


Mr. Howard (Skeena): Does Canadian National	Railways, either directly
or indirectly, engage in	a program of spraying
chemicals or other fluids	or substances along its
rights-of-way and, if so,	what chemicals, fluids or
substances are used and :	for what purposes?


Gérard Loiselle: The Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: Yes, in order to keep the track and ballast area free of weeds and control the growth of brush within the right-of-way.	

December 17, 1969
Questions
Chemicals used are normally of the soil steri-lant type, such as Hyvar-ex, Karmex, Sima-zine, Atrazine and a 50-50 mixture of 2-4-D and 2-4-5-T.


RATE PAID CNR SUPERNUMERARY EMPLOYEES
Mr. Malle: What rate is paid to supernumerary employees of the Canadian National Railways (a) in Ontario (b) in Quebec, and is time-and-a-half paid after 45 hours in these provinces?


Gérard Loiselle: The Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: As there is no designated position of "supernumerary" employee in the railway, the following reply is based on the assumption the question relates to extra gang labourers.
Pursuant to the collective agreement with the labour organization concerned the current rate of pay for these employees across Canada, after a probationary period of seventy-eight days, is $1,889 per hour increasing to $1,979 per hour after 156 days of service. There is no fixed rate of pay during the probationary period, however, employees generally average $1.75 per hour. Effective January 1st, 1970, these rates will be increased by 6| per cent.
The agreement also provides for these employees to work up to nine hours per day six days a week at straight time rates of pay. During the probationary period all overtime is worked at straight time, thereafter, overtime at time and a half is only paid after nine hours in any one day and for service on Sundays.


RENOVATION OF FEDERAL BUILDING, AMHERST, N.S.
Mr. Coates: 1.	On what date will tenders be called again for the renovation of the federal building which contains the post office at Amherst, Nova Scotia?
2.	On what date does the government estimate a start will be made on the proposed renovations?


Arthur Laing: 1. The date for the recall of tenders has not been established due to further changes in the space requirements of one of the client departments.
2.	Answered by Part 1.


CONSTRUCTION OF FEDERAL BUILDING, AMHERST, N.S.
Mr. Coates: 1.	On what dates will tenders be called and close for the construction of a new federal building at Amherst, Nova Scotia?
2.	On what date will the project be completed?


Arthur Laing: 1. Dates for the calling and closing of tenders for the construction of a new federal building at Amherst, N.S. have not been established, due to further changes in the space requirements of one of the client departments.
2. The completion date has not been determined.


PUBLIC WORKS OUTSIDE CONSULTANT STUDIES
Mr. Skoberg: What verbal agreement was negotiated on consultant fees between the Government of Canada and the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada and Provincial Associations of the Professional Engineers of Canada as mentioned in the reply to Question No. 1256, Tabled on May 14, 1969?


Arthur Laing: Fees for architectural consultants are paid at a standard rate across Canada based on a schedule approved by Treasury Board on April 28, 1960, and as a result of representations made by the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada. Fees for Engineering consultant services are based on the standard provincial tariff for fees established for such services by the provincial associations of Professional Engineers in the province in which the project is located.


REQUESTS TO CHARTER AIR CANADA PLANES BY FRANCE-QUEBEC OFFICE
Mr. Fortin: Did Air Canada receive requests for information from the France-Quebee Office regarding the chartering of a number of aircraft and, if so, were these requests answered and, if not, for what reason?


Gérard Loiselle: The management of Air Canada advises as follows: Various discussions with L'Office Franco-quebecois pour la Jeunesse regarding the carriage of passengers betwen Quebec and Paris have been carried on since 1968. Air Canada is actively engaged in negotiations with this organization for traffic moving under its auspices in 1970.


STABLE TRANS-ATLANTIC AIR FARES
Mr. Crouse: Has the government reached any agreement with members of the International Air Transport Association concerning a stable price on trans-Atlantic air fares and, if so, what decision was reached on group excursion fares, as well as on individual fares, for 14 and 21 day periods?


Gérard Loiselle: The Canadian
December 17, 1969

Transport Commission advises as follows: The airlines, members of the International Air Transport Association, have been meeting in Caracas in an attempt to reach agreement between themselves on the North Atlantic fare structure. Governments do not participate in these meetings. If agreement is reached between the airlines then such agreement is subject to approval by the governments concerned.


AIR CANADA GROUP TRAVEL WITHIN CANADA
Mr. Orlikow: Is Air Canada giving consideration to implementing group travel at reduced rates across Canada in the same way that it is proposing reduced rates for groups to Europe so that Canadians will be given the opportunity to see Canada first?


Gérard Loiselle: The management of Air Canada advises as follows: The domestic market in Canada for group travel is quite different from that on the North Atlantic. On the Atlantic a through journey of several hundreds or thousands of miles is involved in every case; within Canada, Air Canada passengers make a multiplicity of trips involving short, medium and long journeys between a multiplicity of points. A substantial demand for large group movements on the Atlantic has emerged and the new Air Canada fare proposals are designed to cater to this demand. In Canada, the nature of the travel as described above does not lend itself in the same fashion to large group movements and no major demand of the type experienced on the Atlantic has emerged. However, the present Air Canada domestic tariffs already provide discounts for groups of 15 to 30 and for groups of 30 or more and the airline is re-evaluating the potential market for discount rates for larger groups as well in respect to the Canadian domestic vacation market.


CURRENCY IN CIRCULATION
Mr. Malle: 1.	What is the amount of currency In circulation in Canada?
2.	At present what is the amount of money loaned by the banks in Canada?
3.	On what basis does the Bank of Canada place money in circulation in Canada (a) gold and, if so, in what proportion (b) production and, if so, in what proportion?


Edgar John Benson: 1.	As of October 29, 1969: Bank of Canada notes held by the public, $2,677 million; Coin held by the public, $423 million; Total cur-
Questions
rency in circulation, $3,100 million. In addition the chartered banks held as of October 29, 1969: Bank of Canada notes, $580 million; Coin, $50 million.
2.	On October 29, 1969 the total outstanding loans of the chartered banks in Canadian currency amounted to $18,902 million. The components of this total are as follows:
(Millions of dollars)
Day-to-day and call loans	$	564
General loans to businesses
and persons	14,808
Loans to provinces and
municipalities	833
Loans to grain dealers and the
Canadian Wheat	Board	1,119
Loans to instalment finance
companies	283
Canada Savings Bond	loans	4
Mortgage loans	1,291
Chartered banks also have loans denominated in foreign currency which amounted to $3,663 million on September 30, 1969.
3.	Money in circulation in Canada is not linked in any fixed way to a) gold or b) production. The proportion of the total money supply which takes the form of currency in circulation is determined by the public's demand for notes and coin. The Bank of Canada's influence on aggregate money supply and on credit conditions is directed to facilitating, so far as possible through monetary action, the growth of production and employment on a sustainable basis.


OTTAWA RAILWAY STATION-TRACK RELOCATION GRANTS
Mr. Thomas (Moncton): In the relocation of tracks for the new Ottawa Railway station, was any assistance granted from the Railway Grade Crossing Fund and, if so, what was the amount (a) in dollars (b) as percentage of the total cost?


Gérard Loiselle: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows:
No assistance from the Railway Grade Crossing Fund was authorized in the relocation of tracks for the new Ottawa Railway Station.


SINKING OF TUG &quot;EMERALD STRAITS&quot;
Mr. Winch: 1.	Is any action contemplated on the finding of His Honour Judge E. J. C. Stewart as Commissioner

December 17. 1969
Questions
Investigating the circumstances attending the sinking of the tug Emerald Straits to the effect that there were errors in construction, namely that the after engine room door was hinged inboard and that such constituted a danger?
2.	Is any action contemplated to implement the eleven recommendations made by the Commissioner and three assessors as a result of their study into the sinking of Emerald Straits in Howe Sound, British Columbia, on April 19, 1969 with loss of life?


Gérard Loiselle: 1. This finding is now under active consideration by the Board of Steamship Inspection and it is intended to have discussions with representatives of the owners organization and of unions before final action is taken.
2. Implementation of the eleven recommendations is now being considered by the Board of Steamship Inspection and it is intended to have discussions with representatives of the owners organization and of unions before final action is taken.


COMMISSION ON CANADA SAVINGS BOND SALES
Mr. Mather: What is the estimated amount of the commission to be paid to the financial institutions of Canada for their services in helping to market the latest Canada Savings Bonds?


Edgar John Benson: Approximately $34 million in commissions on sales reported to November 30th will be paid to approved financial institutions for their services in marketing the 1969/70 Series of Canada Savings Bonds. This Series remains on sale and to the extent that additional bonds are sold the amount of commissions paid will increase.


TAKEOVERS OF CANADIAN INDUSTRIES
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many Canadian industries and/or businesses have been taken over by American Corporations in each of the years 1960-1969 inclusive?
2.	What was the total value of the takeover?
3.	How many American based firms or American subsidiaries operated in Canada during each of the years 1960-1969 inclusive?
4.	How many wholly owned Canadian companies have been taken over by (a) American Corporations (b) United Kingdom Corporations (c) French Corporations (d) other, in each of the years 19601969 inclusive and what was the value of each?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Department of Consumer and
[Mr. Winch.)
Corporate Affairs and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce as follows: 1. *1960-61, 136; 1962, 54; 1963, 18; 1964, 63; 1965, 56; 1966, 67; 1967, 67; 1968, 139; 1969, 81.
2.	Not available.
3.	The numbers of corporations which were required to report under the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act and in which residents of the United States held a majority interest were tabulated for 1963 and 1965 to 1967. Results are as follows: 1963, 2,553 corporations; 1965, 3,026 corporations; 1966, 3,344 corporations; 1967, 3,703 corporations.
The Act was not in effect in 1960 and 1961; the required data was not tabulated for 1962 and 1964, and the results for 1968 and 1969 are not yet available.
(a)	(b)	(c)	(d)1960-	[DOT]61 136	27	3	181962	54	16	-	21963	18	15	1	11964	63	18	1	51965	56	13	-	51966	67	3	1	31967	67	4	1	71968	139	8	-	81969	81	11	-	10Value-Not	available	
*Aequisitions of Canadian businesses, recorded annually by the Office of the Director of Investigation and Research under the Combines Investigation Act from press and other public reports concerning only industries under the jurisdiction of the Act (and excluding firms whose activities do not fall within the scope of the Act).


NEW MONEY ORDER FORM TENDERS
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Were tenders called for provision of new Money Order forms for use by the Post Office Department and, if so, when were tenders called?
2.	What firms submitted tenders and what was the quotation in each case?
3.	To whom was the contract awarded?
4.	When are the forms to be in general use?
5.	For what reason or reasons were the existing forms deemed to be inadequate?


Eric William Kierans: 1. Yes, November 30, 1967.
December 17, 1969

Questions
2. Suppliers were invited to submit pro- set than detailed in our minimum specifica-posals both on a three and five year basis, tions.
They were also invited to include in their The suppliers bid combinations of form sets tender any concept, development and/or tech- designated by number or letter as follows: nology that was likely to ensure a better form
Prices Tendered for Supply of Money Order Form Sets price per thousand (including Federal Sales Tax)
Three Year Contract	$ 4.463	Five Year Contract	$Rolph Clark Stone (3.25")	R. L. Crain-B	4.57R. L. Crain-B-(3.25")	4.63	Rolph Clark Stone (3.25")	4.692Rolph Clark Stone (3.25")	4.663	Canadian Bank Note Company	4.7936Canadian Bank Note Company	5.0176	Rolph Clark Stone (3.4")	4.878R. L. Crain-D	5.69	R. L. Crain-D	5.62R. L. Crain-C	5.70	R. L. Crain-C	5.63R. L. Crain-A	5.93	R. L. Crain-A	5.87R. L. Crain-A1	6.06	R. L. Crain-A1	5.99International Business Machines -13A-(3.25")	6.5184	International Business Machines -13A-(3.25")	6.4736International Business Machines -13A-(3.4")	6.7424	International Business Machines -13A-(3.4")	6.6864International Business Machines -1-(3.25")	6.7648	International Business Machines -1-(3.25")	6.7088International Business Machines -1-(3.4")	6.9776	International Business Machines -1-(3.4")	6.9328International Business Machines -8-(3.25")	7.1456	International Business Machines -8-(3.25")	7.0896Moore Business Forms-2	7.29	Moore Business Forms-2	7.20International Business Machines -8-(3.4")	7.3696	International Business Machines -8-(3.4")	7.3136Moore Business Forms-1	7.72	Moore Business Forms-1	7.63Moore Business Forms-4	8.00	Moore Business Forms-4	7.91Moore Business Forms-7	8.19	Moore Business Forms-7	8.10Moore Business Forms-6	8.37	Moore Business Forms-6	8.28Moore Business Forms-3	8.50	Moore Business Forms-3	8.41Moore Business Forms-9	8.75	Moore Business Forms-9	8.66Moore Business Forms-8	9.00	Moore Business Forms-8	8.92Moore Business Forms-5	9.51	Moore Business Forms-5	9.42Burroughes	10.3936	Burroughes	10.3516Ditto (Bell & Howell)	11.26	Ditto (Bell & Howell)	12.21R. L. Crain-E	12.53	R. L. Crain-E	12.363.	R. L. Crain Ltd., for their "C" sample stock.4.	October 1, 1970.5.	The whole money order system has been redesigned to make use of the most modern equipment available for high volume document processing. The present form did not lend itself to the requirement of the new system and a totally new form had to be designed. Also, the form was redesigned to appear more attractive to the public and provide additional security against counterfeiting or alterations.
December 17, 1969
Questions


TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS INVOLVING MOTORCYCLES
Mr. Maiher: 1.	What percentage of motorcycle drivers are involved in traffic accidents?
2.	In what age group of motorcyclists does the largest number of accidents occur?
3.	What are the comparable figures for car drivers?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports that: 1. No statistical data is collected on the percentage of motorcycle drivers involved in traffic accidents. The number of motorcycle drivers has not been established. However, in 1968 there were 140,287 motorcycles registered in Canada and preliminary figures show that 9,263 motorcycles were involved in accidents.
2. No statistical data is collected on the age group of motorcyclists accounting for the largest number of accidents. However, preliminary figures for 1968 indicate that the greatest number of victims from motorcycle accidents are in the age group of 15-19 years. Excluding Quebec, where comparable figures are not available, the number of motorcycle drivers and passengers killed, according to 1968 preliminary figures are:
Age Group	Drivers	Passengers0-14	3	015-19	54	920 & over	42	9Total	99	18
Additionally in 1968 preliminary figures show the number of motorcycle drivers and motorcycle passengers injured in traffic accidents, excluding Quebec figures which are not shown in this number because they only use two age groups, 16 years and under and 17 years and over, are as follows:
0-14	210	9215-19	2,223	54220 & over	1,481	209Total	3,914	8433.	No statistical data is collected on the percentage of car drivers involved in traffic accidents. This information is complicated by the number of repeaters, that is those drivers who have more than one accident during the year. However, in 1968 there were 6,159,573 passenger cars registered in Canada and preliminary figures on motor vehicle accidents indicate that 740,041 passenger cars were involved in traffic accidents. Figures for 1968 show that the greatest number of drivers killed in motor vehicle accidents are in the age group 20-24 years-320 drivers out of a total of 1,440, excepting the province of Quebee for reasons outlined above. The numbers,	by age groups,	of drivers killed, with theexception of the follows:	Province of Quebec, are asAge Group	Number of drivers killed0-14	215-19	17320-24	32025-34	26435-44	23045-54	20155-64	13265 & over	113Not Stated	5Total	1,440


FISHERIES-PRECAUTIONS AGAINST HARM FROM OIL DRILLING
Mr. Comeau: 1.	Is the government taking precautions as recommended by the Fisheries Council to prevent harm to fisheries resulting from oil drilling work?
2.	What consideration is the government giving to this recommendation?
3.	Is the Department of Fisheries and Forestry supervising the oil drilling operation off the coast of Nova Scotia to ensure that no oil leaks into the water?


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: 1. Yes.
2.	The Department of Fisheries and Forestry has kept close liaison with other involved government departments since oil exploration began off Canadian shores to ensure that effective control is exercised. Drilling proposals and procedures on Pacific and Atlantic continental shelf areas have been rigorously regulated by the Resource Administration Division of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources who maintain an expert office and field staff for the purpose. Similarly, the Department of Fisheries and Forestry will continue existing liaison with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development with respect to drilling operations off the Northwest Territories.
The Department of Fisheries and Forestry continues to work closely with Department of Transport on the control of oil pollution from ships, and is also active on committees responsible for planning to deal with large oil spills in Canadian waters.
3.	No.
December 17. 1969


POST OFFICE REVENUE
Mr. Comeau: How is the post office revenue for a particular post office calculated?


Eric William Kierans: By aggregating all the postage revenue produced through postage sales. Non-postage revenue such as fees from the sale of money orders or the rental of lock boxes is not included.


LIGHTSHIPS
Mr. Comeau: 1.	How many lightships in Canada are operative and provide navigational aids to fishermen?
2.	If any, where are these located and what was the cost of operating each for the years 1967 and 1968?
3.	What was the cost of operating the lightship Lurcher for the years 1967 and 1968?
4.	What was the extent of service provided by this lightship?
5.	How many men were employed on the lightship Lurcher?
6.	Where have these men been placed?


Gérard Loiselle: 1. None.
2.	See answer to 1 and 3.
3.	Operating costs of the Lurcher lightship for 1967-68 were $153,410 and for 1968-69, $150,375.
4.	(a) Exhibited a flashing light, (b) Operated a fog signal in reduced visibility, (c) Transmitted radiobeacon signals, (d) Transmitted meteorological data.
5.	(20).
6.	All have been offered alternative employment within the Department of Transport. Many have accepted and others are at present giving the matter consideration.


FOREIGN DIPLOMATS IMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL CHARGES
Mr. Howard (Okanagan: Boundary):
To date in 1969, did any foreign diplomats escape charges, normally considered criminal, through diplomatic immunity and, if so, how many such incidents have there been?


Mitchell William Sharp: Departmental records show that there has been only one case during the period January 1-December 2,	1969
where diplomatic immunity was invoked to avoid a charge normally considered criminal. In three other cases of which the Department was informed charges were not laid because the person involved obviously possessed diplomatic status.
Questions


CANADA-U.S. RECIPROCAL TAX CONVENTION AND AMERICAN TEACHERS
Mr. Lambert (Edmonton: West):
1.	Has the Minister of Finance given consideration to negotiating with the Government of the United States the abrogation of Article VIII A of the Canada-U.S. Reciprocal Tax Convention insofar as American teachers and profesors are permitted to work professionally in Canada for a period of up to 24 months free of Canadian income tax and has any decision been reached?
2.	Have studies been made to compare the financial positions of such persons vis-a-vis their Canadian counterparts (with similar qualifications) in similar jobs in Canada and with what result?


Edgar John Benson: 1 and 2. The proposals for tax reform recently made public by the government in a White Paper include a statement in paragraph 26 of chapter 2 that the government intends to remove on a reciprocal basis the exemption for visiting teachers and professors now provided in tax treaties and to tax such persons like others.


ROYAL COMMISSION ON BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM
Mr. Coates: 1.	What has been the cost to date of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism and what will be the final estimated cost and on what date will the Commission complete its work?
2.	What are the names of all the persons who have been appointed to the Commission and how much has each received in honoraria and expenses?


James Edgar Walker: 1. The cost as of December 2, 1969 is $8,376,120.91. The final estimated cost will be $8,900,000. We are informed by the Commission that it is anticipated that their activities will cease in the late summer of 1970.
2. Names	Honoraria	TravelMr. C. Cormier	$ 40,250.00	$ 15,207.69Mr. A. D. Dunton	67,150.00	4,256.08Mr. R. Frith	90,550.00	26,043.84Mr. J.-L. Gagnon	121,250.00	25,349.25Mrs. G. Laing	55,100.00	34,244.90Mr. P. Lacoste	30,150.00	3,570.30Mr. A. Laurendeau	105,200.00	19,102.35Mr. J. Marchand	14,450.00	5,215.03Mr. J. Rudnyckyj	52,150.00	21,814.90Mr. F. R. Scott	45,300.00	9,570.74Mr. P. Wyczynski	54,200.00	4,000.66Mr. A. Raynauld	18,050.00	701.95$693,800.00	$169,077.69Total	$863,552.59	2080	COMMONS DEBATES	December 17, 1969
Questions
ENFRANCHISEMENT APPLICATIONS	PUBLICATION DATE OF MENTAL
BY INDIANS	HEALTH STATISTICS


Mr. Sulatycky: How many treaty or registered Indians applied for enfranchisement in each of the last ten years?


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1959-60, 234; 1960-61, 205; 1961-62, 185; 1962-63, 152; 1963-64, 86; 196465, 77; 1965-66, 80; 1966-67, 54; 1967-68, 98; 1968-69, 99.


CIVIL SERVICE APPLICATION FORM QUESTION NO. 16
Mr. Broadbent: 1.	What is the purpose of Question Numbered 16 on the federal government's civil service application form regarding "dates, countries visited and purpose of travels made to any communist-dominated areas since July 1, 1945"?
2.	What specific countries are included in "communist-dominated areas"?


James Edgar Walker: 1 and 2. The question referred to does not appear in any federal public service application form. It appears in the Personal History Form completed by persons being assigned to duties which will require them to have access to classified information. The completed form is used as a basis for further investigation to determine the loyalty and reliability of the person concerned. The purpose of Question 16 is to establish the reasons for unofficial travel to communist-dominated countries or areas. As these change from time to time, and as the countries and areas are well-known to the public, it is not necessary to specify what they are.


GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
Mr. Mather: 1.	Is the President of the Treasury Board chairing a committee which is reviewing government advertising policies and procedures?
2.	When can a statement on these matters be expected?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. No.
2. The government is reviewing the recommendations of the Task Force on Information and an appropriate statement will be made in due course.


Mr. Fairweather: What is the anticipated publication date of Mental Health Statistics, Volumes I and II for which statistics were gathered in 1966?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The 1966 Mental Health Statistics, Volume I, will be published in February, 1970. Volume II is expected to be published in July or August, 1970.


SURVEILLANCE OF QUEBEC MINISTERS TRAVELLING ABROAD
Mr. Ricard: Does the Secretary of State for External Affairs have the Department security services exercise close surveillance on trips made by Ministers of the Government of the Province of Quebec to foreign countries and, if so, for what reasons?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is no.


EQUIPMENT OF CANADIAN RECONNAISSANCE PLANES SERVING NATO
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Are Canadian reconnaissance planes in service with NATO equipped with armament of any kind?
2.	Do they have equipment such as infra-red ray to carry out reconnaissance at night, or in overcast weather?
3.	What is the essential role of these planes?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. No. However, they are capable of carrying both nuclear and conventional weapons.
2.	No.
3.	Photographic reconnaissance in day visual conditions.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Benjamin: 1.	For the years 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969, which American-produced series were carried by the private network CTV?
2.	For the same above years, which Canadian-produced series were carried by the CTV network?
3.	For the same above years, which series were carried by the CTV network during the prime viewing times of 7 p.m. to 11 p.m.?
Return tabled.
December 17, 1969


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 AIR TRANSPORT POSSIBLE STRIKE OF TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the proposed termination of all air transport services in Canada as a result of the impending strike of the air traffic controllers.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the urgency of the subject and of the debate are too apparent for me to need to elaborate or emphasize.


Mr. Speaker:: The Leader of the Opposition has given the Chair the notice required under the Standing Order and since then I have given extensive and most serious consideration to the advisability of making a positive, affirmative response to the proposition of the Leader of the Opposition. I should say that I am disposed to grant the motion of the Leader of the Opposition. The difficulty I have is to determine when the debate should be had.
As hon. members know, there is a discretion left to the Chair in determining when the debate should be had, and there are a number of considerations that have to be taken into account by the Chair in making such a determination. I, of course, have to take into account first and foremost the very substance of the matter raised by the member who has proposed the motion, and it is obvious that the matter is one of such urgency that it should be debated at the first opportunity. At the same time, I gather that when the subject matter of the debate relates to negotiations which are still pending there may be factors which would militate in favour of having a slight postponement of the debate itself, subject to the decision of the Chair. The Chair must also take into consideration the legislative program which is before the House when such motions are made.
Without setting a precedent I would like to suggest, after much thought, that perhaps the time to have this debate would be this afternoon, possibly at five o'clock, but I would not like to make a ruling to this effect without
Air Transport
hearing from the House Leaders 30 brief words as to what their thoughts are on the subject, after which I will make a definite ruling as to when the debate should be had. My suggestion is that it should be at five o'clock this afternoon. After having heard the House Leaders for one moment, I will make a ruling.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am advised by my colleagues, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson), that negotiations are still under way at the present time between the representatives of the government and the representatives of the union. From that I think it would be obvious that not only would a debate perhaps not be useful this afternoon at five o'clock about a subject that is still under negotiation but, indeed, that a debate at this time could adversely affect the favourable outcome of the negotiations.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I do not know whether that is the intent of the hon. member. On that basis I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps it would be more appropriate if you could exercise your discretion under Standing Order 26(9) and set the debate for tomorrow evening at 8 p.m.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, unless there is a capacity on the part of the government at this time or later this afternoon to assure the House that the very important negotiations now proceeding have got to the stage where a debate at this time would not prevent a settlement of the strike from taking place, it is our view that a solid and determined statement proceeding from this House through a debate at this time might well have the effect of bringing to a conclusion the threat of this strike which is potentially so dangerous and would have such a drastic effect upon the people of Canada.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, obviously there are considerations both ways with respect to this matter. But it seems to me that in view of what the Government House Leader has said we are in the position that unless there are some negotiations it is impossible to hold the debate at five o'clock because I gather it would require unanimous consent.

December 17, 1969
Air Transport
I wonder if the Government House Leader is denying unanimous consent and, if that is the case, does it throw the debate over to eight o'clock tonight? In the light of all these considerations, perhaps there could be consultations among the house leaders. We recognize the argument about negotiations being in progress, but now that the matter has been raised it would seem that it should be dealt with at the earliest possible moment. If there is not consent to five o'clock, it looks as though we must have the debate at six, seven or eight o'clock tonight.
I am getting lots of advice, Mr. Speaker, and it has been suggested that if we have to negotiate the matter maybe four o'clock would be even better than five.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, considering the urgency and the seriousness of the situation, I believe that there should be a debate on the matter as soon as possible. As for having this debate at five o'clock, would it not be possible, if the work of the House is expedited fairly rapidly, to have it a little earlier?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is obvious that there is not unanimity; therefore the Chair has to be guided by the rules. The rules do not give the Chair the authority, unless there is unanimous agreement, to set the debate for five o'clock or four o'clock. This would have to be done by agreement between the House Leaders.
I would hope that in the course of the afternoon there might be a meeting of the House Leaders to decide whether we could find a more appropriate time earlier today. However, if there is no unanimity, in view of the representations made by the Conservative House Leader I would think the debate would have to take place at eight o'clock this evening.


David Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I did not understand the government House Leader to refuse his consent. I understood him merely to express a preference. Perhaps he ought to inform the House whether he refuses consent for a debate today.


Mr. Speaker:: I accept the suggestion made by the hon. member for York South. Perhaps the Government House Leader would be helpful enough to comment.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the Standing Order is that I do not have the right to refuse consent; it is at your discretion when the debate should take place. If hon. members insist that the debate take place this afternoon at five o'clock or four o'clock, I am quite prepared to accept your decision in that regard. I am not refusing anything; I am only making it perfectly clear that negotiations are still under way and it is questionable whether the debate will be of assistance in that regard.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member well realizes that the consent I was referring to was consent to have the debate at a time other than eight o'clock. The Standing Order does not give discretion to the Speaker to set the debate, when the motion is made on a Wednesday, for any other time than eight o'clock. It is only if there were unanimous agreement by hon. members that I could dispense with that provision.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Of course hon. members will realize that the Chair, in consultation with his advisers, has spent quite a bit of time considering all aspects of the matter. I was anxious to be very fair to all hon. members in this regard and when I referred to unanimous consent I was referring to the fact that we could not have the debate at any time today other than eight o'clock without the unanimous consent of all hon. members. This is why I suggested, agreement not having been apparent, that the rule provides that the debate take place at eight o'clock. However, I would take the initiative and suggest to the House Leader that they convene. If this is the desire of all hon. members I shall take the initiative, after Routine Proceedings, to call the House Leaders to my office to see whether, in view of the urgency of the matter, we might not have the debate at four o'clock or five o'clock rather than eight o'clock.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the sensible thing to do from the government's standpoint is to provide an opportunity for the negotiations to continue. I understand they will resume at about 4.30 p.m. On that basis perhaps it may be possible to arrive at some settlement before eight o'clock. It seems to me, therefore, that eight o'clock is the sounder time, given all the circumstances involved.
December 17, 1969	COMMONS


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The decision still stands that unless I make a further statement later the debate will be at eight o'clock. Of course I shall still exercise my discretion in order to call the House Leaders to my office later this afternoon in the hope that something may be arranged. I may say that this does not rule out the possibility of my considering, after hearing further from the House Leaders representing the various parties in the House, that it might be better to have the debate tomorrow morning even, or tomorrow afternoon.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions for the productions of papers Nos. 30, 55, 66 and 73 are acceptable to the government.


CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST LEGISLATION
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 30-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the report by Professor Jeremy Williams of the University of Alberta on the subject of conflict-of-interest legislation.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 55-Mr. Thomson:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence between the Department of Transport and the Humble Oil Company and its partners in relation to the Manhattan project.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 66-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all regulations passed under the authority of the Canada Assistance Plan and also for a copy of all agreements made between the Government of Canada and the governments of the provinces under the said act.
Motion agreed to.
DEBATES	2083
Motions for Papers FOREIGN AID
Motion No. 73-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the Pearson Report on Foreign Aid prepared for the World Bank.
Motion agreed to.
David Walter Groos: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion No. 270 is acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents and authorization of the government authorities concerned.


DUMPING OF MINE TAILINGS, RUPERT INLET
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 270-Mr. Rose:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence between the Department of Fisheries and Forestry and organizations and groups and individuals regarding the dumping of tailings in Rupert Inlet at the Northern end of Vancouver Island from the copper and molybdenum open pit mine of the Utah Construction and Mining Company Limited.
Motion agreed to.
David Walter Groos: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions Nos. 2, 8, 10, 158, 161, 209, 210, 212, 230, 231, 251, 281 and 286.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.
COMBINES AND ANTI-TRUST LEGISLATION Motion No. 2-Mr. Sallsman:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all reports and studies undertaken for the Economic Council of Canada review of Canada's Combines and Anti-trust legislation.


James Edgar Walker: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the Economic Council of Canada as follows: The review referred to was the second of a series of reports under a general reference from the government on competition policy in Canada. An additional interim report and a final report are still in progress.
It is the policy of the council to make available to the public as much as possible of the analysis underpinning all its work. In this regard the council is currently putting several research studies into a form suitable for publication within the next year and the publication of other studies at a later date is under consideration. I would therefore ask, Mr. Speaker, that this motion be withdrawn.

December 17, 1969
Motions for Papers


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I want it trans- Mr. Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ferred for debate.	have the motion transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
MANPOWER RETRAINING PROGRAMS Motion No. 8-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the report by the task force in the Department of Manpower and Immigration which recommended a 52-week limit for all federal government manpower retraining programs.


Mr. Rosaire Gendron (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the papers called for in this motion are internal working documents developed by departmental officers during a meeting in October, 1968, and as such are considered to be confidential. I would therefore hope that the hon. member would consent to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, since I do not consider the matter confidential, I ask that the motion be transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
COMPETITION POLICY Motion No. 10-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the nearly forty submissions presented to the Economic Council of Canada for its review of Canada's competition policy, as referred to in the Council's report of July 1969 on page 4.


James Edgar Walker: Mr. Speaker, I am
informed by the Economic Council of Canada that shortly after receiving a general inquiry from the government on the interest of consumers, competition policy and industrial and intellectual properties, the council solicited briefs from all interested parties on all matters falling under the government's reference. In its interim report the Council referred to nearly 40 briefs it had received at that time under this general reference. Briefs are still being received from organizations and individuals and a complete list will be published in the final report on the reference.
The council did not undertake to publish the briefs and indicated at that time that requests for them would be referred in all cases to the submitting organizations who would decide whether or not to make them public. I would therefore, Mr. Speaker, ask that this motion be withdrawn, ,


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
REORGANIZATION OF RESERVE FORCES Motion No. 158-Mr. Lewis:
That an Order of the House do Issue for copies of all correspondence, memoranda, etc., between the Government of Canada and the Conference of Defence Associations regarding the reorganization of Canada's reserve forces.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, as I have told the House on several occasions, I have had successful talks with the Conference of Defence Associations regarding the reorganization of Canada's reserve forces. However, there was not any correspondence with the Conference in that regard. Therefore, I would ask the hon. member for York South to withdraw his motion.


David Lewis: Since there is no correspondence. Mr. Cadieux (Labelle): There is no motion. Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


DIRECTIVES RESPECTING DRAFT DODGERS AND DESERTERS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 161-Mr. Lewis:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the directive or directives of the Department of Manpower and Immigration regarding draftdodgers and military deserters.
Rosaire Gendron: Mr. Speaker, the papers mentioned in this motion are guidelines for the internal use of the department. They have been sent by the central administration to the staff of the local offices. As they are confidential, it is not customary to make them public and therefore I hope that the hon. member will be so kind as to withdraw his motion.


David Lewis: In my opinion a directive like that is legislation and the public ought to know what it contains. I ask that the motion be transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
December 17, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES	2085
Motions /or Papers
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, AIR TRANSPORT Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): command	Stand.
Motion No. 209-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report by Simpson, Riddell, Stead and Partners on the financial management in Air Transport Command undertaken in 1966 for the Department of National Defence, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the past Session.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion stands.


COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 210-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report by Strathmere Associates on a survey of community development projects in all ten provinces, the Northwest and Yukon Territories undertaken in the fiscal year 1965-66 for the Privy Council Office, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the past Session.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion stands.


INFORMATION MEDIA AND WAR ON POVERTY
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 212-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report by Heward, Newman and Associates and Julian, Hebert and Associates, Montreal, regarding information media relative to the war on poverty undertaken in the year 1967-68, for the Privy Council Office, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the past Session.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion stands.


MANPOWER MOBILITY PROGRAM-STUDY OF THOSE RECEIVING GRANTS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 230-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report by Kates, Peat and Marwick, Company, a study of persons and families who have moved and received grants under the Manpower Mobility Program, undertaken for the Department of Manpower and Immigration, in the fiscal year 1967-68, as mentioned in Question Number 1,323 of the past Session.
Mr. Speaker:: Motion stands.


MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION-DESIGN OF MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 231-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report by Operations Research Industries, a study and recommendation on the design of a management-information system supporting the departmental planning, programming and budgeting system, undertaken for the Department of Manpower and Immigration in the fiscal year 1967-68, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the past Session.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion stands.


CABLE TELEVISION INSTALLATION CHARGES
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 251-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all corespondence, etc., between Bell Canada and the Department of Communications regarding cable television installation charges by Bell Canada.
David Walter Groos: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Communications I wish to report the following. The correspondence referred to in the order relates to matters discussed between the government of Canada and a private company. These discussions and the correspondence relating to these were of a confidential nature and it would not be in the public interest to make them public.
I would therefore hope that the hon. member would consent to withdraw this motion.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, obviously those who have to buy services from Bell would not agree with the statement made by the government. I cannot agree with it and I ask that the motion be transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


GOVERNMENT OF CANADA AND ATLANTIC REGIONAL DESK
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 281-Mr. Comeau:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence and/or reports between the Government of Canada and the Atlantic regional desk.
[Stage Direction]
December 17, 1969
Motions for Papers
James Edgar Walker: Mr. Speaker, the Atlantic regional desk is a division of the Prime Minister's office and communications from it to the Prime Minister are regarded as internal documents and therefore privileged. I would hope the hon. member would therefore agree to withdraw this motion.


Mr. Comeau:: Mr. Speaker, since there appears to be no way of finding out about these regional desks, I ask that the motion be transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


EXAMINATION OF CANADIAN TRUCKING FIRMS BOOKS BY U.S. AGENCIES
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 286-Mr. Barnett:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all arrangements, agreements, etc., between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States regarding the examination of books of Canadian trucking firms by United States regulatory agencies.
David Walter Groos: Mr. Speaker, the government of Canada does not have any documents with respect to the examination of the records of Canadian companies by United States regulatory agencies, principally because the government of Canada has delegated its responsibility for motor traffic to the provincial highway transport boards. While the government of Canada is aware by hearsay that informal arrangements may have been made between provincial authorities and the United States agencies, there is nothing in our records which would disclose this.
In view of the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker. I hope that early action under part III of the Transportation Act will bring a more positive return. Since there is no correspondence, I will gladly withdraw the motion at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I wish to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board, Mr. Speaker. I do so in view of the statement that was made that negotiations are to resume at 4.30 in connection with the difficulties regarding the air transport controllers. Has the minister instructed or will he undertake to instruct the government's negotiators to take a generous view toward the question of limiting hours of work? I put this question to the minister in view of the critical responsibility of these men for the safety of air passengers and also in view of the recent statement by the president of the association that the association is willing to compromise on its salary demands if the government is willing to make a proper settlement with regard to hours of work.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to make any comments in relation to negotiations currently in progress. They are now in progress elsewhere behind closed doors. In fact the government has, prior to the negotiations and before the conciliation board, recognized the special situation of the air traffic controllers in respect of the difficulties of their work and the necessity for some accommodation in respect of hours of work. This instruction has already been given.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I hope in view of the seriousness of the situation that the minister is prepared to make certain that the instructions are adequate in this respect. I ask him also whether, in view of the evidence that the air traffic controllers are subjected to exceptional stress arising from their very responsible work, the government is prepared to undertake a study into the causes of and remedies for the situation. I ask this question with particular reference to the importance of protecting the public who travel by air.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, such a study has been under way for some months now. Perhaps the Minister of Transport can give details.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, a preliminary study
December 17, 1969	COMMONS
which forms part of the occupational study-should be completed early in the new year. Contacts have been made with United States and European authorities and discussions held with a sample of controllers, 160 of them in fact to date, all of whom had an opportunity to discuss it. The Department of National Health and Welfare has also participated in this study. It is still going on.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I will deliberately not ask the President of the Treasury Board any details about the negotiations, but I put this question to him. In view of the fact that the negotiations are at their eleventh hour, is the minister not prepared himself to enter into negotiations immediately instead of his officers having to run back and forth between the negotiating table and the minister to get instructions on what to say and what to propose?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, Mr. Speaker.


David Lewis: A further supplementary question. Everyone knows that in the case of an industry of this sort the airlines have to make some arrangements and these cannot be made at the last minute. This also applies to the travelling public. The minister's presence here is very welcome on occasion, but should he not be there this afternoon? I also ask him, in view of the urgency of these negotiations, whether it is sensible for the negotiations to go on for an hour or so this morning and then not again until 4.30 this afternoon? This is an urgent matter, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned a moment ago, negotiations not only took place this morning but are continuing right now. There are matters of considerable technical detail currently under discussion. While I accept that the hon. gentleman is considerably more experienced than I in negotiations, I am prepared to accept the advice of those in whom I have great confidence. In this particular case I think the government is well served by the calibre of negotiators that we have. I am prepared to yield to their advice as to when and how I can most usefully make a contribution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for York South has a supplementary. I will recognize him in a moment. I have to 21545-61
DEBATES	2087
Inquiries of the Ministry remind hon. members that a decision has been taken to have a debate on this very matter later this afternoon. Perhaps we should keep some of the contributions for that debate. This having been said, however, I invite the hon. member for York South to address his supplementary question.


David Lewis: If you will permit me, Mr. Speaker, may I say I understood the meeting was to be at 2.30 but the leader of the House said earlier it was at 4.30. That is how the question arose. I want to ask the President of the Treasury Board whether he is aware that the Air Traffic Controllers Association is miffed by the fact that they are dealing with the same negotiators they have dealt with for more than six months without result. They have asked for the minister to attend, and in the light of that request would he not consider getting into the negotiations without waiting for his officials to tell him when to come?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The Air Traffic Controllers Association through its representatives referred to conscientious, loyal and devoted public servants as office boys. I do not really think that this should be the line for the conduct of intelligent collective bargaining in good faith. I repeat that when it appears that I can make a useful contribution-and it might be later this afternoon-I am ready and willing to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The question I was about to ask relates to the confusion surrounding the announcement by the leader of the House with regard to negotiations at 4.30. I should like to ask the President of the Treasury Board whether he thinks the remarks he has just made will contribute to productive negotiations.


An hon. Member:: Yes.


Robert Jardine McCleave: My question is directed to the Minister of Labour who has intervened in connection with labour disputes before. Is he or his department in on the current negotiations?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: That question was asked yesterday. Everybody knows that the Minister of Labour has no direct role to play in the relationship between the government and the employees of the government. However, I would take this opportunity to express my full confidence
2088	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry in the manner in which the President of the Treasury Board has conducted himself so far.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Hees:: Polishing the apple.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the President of the Treasury Board, in light of his statement about the Air Controllers Association referring to some of his staff as office boys, whether the minister is telling the House that the country is liable to be subjected to an air strike and tremendous inconvenience at this season of the year because the minister takes umbrage at the terminology which has been used?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
I should like to ask him whether he agrees with General Burns' statement to the effect that economic pressures should be brought to bear on Israel to get that country to withdraw its troops from the territories it invaded in the Middle East in June 1967, and whether such action would, in his opinion, be of a nature to bring back peace in that part of the world.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think that the hon. member may ask the minister to indicate to the House whether he agrees with a statement made in the circumstances he has mentioned. It would perhaps be better if the question were worded differently.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: I have a question for the Minister of National Defence, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister in a position to advise the House regarding flights home for Members of Parliament on government aircraft in the event of a strike by the air traffic controllers?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: At the request of most hon. members and as is done usually at the time for the

DEBATES	December 17, 1969
Christmas recess, because we do not know exactly when the recess will begin, in consequence of which no reservations can be made-


Gerald William Baldwin: You should.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: -we have made contingency plans to use DND aircraft to transport members west of Ottawa. However, if there is a strike we shall not, of course, fly this aircraft while the strike is on.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J, G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert): My question is directed to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. It has to do with the revelation brought to light by Montreal Matin that approval has been given by the government to the removal of the Queen's picture from all bills except two denominations. Can the minister tell us whether, in view of this shocking revelation, he will make a statement tomorrow before orders of the day so that hon. members may have an opportunity to express themselves concerning a measure which apparently is another step in undermining the monarchy?
Edgar John Benson: I might just have a moment, Mr. Speaker, I could explain the whole matter very quickly.


John George Diefenbaker: No. Make a statement on motions so that we can follow you.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Edgar John Benson: May I answer the question?


Mr. Speaker:: I understood-and this is why the question was in order-that the right hon. gentleman invited the minister to say whether or not he would make a statement in due course. In reply, the minister might indicate whether or not he intends to make a statement.


Edgar John Benson: I do not need to make a long statement.


John George Diefenbaker: Revert to motions so that we can answer and deal with the subterranean operations.


Edgar John Benson: The existing issue of currency came out 15 years ago. The quality of the design-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh'
December 17, 1969


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the minister but I understand the question asked was whether he would make a statement. The hon. gentleman has not sought leave of the House to revert to motions. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
George Harris Hees: I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. As both the consumer price index and the wholesale price index have risen sharply during the past three months, indicating that voluntary restraint has not proven effective in controlling inflation, is it the intention of the government to introduce the other methods to which the Prime Minister referred when he said some time ago that other methods would be used if voluntary restraint did not succeed in controlling inflation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We are just as distressed as is anyone in this House at this continuing rise. We shall take whatever other steps are required when we decide it is time to do so.


George Harris Hees: As one of those other steps, is the Prime Minister considering the calling together of the leaders of industry and labour and conferring with them and, having pointed out the dire results which will accrue to the economy if inflation continues to increase at the same rate as it is today-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: May I continue my question, please?


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member kindly ask his question?


George Harris Hees: Thank you. I shall be through in a moment. Will the Prime Minister consider using the great prestige of his office and his not inconsiderable persuasive powers to persuade management and labour that it is in their own interest as well as the interest of those they represent and of the country as a whole-


Some hon. Members:: Speech.


George Harris Hees: -to keep inflation within
reasonable bounds-
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a question. If the hon. member would consult citation 171 of Beauchesne's fourth edition he would see that a question should not be asked in the form of a speech, however short.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I would assume that it
applies, also, to a speech, however long.


AIR TRANSPORT
Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege and I do so now at the first available opportunity because I first had to check the record in Hansard. A few moments ago I asked the Minister of Labour about the role he or his department might play in respect of the problem respecting air traffic controllers. The hon. gentleman indicated to me that this question was raised yesterday and had been answered. In the intervening minutes I have read the relevant portions of the debate, commencing with the motion by the hon. member for Gan-der-Twillingate at page 2011. The matter is then continued from page 2015 through to page 2017. The only thing that comes in any way close to a response by the Minister of Labour was his answer to a question asked by my seatmate, the hon. member for Fundy-Royal, which dealt with the Woods task force report. I bring this matter to the attention of the House because I suggest the Minister of Labour has given an improper answer to the House and to the country.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to apologize to the hon. gentleman. His questions are usually very objective. Yesterday was not my day in the House. If he will check back a few more pages he will find that I answered the question on Monday.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please, if the hon. member is going to check Monday's record I hope he will not want to raise a second question of privilege.


George Harris Hees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Just as the hon. member rose the Prime Minister was going to answer my question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have to make some progress.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
21545-61$
December 17, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL FILM BOARD


LAY-OFFS OF EMPLOYEES
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view ol the superb
work which the National Film Board has done in promoting national unity and a better understanding among the people of the different regions of Canada, I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether there have been lay-offs in this agency, including 31 already laid off and 73 under notice as well as some 50 National Film Board distributors who have been informed that they will be laid off unless they can obtain sufficient revenue from the newly imposed user fees to pay their salaries? I understand this would make a total of some 154 staff reductions in the National Film Board. Is this being reconsidered and has the minister reached any decision in respect of the matter?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, although I do not confirm the figures quoted by the hon. member, I must admit that because of budget limits and restrictions the National Film Board, together with almost all other government agencies, has to make cuts in certain budget items.
The Commissioner of the National Film Board, in view of the unrest apparent to him among the personnel and more specifically the film makers of the National Film Board, has asked me to appoint someone who, during the course of January, will review the appropriateness of these decisions and report thereon. I have decided to take up this suggestion, which I received yesterday, and therefore none of the dismissals scheduled for December 15 will take place at any rate before January 15.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that Parliament passed legislation giving government employees the right to collective bargaining, I should like to ask whether there were any consultations with the employees of the National Film Board prior to these layoffs and whether the delay of one month in respect of the 73 who have been on notice as of December 15 is going to be extended in order that such consultations can take place if they have not already taken place?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, consultations have obviously taken place. The independent
IMr. Speaker.]

person who will be appointed will have to determine whether those consultations have been adequate. I cannot make any statement on that matter before that person has completed the study which I have just mentioned.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, in view of the massive lay-offs in the production staff of the National Film Board, will the Secretary of State indicate whether the government plans to have the CBC absorb the National Film Board?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to one previously asked and relates to an earlier series of questions about the National Film Board. In view of the recent CRTC ruling promoting Canadian identity, especially in rural Canada, would the minister indicate to the House whether he would consider requesting the CBC to contract more of its general programming and ETV work through the National Film Board rather than increase our dependence on imported films or contracts with outside private firms?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member has made a representation and must assume it will be considered by the government.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, in view of the answer by the President of the Treasury Board yesterday in reference to veterans and amputees, will the Prime Minister now exercise the prestige of his office by intervening in these layoffs-not transfers-of veterans and amputees?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I did look into this matter several days ago after the hon. member raised the question. I am completely in accord with the statement made yesterday or the day before by the President of the Treasury Board. I looked in particular at the two cases which were brought to the attention of the House by the hon. member. I am satisfied that in both cases the recommendations followed the line of the Public Service Commission and were based on equitable facts and opinions.
December 17, 1969


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Do I gather from the Prime Minister's answer that he goes along with the opinion of the President of the Treasury Board that in dealing with amputees and veterans who have served our nation they are redundant when it comes to lay-offs and have no priority in spite of the Public Service statute which guarantees them priority?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am asked if I am in accord with the opinion to that effect of the President of the Treasury Board. That is not his opinion. The member has misquoted his position.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The Prime Minister said I have misquoted the President of the Treasury Board. I will let the record speak for itself. I do not think influence is coming from the President of the Treasury Board but is coming from the Prime Minister who is not serving humanity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a question of privilege and 1 doubt whether we should pursue the matter further. I do not want to be unfair to the Prime Minister by not allowing him to reply to the statement made by the hon. member for Calgary North, but let me say again I think there is no question of privilege.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Could the minister tell us whether it is true that the federal government is getting ready to legalize or authorize in the immediate future the advertising of certain contraceptives?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will recognize that his question in its present form is out of order, since he is asking the minister to confirm a news item.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, in order to convey information and remove doubts in the public mind I should like to ask the Solicitor General whether he
Inquiries of the Ministry can at this time make a definite statement that gas injection units have not been installed in any jails in Canada?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to have the opportunity to refute the irresponsible statement which appeared in the papers yesterday to the effect that there were gas injection installations in cells of certain institutions in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George James McIlraith: That statement certainly is completely without foundation.


COMBINES
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the recent concerted price increases that occurred in the steel, petroleum and nickel industries, does the minister have under active consideration legislation to curtail collusive pricing conduct in these highly concentrated industries?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Without accepting the hypothesis of the question, may I say it was made clear in the Speech from the Throne, and in the speech I delivered a week ago Monday in Vancouver, that we have very actively under consideration a revision of the Combines Investigation Act which I would hope to introduce for first reading before this session ends.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: In the light of the Vancouver speech, will the minister inform the House when he will be reporting on his department's consideration of the report of the Economic Council of Canada on competition in Canadian industries?


Stanley Ronald Basford: The government's reaction to the report of the Economic Council on competition will be shown in the bill which we intend to introduce to revise the Combines Investigation Act.


LACK OF STAFF IN BRANCH
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs regarding the Combines Investigation Act. Has he paid some attention or will

December 17, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry he pay some attention to the complaint of the Director of Research and Investigation that full prosecution under the Act is now hampered by a lack of staff?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Well, Mr. Speaker, the shortage of resources in the Combines Investigation Branch has been a matter of considerable concern for some years. We, however, like all other departments, are under very tight budgetary control, but a special concession was made in respect of the guidelines for the Combines Investigation Branch in order to help alleviate the shortage of resources.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman says the lack of staff has been a continuing condition. Would he consider having the operations under the Combines Investigation Act transferred to the Prime Minister's office which is not so hampered?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, my question relates to the very important and very useful report by the chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development which was presented yesterday. I had intended to ask the chairman of that committee, the hon. member for Laprairie, whether he would shortly be moving concurrence in that report so that the House would have an opportunity to express its views on it. In light of the absence of the hon. member, I should like to address the question to the hon. member for Athabasca, the vice-chairman.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


BROADCASTING
Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. It arises out of answers he gave in the House on December 4 on the subject of community antenna television. I wonder whether his studies in respect of the CRTC have brought him to a point where he would like to indicate when he will make a statement on motions concerning it or whether he regards

the situation now as one which justifies action by the Governor in Council and the giving of guidelines to the CRTC?


Gérard Pelletier: To this question, Mr. Speaker, I have already replied that the Broadcasting Act does not allow the government to give instructions to or ask the CRTC to reconsider its decisions when they concern refusals to issue licences, but only when they have to do with granting, renewing or changing licences. As the act now stands, there is no question of giving such instructions to the CRTC.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether the position of the government is that it is proper for a commission of this sort to make such a far-reaching decision relating to broadcasting policy in this country or whether it is the intention of the government to make it possible for this question to be considered by Parliament or by a parliamentary committee?


Mr. Speaker:: I have some doubt about the first part of the question. The second part is quite in order and perhaps the minister might reply to that.


Gérard Pelletier: I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that I have confused the two questions and that I might reply to the one that is not in order. May I ask then that that part of the question that was ruled in order be repeated.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State whether it is his intention to make it possible for Parliament or a parliamentary committee at least to consider the policy announced by the CRTC, which has such far-reaching effects upon broadcasting in Canada?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I have said time and again that it is not up to the Secretary of State, no more than to any other minister, to control the work of a parliamentary committee. But it is normal for the representatives of the CRTC, the same as those of any other institution coming under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State, to appear before the
December 17, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES
parliamentary committee, when the estimates are considered, so that the members of the said committee may have a chance to question the officers on every aspect of those agencies.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will allow the supplementary but I have not had an opportunity until now to make my daily speech and remind hon. members that there are just a few minutes remaining before the end of the question period. We will try to get in as many questions as possible.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I have many supplementaries, Mr. Speaker, concerning the Film Board. However, in relation to this particular question, I should like to ask whether the Secretary of State has communicated to the chairman of the CRTC some of the displeasure expressed in Parliament about that decision, and has he ascertained from the chairman when the commission intends to apply the same policy on American influence to certain areas now covered by cablevision, let alone the CBC?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I think it my duty, a duty I always discharge with the greatest zeal, to pass on to the chairmen of institutions coming under the purview of the Secretary of State everything hon. members ask me to, whether or not I deem those opinions useful.


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a very important question to the Prime Minister.
Is the government prepared, before the presentation of the report of the Committee on Privileges and Elections on Bill C-187, which recommends to lower the voting age to 18, to consider, possibly in conjunction with the provinces, the advisability of lowering the age of majority to 18 and of relating this privilege to that of franchise?


Mr. Speaker:: I would point out to the hon. member that a suggestion has been made to the government and that he must take it for granted that it will be considered by the minister concerned.
Inquiries of the Ministry


LABOUR CONDITIONS
John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is he in a position yet to say whether the Canadian government has received any information from the United States government regarding the likely length of the active life of the United States naval base at Argentia, Newfoundland?


George Harris Hees: It is in your court, Mitch.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, neither the Minister of National Defence nor myself have as yet received any information on this.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In view of the uncertainty surrounding the future of Canadian civilians employed at these bases and the responsibility this government has in relation thereto, will the Secretary of State for External Affairs make it his business to initiate immediately inquiries of the United States to ascertain the future status of this base and of other U.S. bases in Canada?


POLLUTION
Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs which arises from reports of a meeting of the NATO Committee on "The Challenge of Modern Society" just concluded in Brussels. Has the Canadian government decided to conduct for NATO a pilot project dealing with inland water pollution?


Mitchell William Sharp: Not yet, Mr. Speaker. At the meeting referred to by the hon. member some Canadian experts were present. The meeting was informed that inland water pollution was a subject in which we had a special interest and that we would consider whether our experience might be relevant.


NATIONAL FILM BOARD
Mr. J. Edward Broadbenl (Oshawa-Whiiby):: I have a question for the Secretary of
2094	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry State. Is the minister reconsidering the decision of the National Film Board to impose charges on local schools boards and other Canadian groups for the use of National Film Board films?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure that this is a matter which is of such urgency that the question ought to be asked at this time. In my view, it is the type of question which normally should be placed on the order paper, but in view of the fact that we will be adjourning perhaps for a few days over Christmas and New Year's the question might be allowed.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State is not in the habit of interfering with the internal management of the National Film Board. However, since I have received representations from many members on both sides of the House in this connection, I asked, as I said earlier, for a report on the reason for such a step being taken. This report has been received, and it is my intention to discuss it with the authorities of the National Film Board.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It is based on the fact that the United States food and drug administrator who banned the use of cyclamates was fired. Since there is no clearcut Canadian policy on the use of this product which affects the daily lives of thousands of people who are on diets, can the minister indicate what action has been taken to solve this distressing problem?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Our deadline with respect to the removal of cyclamates stands, as is well known to the House and should be known to the hon. member. With respect to his comments concerning the food and drug administration in the United States, that move has been contemplated for some time and is not related to the cyclamate question.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Lee Grills (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the
[Mr. Broadbent.)
DEBATES	December 17. 1969
Minister of Transport to whom I have given previous notice. The CNR has decided to move several employees and their families from the Belleville comptroller's office for the Rideau area to Montreal. Will the minister use his good offices and influence to forestall this development which will cause hardship to loyal employees of long standing?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member has made a representation to the minister.


Lee Elgy Grills: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.




Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that his legislative assistant, Mr. Ivan Head, is in Lagos today-


An hon. Member:: He is in the gallery right now.
Another hon. Member: Ivan the Terrible.


Robert Norman Thompson: Perhaps he was there yesterday. I wonder whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs might inform the House whether, first, Nigeria intends to take part in the talks that are planned and for which the officials from Biafra are now waiting in Ethiopia and, second, whether or not there are any new plans for the movement of food into Biafra?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is true that Mr. Head of my office met over the weekend with the head of state of the Nigerian government. They discussed essentially means whereby increased relief supplies could be brought into all the beleagured parts of Nigeria. We have put forward a proposition which might involve the use of Canadian aircraft and that is now being considered by the Nigerian authorities.


NATIONAL FILM BOARD
Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: My question is for the Secretary of State. I wish to ask him whether, in response to representations made in the House and elsewhere concerning the future of the National Film Board, he has now given this subject further consideration and is prepared to make a
December 17, 1969	COMMONS
statement before the Christmas recess in which the valuable role of the National Film Board in developing a Canadian identity will be recognized and which will also remove fears that this institution is slowly being strangled by the government?


INDUSTRY
Mr. Oza  Teiraull@Villeneuve: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Finance Minister a question.
Does the government intend to maintain or revise its policy of assistance to gold mining now that the price of gold remains at $35 per ounce?


John Stratford Burton: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe that the Secretary of State was prepared to respond to my question. It is a matter about which many members are concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In view of the form in which the question was put, the Chair was not prepared to allow the minister to reply to the question.


John Stratford Burton: May I rephrase my question, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I feel embarrassed to have to bring to the attention of hon. members that the question period expired a few minutes ago. I think that I did my best to try to allow as many members as possible to ask their questions, but unfortunately many were not given an opportunity to do so. I have made a note of those who were not called today and will try to give them some preference tomorrow. I apologize to hon. members for the situation.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A few moments ago a question was put by the hon. member for Peace River to the acting chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I was going to raise a similar question but did not do so in view of the question put by the hon. member for Peace River. I note that Your Honour did not give the hon. member for Athabasca, who is the vice-chairman of the committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, an opportunity to answer. Perhaps Your Honour could clarify the situation, not only the one which arose on this occasion but those that might arise in the future.
DEBATES	2095
Inquiries of the Ministry


An hon. Member:: Spit it out.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: As soon as the noise from the back benches on the government side stops, I will continue my point of order, not before.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I do not ask Your Honour to rule on this at present if Your Honour is not prepared to do so, but perhaps on another occasion you would clarify whether members of this House may direct questions to chairmen of committees of this House, and particularly whether or not unanimous reports of those committees can be concurred in by the House at the proper time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The point raised by the hon. member is very interesting.
I must say that I had to make a very quick decision when the question was asked by the smiling hon. member for Peace River. I had some doubts at that point whether we had any precedents indicating that the vice-chairman of any committee should be allowed to answer a question on behalf of the chairman. Whether that hon. member sits on one side of the House or the other is immaterial to the Chair. I see nothing wrong with that.
My objection was directed to the substance of the question. I had the impression at that moment that the question was of the type which is normally decided by the committee itself and not by the House. I may have been wrong in that judgment. I will review Hansard in the course of the evening or take a look at the Hansard "takes" later today and determine whether the question should have been allowed. If the question was in order, certainly the hon. member who is the acting chairman of the committee, may be allowed to answer it.


Mr. Yewchuk:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have not yet made my ruling.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I only add that I and other members of the House have directed questions to committee chairmen during this session. I just wish to draw Your Honour's attention to that and to the fact that they have been allowed.


Mr. Speaker:: I have no intention of pursuing the discussion with the hon. member for Oxford, although the point is very interesting. I have agreed with him that that is the situation. I have told him, as I tell hon. members
2096	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry now, that is not the reason the question was not allowed. It was on the substance of the question. Again, as I said, I will review the matter. If I was wrong and if the question ought to have been allowed, the hon. member will have his moment of glory tomorrow.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will call
Orders of the Day and then recognize the hon. member for Annapolis Valley on a point of order. Orders of the Day.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, my point of
order also relates to Orders of the Day and, unfortunately, concerns you. I appreciate the problems of the Chair in recognizing legitimate supplementaries, and indeed all types of questions, but I rose today to ask the Secretary of State one supplementary question with regard to the first answer he gave on the National Film Board.
The Secretary of State has now gone from the chamber. He is here only three days a week. It is very hard to pin down any minister over there, let alone the Secretary of State who has so many Crown agencies under him. The Secretary of State said, for the first time today, that in view of the changes in the Film Board there was a person, called an independent person, who was going to do something or other. The supplementary which I was trying to ask was for the purpose of clarifying the record, and I tried to catch your eye seven times. My supplementary question to the Secretary of State arose out of the question I put to him on Monday about the same changes in the Film Board.
The reason I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that on Monday-I see that the Secretary of State is back in the House, Mr. Speaker. I will repeat that my question was an attempt to ascertain whether the independent person he now says is going to investigate something is the same person who is to be a substitute for or supplementary to the report the minister said he requested about all the changes in the National Film Board? It was to try to clarify the record in that respect that I wished to ask my supplementary question, and to avoid asking too many questions tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will have to ask the question tomorrow. I am not going to reverse the decision I have made simply because he has raised a point of order at this time. If the hon. member will look around he will see that he is not the only one who was

DEBATES	December 17, 1969
not allowed to ask supplementaries. There are a number of other hon. members who were not allowed supplementaries.
There has to be some order in the questioning. The Chair has to decide each day how long supplementaries should last. This is a long established discretion that resides in the Chair. If the hon. member thinks the discretion is not exercised properly, that is his judgment, but I can assure him that I try to allow as many supplementaries as possible. It would be easy for the Chair to allow hon. members to ask supplementaries on the same question for 40 minutes, but I do not think this is what hon. members want.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I did not suggest that. On a point of privilege-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I will sit down when Mr. Speaker tells me to sit down and you, Mr. Walker, don't have to tell me what to do.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members are not helping the Chair by either applauding or cheering when the-


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I am trying to indicate to hon. members what I am sure they know, that this is not an easy matter to decide from day to day. The Chair has only one concern and that is to be fair to hon. members. I am trying to do this to the best of my ability, and if I have been unfair to the hon. member I will try to do better tomorrow and see he gets the supplementary asked. But I want to say this, too, in all fairness and candour, and in all intellectual honesty: certainly, there is no reason why I should not allow the hon. member for Annapolis Valley as many supplementaries as I allow to other hon. members. I try to do the best I can.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I am certainly the first to defer to the fact that you are the fair one in the House. However, because of noise and applause for partisan advantage we sometimes lose sight of fairness. I do take exception with respect to Your Honour's suggestion-and I think it was only by inference and perhaps an inference that resulted from the warmth of the moment-that I was trying to take 40 minutes for supplementaries. That
December 17, 1969
was not the point. It just happened that the National Film Board people came from Montreal, and were very involved in problems with the minister. There were some questions yesterday, but you were not submerged in questions about the Film Board. In fact you did not get any questions about the Film Board yesterday because the minister was not here.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure whether there were questions yesterday. It was my impression that there had been. But in any event, tomorrow is another day and we will try to have more questions on that very important subject.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: On that point-


Mr. Speaker:: I know the hon. member may want to tell us that the Secretary of State will not be here tomorrow, but let us hope he will be here soon.


Thomas Miller Bell: That is the trouble with the whole question period.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a word with regard to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley. We all recognize the problem which faces Your Honour and we think you handle it with great dispatch and fairness. The difficulty is that there are questions which arise which need a number of supplementary questions. In the case of the National Film Board the need for supplementaries could have been avoided if the Secretary of State had made the statement on motions which he promised some time ago. If he would make a statement with reference to the National Film Board tomorrow it would save hon. members trying to ask a great many supplementaries, and it would save Your Honour from trying to keep a very difficult situation in hand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for
Athabasca rising on a point of order?


Paul Yewchuk: Yes, Mr. Speaker. After the exchanges which have taken place between yourself and the hon. member speaking before me I want to express my concern for your health. I am saying this because I want to save you some work. I want to indicate to you that I am prepared to answer the question from the hon. member for Peace River at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: I should thank the hon. member for his assistance, and I will again call Orders of the Day.
21545-62i
Company of Young Canadians Act (3:30 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Gérard Pelletier: that Bill C-171, to amend the Company of Young Canadians Act, be read the third time and do pass.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Mr. Speaker, I refrained from participating in the previous stages of debate on this bill in the hope that it would be improved during the process. There has been some improvement by the imposition of a time limit corresponding with the period for which funds have already been voted. I also refrained because I felt there should not be an undue delay in resolving the serious problem we are facing today, which has arisen mainly as the result of a lot of people doing a lot of pipe-dreaming, and this includes people of every political persuasion. This pipe-dreaming occurred three or four years ago.
However, I must say that this bill remains, like the committee report, a second-rate solution to the problem of the CYC. It can best be described as a lame brain idea and appears to be based on the same type of thinking which underlies the philosophy which used to be promoted in my province of Alberta by the Social Credit party, to the effect that whatever is socially desirable ought to be fiscally possible. In the CYC, the thinking seems to be that whatever is socially desirable ought to be legislatively possible.
Let us be done with this pipe-dream and recognize that it would be folly to continue on the path we have been following. It is not my intention to catalogue the sins of the company, as has already been done by many hon. members. My plea is for the government to face facts and resist the type of pleas put forward by the hon. member for York South yesterday, which is for the continued subsidization by the taxpayers of revolution in this country.
Listening to the hon. member for York South it was clear to me that his aims today are not any different from the aims of his party back in the days of the Regina manifesto. My fear, Mr. Speaker, is that they are also not so different from those of the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) when he was actively involved in the politics of his province. No

December 17, 1959

Company of Young Canadians Act doubt he would have welcomed the existence of the CYC at that time and used its facilities to the limit.
The question I ask, Mr. Speaker, is this: why is the minister seemingly so intent on keeping this revolutionary machine alive, albeit perhaps under somewhat better control? It seems that the government's attitude is the same toward the CYC -as it is toward inflation-do not stop it, just control it. My belief is that the people of Canada want young people to participate in the affairs of this country with a view to assisting the poor and disadvantaged but that such participation must be within the framework of the system upon which this country is based. There is no support for activities, whether they be government financed or not, aimed at making fundamental changes in our system by the methods of revolution-that is, violence, intimidation and confrontation.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the government to face up to its responsibility and wind up this misconceived and mischievous body without delay and without wasting Parliament's time by trying to rejuvenate something around which so much ill will has collected and whose reputation will not be soon forgotten.
Therefore, with a view to arriving at the proper conclusion without the necessity for the production of another bill, which would require to go through all stages of the legislative process, I move:
That this bill be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole with instructions that they have power to make provision for the dissolution of the Company of Young Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I have had a chance to review the amendment and to consult with counsel on this matter. I must say that I do have some grave doubts about the admissibility of the amendment and I would certainly be prepared to have further advice from members of the House. It does seem to me that it goes beyond what is a normally allowable amendment at third reading. I would suggest it goes even beyond the scope of the bill.
As I say, my inclination would be not to allow it but I would prefer to have advice from members of the House on whether this amendment, as presented, is admissible.


David Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have not got a copy of the amendment and some of us have not heard it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: While copies are being made available, I might just read it to the House:
That this bill be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole with instructions that they have power to make provision for the dissolution of the Company of Young Canadians.
I might point out that it is the latter part of the amendment about which I have misgivings.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: 
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, may I add my remarks to those of the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. He said the amendment is broad, and I will be the first to admit that. I ask Your Honour to look at Bill C-171 itself. That, too, is broad. One might say it contains few restrictions. Actually, if you appoint a comptroller without imposing any restrictions on him, and say that he must sign all the cheques issued by the company, then, as the hon. member for York South said yesterday when he tried to amend the bill you will be giving the comptroller power to dissolve the company because his power stems from the power of the purse. This amendment really says that instead of giving a comptroller such wide and unrestricted powers to curtail the operations of the CYC, Parliament should give a parliamentary committee that responsibility. The committee should have the power to draw up terms of reference governing the operation of the company and, if it is felt necessary to bring the activities of the company to an end, to phase it out.
We feel it is better for a committee to have such power than to leave it in the hands of a comptroller whose powers may be almost unrestricted. Also, although the amendment may be broad, its scope I submit is no broader than that of the entire bill. At present the comptroller, because he has control of the purse strings, has the effective power to kill the company. We say that it ought to be the responsibility of a parliamentary committee to phase out the operations of the company, and it ought not to be left to the discretion of the comptroller to say whether or not the company is to exist. Of course, if any bill to resurrect the company were to be before the House, my argument would be weak. But there is no such bill on the Order Paper at present, and therefore I submit my argument is not weak. We must look at the Order Paper as it appears today. Because the amendment is simple is no reason for Your Honour not to allow it. The bill itself is simple in concept. It appoints a czar who, in the words of the hon. member for York South, has effective power to kill the company.
As a matter of fact, the other day the hon. member said that he wanted no part of a
Company of Young Canadians Act company in which the czar could tell volunteers what they were to do and how they were to do it. I submit seriously and sincerely that instead of giving this power, in the interim period, to a czar or comptroller who could kill the company, we should give it to a parliamentary committee which ought to have the responsibility of dissolving the company if that is felt necessary.


Mr. Douglas A. Hogarth (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, it appears to me that the hon. member's amendment suggests that the bill be referred back to a committee of the House and that the committee make provision for the dissolution of the company. I submit that the company was established by statute and if the amendment were accepted we should be giving the committee power to repeal an Act of Parliament. That is absurd. All such questions must be decided in the House by a majority of hon. members; therefore, the committee cannot have power to dissolve the company when that company has been created by statute, by Act of Parliament.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: But the committee must bring back recommendations, surely.


George James McIlraith: With respect, I do not think that is correct.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I thank hon. members for their advice in this matter. I have listened carefully to what they said. The first paragraph of the explanatory note relating to the bill reads:
The purpose of this amendment is to provide for the appointment by the Governor in Council of a Comptroller of The Company of Young Canadians whose approval would be required for the payment of any money by the Company and for the entering into of any contract or other arrangement providing for the payment of any money by the Company.
The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka drew the attention of the House to Citation 415(1) of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition which reads in part:
When a bill comes up for third reading a member may move that it be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole for the purpose of amending it in any particular.
I suggest to the hon. member that the Chair must interpret the words "any particular" to refer to the particulars of the bill presented to the House.



December 17, 1969
Income Tax Act
May I also draw the attention of the House to citation 418 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition which reads in part:
All amendments which may be moved on a second reading of a bill may be moved on the third reading with the restriction that they cannot deal with any matter which is not contained in the bill.
I suggest, respectfully, that the proposed amendment goes beyond the scope of the bill. Actually, as the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hogarth) suggested, it could nullify the original act. For those reasons I am afraid, rather reluctantly, that I cannot allow the amendment.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Mr. Speaker, may I say that, although I shall support the bill, I shall do so with a view to protecting public funds and not with a view to either preserving or protecting the CYC.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question? Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


David Lewis: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



INCOME TAX ACT


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, December 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gray (for the Minister of Finance) that Bill C-139, to amend an act to amend the Income Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole and the amendment thereto of Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West) (p. 1865).
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to find anything humorous about taxation and there is certainly nothing funny about a surtax of any kind. Ever since February, 1968, an allusion to surtax in this House has conjured up the farce of the Pearson government clinging to power against all the customs and traditions of Parliament, after being clearly defeated in this chamber. This reminds all of us of the ludicrous performance of the man who then was minister of finance. For his bungling, he was booted upstairs to become Secretary of State for External Affairs.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Your Honour will recall that the minister first proposed a 5 per cent surtax on income. When that proposal was defeated by a vote in

this House, he withdrew the measure and came back later with a surtax measure cut down to 3 per cent. In both cases, he claimed the tax was to meet the expense of federal-provincial shared-cost programs. It was a temporary measure. It was to remain in force no longer than one year. My understanding is that this myth is still being perpetuated by the government. Yet even as we are being asked to continue this tax for one more year, the white paper containing the Minister of Finance's (Mr. Benson) unpopular and unworkable tax reform proposals states quite clearly that this particular surtax is to be continued permanently by being absorbed in the general tax system. This is as confusing a manoeuvre as has been placed before Parliament for a long time. Had this measure been sponsored by the former minister of finance, perhaps it would not appear so illogical and devious.
After all, what can we expect in the way of logic or forthrightness from a minister who, only the other day in this House, when answering a question as to whether future wheat sales to Red China had been included in negotiations regarding recognition of the Peking regime, answered as reported at page 1695 of Hansard for December 8:
-in the exchange of diplomats between countries such considerations are irrelevant.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, this must set some kind of a record. When the day comes that sales of Canadian wheat are treated by Canadians, whether diplomats or not, as "irrelevant" then we are indeed in a very bad way.
The fact that it was the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) who fathered this surtax is grounds enough to regard it with suspicion. But there are other factors surrounding it that make me even more skeptical about the manner in which it is used. It was first imposed with the sole purpose of providing tax revenue to meet the accelerating expense of the various federal-provincial shared-cost programs. I am presuming the government is referring to such cumbersome, expensive and uncontrolled programs as medicare, hospital insurance and such. A device to raise additional tax revenue might make sense if, at the same time, the government gave some evidence that a serious attempt was being made to manage the schemes requiring the revenue in an economical and businesslike way. But the runaway nature of the present shared-cost social welfare programs, now draining the provincial and federal treasuries of this country, make
December 17, 19G9

any such surtax as is now proposed inadequate and inappropriate.
It has become very clear in the past few days during discussions at the constitutional conference that the provinces are fed up with the federal government's whole approach to these programs. In the first place, most of the provinces feel that they were coerced and cajoled into embarking on these programs against their better judgment, and before they could hope adequately to sustain them from the restricted tax revenues available to them.
Both Premier Thatcher of Saskatchewan and Premier Robarts of Ontario made it clear they wanted no more such programs foisted on their provinces before the tax base was widened sufficiently to accommodate them without financial crises developing. To my mind, that is the whole answer to the question of managing and financing the very broad, very generous and very expensive social welfare programs we already have in this country.
The tax base must be extended. In other words, new tax dollars must be harvested. As things now stand, we simply do not receive a sufficient yield from the existing tax base of the nation to sustain all those programs we wish to enjoy. In my opinion, a surtax is no answer. A surtax is simply squeezing the goose a little more in the hope of getting one more tiny egg of gold. We should be trying to raise more geese and upping their production. One more squeeze by the Minister of Finance and the old Canadian tax goose may just expire. Certainly, a federal surtax on income is not going to help the provinces pay their share of the mounting costs of administration of many of our existing social welfare schemes. It may help the federal government in some small measure, but the provinces are left to shoulder their responsibilities while shackled by the same restrictions to the same tax base.
I believe there are only two ways in which we can hope to meet the rapidly accelerating costs of our medicare, hospital and other welfare programs. The first is by better and more economical management of them and, second, by broadening our national tax base through a concerted program of national expansion and development. I cannot believe that merely juggling figures in the national books or pyramiding taxes on taxes will meet the problem.
Canada, under this administration, is like a working man on a severe diet, living off accumulated fat slowly approaching the
Income Tax Act
point where any benefits from losing weight will be overshadowed by loss of energy, inability to carry on productive work and permanent damage to the body. If Canada is to do all the work it wishes to do, in this instance carry a full load of cradle-to-grave social welfare programs, then it must feed the national body with increasing intakes of national taxable assets.
Unless we take this more positive and more dynamic approach, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid Canada faces economic starvation. It would be ironic if, through pmsuing our present shortsighted course, the state ended up by being the one in greatest need of social assistance.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-139 is to extend for one year the 3 per cent surtax on individuals and corporations which was imposed in 1968. Hon. members will recall the history of this surtax, Mr. Speaker. At one time the government attempted to impose a 5 per cent surtax, but that bill was defeated. That was a 5 per cent surtax on individuals. After various attempts by the government to reimpose the tax, they came up with the compromise of a 3 per cent surtax on individuals and corporations.
Hon. members will recall that the then minister of finance, when introducing that bill, said it was not for the purpose of greatly increasing revenues but for the purpose of stabilizing the economy. When this measure was first introduced in 1968, it applied to 1968. The government is now asking for a further extension to 1969. There has been very little evidence of stabilization in the economy as a result of the imposition of that particular tax. I recall reading the report of the Economic Council of Canada back in 1955 which stated that the economy of the country should be headed in three main directions: First, the direction of full employment; second, the high rate of economic growth and, third, reasonable stability of prices.
When we look at the first aim, that of full employment, we recall that the Economic Council of Canada recommended that at no time should the unemployment rate in Canada exceed 3 per cent. At this time we find there is a surplus of unemployment and the seasonally adjusted rate is now over 5 per cent, with regional disparities in the Mari-times, Quebec and New Brunswick. The trend appears to indicate there will be a further increase in unemployment during the winter months. Therefore, the policies of the government, more particularly their economic and fiscal policies, do not give any indication of

December 17, 1969
Income Tax Act
creating the goal of 3 per cent set by the Economic Council of Canada. In fact, it could rightly be said that the government's policies are producing an economic over-kill.
With reference to the second point, a high rate of economic growth, we find the growth rate is slowing down and there is an absurd imbalance of economic priorities aggravated by the government's drastic cuts in needed public services, housing, urban renewal, winter works and pollution control. In fact, the public sector is being sacrificed to the private sector, adding little to individual or community well being. The Economic Council recently stated in one of its reports that fiscal and monetary restraints would raise unemployment, slow down the economy and exercise only marginal effects on the rate of inflation.
e (4:00 p.m.)
With regard to price stability, we have found there has been an increase across the board in prices of food, manufactured products, raw materials and services generally. We have noted sharp increases in the prices of lead, copper, nickel and steel, and the minister most directly concerned has indicated his reaction to these increases. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) told us that the increase in the price of nickel really did not affect Canadians much because most of the nickel was exported. The hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman), suggested we might have a two-price system for nickel and that Canadian manufacturers should be charged the lower price so that they might become more competitive in the export field. But this was not well received by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. When the United Steel Workers of America proposed there should be a public inquiry in connection with increases in steel prices, again the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) rejected the idea.
When we look at the profits made by the banks, as revealed in recent financial statements, we understand why Canada is facing such serious difficulties today. The profits of the banks are exorbitant and interest rates are much too high. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce expects that interest rates will adjust themselves through the ordinary operation of the market mechanism. He ignores the recommendation by members of my party that we should impose a floating exchange rate of the kind which has worked so successfully in many other countries, particularly in West Germany.

This problem of inflation has confronted Canadians for a long time. Rather than study the matter seriously the government has used various methods to scare the Canadian people. It has used the traditional method of creating unemployment; it has used taxation instead of considering more constructive proposals. One almost feels there is a plot against the trade unions, linking them with inflation.
Inflation today in Canada does not have the serious consequences which many people think it has. When we compare our situation with that of other countries, we find we have stood up fairly well. I am thinking of the rate of increase of inflation here as compared with the rate of increase in other countries, particularly in some of the European countries. It is the tools and the instruments we have used which have created the inflation problem.
I am disturbed by the attitude of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) toward inflation. He is putting the blame for inflation on the trade unions. In a speech on November 2, he said that because the trade unions had strong bargaining power they were trying to get a bigger slice of the cake and pass on the consequences of their greed to the little people. He said this in a televised speech, part of an elaborately planned campaign to convince the people of Canada that union-won wage increases are the chief cause of inflation. The idea is to brand the unions as selfish, grasping organizations solely concerned with boosting the incomes of their members at the expense of helpless widows, pensioners and the two-thirds of the work force which is unorganized.
This is really not worthy of our Prime Minister. Instead of taking another look at the tools and instruments the government is using to fight inflation, he is attempting to blacken the trade unions. In this connection, I should like to read the comments of the financial editor of the Toronto Daily Star;
Labour Is right when it says that voluntary price and income restraints will not work; and, if by some miracle they should work, they would be unfair ... Voluntary restraints damage those who adopt them, and reward those who reject them.
The reason labour unions rejected the proposal of the Prices and Incomes Commission with regard to restraint in the area of price and wage increases is that the unions would at one have encountered difficulty in the face of increases by professional people, landlords, banks-through higher interest
December 17, 19B9

rates-and so forth. They found that, on balance, they would be the ones to be severely restricted at a time when there is no means of securing restraint on the part of other elements in our society. In this connection, I might mention some of the large corporations and the legal chicanery they use to avoid taxes. The unions could not accept the suggestion that they should agree to voluntary restraint because they realized that the restraint would apply to them rather than to other groups.
I would sum up by saying that the purpose of this bill was not to increase revenue but to stabilize the economy and that so far there has been no indication of any stabilization of the economy. In fact, the tools which the minister has used have brought about a further instability as well as a rise in prices within our society.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is the
House ready for the question?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Would the minister mind explaining one of the words which appears in the explanatory note? The explanatory note says, in the first paragraph, that the purpose of the bill is to extend for one year the temporary surtax imposed in 1968 under the terms of the Income Tax Act. What I would ask the minister to explain to us is this: what is meant by the word "temporary"?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Hon. members have made a number of interesting observations in the course of this debate. I think that most of what they had to say was anticipated in my own remarks at the opening of this discussion.
With respect to the question asked by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) I believe the simple answer is that "temporary" is the opposite of "permanent". Originally, Parliament agreed that the surtax in question be imposed only for a certain period of years, and since the proposal before us now is to extend it only for a limited and specific period, the description "temporary" still validly applies.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: A further question. Since surtaxes are listed in the proposals put forward by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) in his white paper which state that the 3 per cent surtax is to be included in a whole group of taxes to take effect in 1971, would the minister not agree it would be more in keeping with the intent of the bill if the word "temporary" were dropped?
Income Tax Act
An lion. Member: It is not in the bill.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Use of the word "temporary" gives us the impression that the surtax is intended to apply for a limited time only, yet in fact the tax is to be carried on in perpetuity. Does the minister not agree that this word should be dropped?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The word "temporary" appears in the explanatory notes-


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Before the minister replies-


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I shall be happy to accept the hon. member's question but I am attempting to reply to the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse). As I understand it-and I can accept guidance on this point-the explanatory notes are not officially part of the bill.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
In respect of the proposals in the white paper, I understand that the basic one is that there would be a new rate schedule which would in effect integrate what may have been a series of separate taxes on income. However, I think this is a matter for future debate and discussion. At the present time we are debating and considering a proposal to amend the existing law, and it is on this that the Government is asking the House to make a decision.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I am interested in the minister's definition of "temporary" as being opposed to "permanent". For clarification, I wonder whether he might explain if this definition of a temporary tax is more or less temporary than a temporary building in Ottawa?


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, this matter
intrigues me and I should like to know on what basis we can accept a determination from the government in repect of legislation? The Government introduces legislation and Parliament passes it by a majority. This measure refers to a surcharge for a definite period of time. We are now faced with the fact that the original legislation was not introduced for a definite period of time. How much trust can members of the House and the public have in a government that introduces tax legislation for a definite period of time, in view of this additional extension?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the extension of this surtax is to be made only if this House agrees to amend the law, as proposed by the government. It is my understanding that under our constitutional system Parliament is

December 17, 1969
Income Tax Act
sovereign. If Parliament wants to change a decision made previously or a decision of another Parliament, so long as the matter is within the federal jurisdiction under our constitution, Parliament has the right to do so. What the government is proposing at this time is that this House take the decision to change this surtax by extending the period for one year. If this House takes that decision, I do not think it can be suggested it is going back on anything that happened in the past or on anything that has occurred in light of circumstances in the meantime.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
question is on the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Harold Edward Winch: I accept the explanation of the hon. minister, but I despise dishonesty on the part of the Government.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister why the government is maintaining this tax. We are told that for 1970 the government is expecting a huge surplus.
If the budget of the government is satisfactorily balanced, why should it unbalance the budgets of all Canadians to the benefit of the federal government's?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) said, in his budget speech, that it was necessary, in order to win the battle against inflation, to maintain fiscal restraints. In this regard, one of the methods he advocated was to maintain the surtax for one year in order to win this battle against inflation, which is in the interest of all Canadians, including the lower income groups.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I have one further question. A moment ago the minister declined to go into the past record regarding surtaxes. Can he assure the house that in looking to the future it is the intention of the Government to drop this tax when the temporary period of one year expires?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the government is proposing at this time that the surtax be extended for a further year. If I answered the question I think I would be departing from the well established principle that has been followed by governments of all parties in Canada of not attempting to make announcements on fiscal changes until the appropriate time comes to do so.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is the
House ready for the question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: In my
opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in the debate on	
the main motion. I will try to be brief because	
the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr.	
Division
important points to make. Bill C-139, which is now before the House, seeks to impose higher taxes on the people of Canada. We can go back over the bill and see that its purpose is to amend the Income Tax Act. It asks the members of this House to extend the 3 per cent surtax on individual incomes and corporations to December 31, 1970. I rise to participate in the debate because I have had a number of people make representations to me in my constituency of Yorkton-Melville, where the great majority of the people will be affected by this surtax.
In speaking to this House last month the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance said the bill would affect about 70 per cent of the population. Because of the exemptions contained in it, he estimated that 2,500,000 taxpayers or 30 per cent of the taxpayers of Canada would be exempt. In view of that, Mr. Speaker, and because of the situation facing many of the people in my constituency as well as people in western Canada, I feel that I must bring the views of these people before the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but I have to bring to the attention of hon. members-order please. I shall try to bring to the attention of hon. members that there are so many conversations going on in the House at the present time that it is difficult for the Chair, and I am sure for many members, to hear the message the hon. member is attempting to convey to the House.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying, one of the reasons I am participating in the debate arises from the representations of my constituents. Another reason is that the tax advocated in this bill is regressive and would only perpetuate the present tax system. Because of the exemptions included, this tax is not as bad as some other measures that the government has implemented, such as the social development tax introduced a year ago which imposed a 2 per cent tax with a ceiling of $120 a year. This was perhaps the most regressive step taken by this government since assuming office.
There are many important priorities at stake here. The tax itself is just one other measure to perpetuate the social-economic status quo existing in Canada. Because of the increase in poverty and unemployment, there is a greater need to change some of the spending priorities. Instead of spending money on such things as the Bonaventure we
Benjamin) also rushed back from Montreal to participate and he tells me that he wants to take his whole 40 minutes as he has many should spend money on urban renewal,

December 17, 1963
Income Tax Act
combating poverty and on the retraining programs.
Let us look at the financial history of this government. The bill before us today is interesting in that it first appeared on November 30, 1967, when it was introduced by the present Secretary of State for External Affairs, who was then the minister of finance. It imposed a 5 per cent surtax on individual income to a limit of $600. This was more regressive than the present measure and met with opposition from this side of the House.
On February 19, 1968, a day which all of us remember, the bill was voted upon and was defeated by a count of 84 to 82. This occasion is well remembered by all members on the government side and was a source of great embarrassment. The result, no doubt had many political implications.
When the bill next came before the House it had changed. Obviously, the government realized that there were many valid criticisms to be made of the bill as originally introduced, so a 3 per cent surtax on personal income and corporation profits was introduced. At that time, the minister of finance stated the bill was only applicable to the years 1968 and
1969,	and would expire on December 31, 1969, which is only a couple of weeks away.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
On March 15, the bill was passed by the House of Commons. Then, in the June budget statement of last year, we heard more about the surtax. The Minister of Finance announced that he would ask the House to extend it to an extra year, to the end of
1970.	Why was the extension requested? I will cite two reasons, the first of which may not sit well with some hon. members on the government side of the House. I believe that the government asked for the extension because the next election is not likely to take place before 1971 or 1972. We all know that governments prefer to tax people in off election years. When an election comes along, the tax load is eased and the government, which is not averse to using psychology, hopes the people will be pleased and that it will be re-elected. The official reason the government has given for extending the surtax for one year is that it wants to stabilize the Canadian economy.
In his statement of June 3, 1969, the Minister of Finance had this to say, as reported at page 9417 of Hansard:
In making this proposal tonight. I am mindful of the implication given last October that these surtaxes would be allowed to terminate as scheduled and that this was a factor in determining 
the series of tax measures then introduced. It will be clear to everyone, however, that the extension of the surtaxes at this time is required for the purposes of economic stabilization, and not for budgetary revenues.
I think conditions have changed somewhat since the minister's speech of last June. We now know that the government does not really need the extra money to be garnered by the surtax in order to obtain a budgetary surplus. It seems that even without the surtax the government's accounts will be in a surplus position. Actually, the surplus is to be bigger than was originally anticipated. In October there was a budgetary surplus of about $38 million; yet in the period between April 1 and October 31, 1969, the surplus had risen to $846.4 million. Even without collecting the surtax proposed in this bill, the government's accounts would still show a large surplus.
May I point out to those hon. members who may not be aware of the facts that the projected revenue to be derived from this surtax is expected to be in the neighbourhood of $155 million. As I said before, the government's accounts will be in a surplus position whether or not this surtax is approved. For that reason, I submit this bill is unnecessary. We do not have to pass it. If Parliament decides to pass the bill after all, then I urge the government to consider withdrawing those provisions pertaining to personal income tax. Apparently $115 million of the projected $155 million will come from personal income taxes, the remaining $40 million to come from the tax on the profits earned by corporations. The government ought to consider seriously withdrawing that part of the bill pertaining to personal income tax. If the government does not agree, then I think it ought to consider loosening any of the restraints under which we labour today.
Why do I say that, Mr. Speaker? I say it because in this country today poverty is increasing. The Economic Council of Canada said that poverty is real, and that the numbers affected by it are in the millions, not in the thousands. Poverty not only results from economic and financial problems, but in itself creates many other social and psychological difficulties which affect those living in our cities and rural areas. Unemployment is on the increase in Canada. The unemployment rate at present, on a seasonally adjusted basis, is running at 5 per cent in this country, although it is by no means uniform all across the country. It is very high in Quebec, in the Maritimes and in parts of the prairies. In
December 17, 1969

Income Tax Act
Saskatchewan, unemployment has reached its highest level for many years, and there are indications that it will increase before the winter is over.
Our inflationary difficulties should also persuade the government to loosen many of the restraints under which we labour. It is becoming increasingly apparent that this government's anti-inflationary policies are not working. So-called voluntary restraints are not working. All available evidence suggests that government anti-inflationary policies are nothing but a colossal failure. We must examine again our inflationary difficulties. The Globe and Mail this morning carried an article showing how living costs are increasing in this country. Apparently, according to the article, living costs in many of the economically depressed areas of the country are increasing more rapidly than in some cities. For example, the cost of living in the past few months has risen more rapidly in Saskatoon than in Toronto. All this clearly shows that the government must change its policies if it is to fight inflation and bring down living costs in this country. It is certain that we shall not fight inflation by imposing the sort of surtax this bill envisages. We can only help our people by spending more money in the public sector. We must be prepared to spend more on people, on urban affairs, on housing, and on helping the poorer people of this country to help themselves so that they may have a chance in life.
We must be prepared to spend more money for the benefit of our grain farmers and farmers generally in western Canada. Too often our farmers feel that we are floundering along in the dark, and the resulting difficulties come about through no fault of theirs. Unless we help our farmers, many of them will leave the land, move into the cities, and probably create many difficulties for us there. May I remind hon. members of the findings of a presidential committee set up when President Kennedy was the first executive of the United States. It said that violence and crime are on the increase in the United States largely because many people from the rural areas have been forced to move into the cities. Those people from the rural parts do not have the skill and training to cope with the city environment; they become alienated and frustrated, and many of them resort to violence and crime. We shall have to think about matters like that in this country and spend much more money on our people. We must try to solve some of the problems we are confronted with and spend less on items like
the Bonaventure or the writing off of Expo debts. I think we should spend a great deal less in the field of defence, because it is futile for us to be spending so much money on weapons that will effectively kill more and more people when we are not spending enough on food and programs that will enable our people to help themselves.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, I do not think the government's anti-inflationary policies are effective. I do not think they are even beginning to dampen down inflation. Inflation is not to be cured with the government's present policies. It seems to me that the government is fighting inflation with policies that increase living costs and hurt the little guy, the man living on a pension or on a fixed income. You cannot fight inflation merely by firing a few unfortunate civil servants or raising interest rates. Not much good can be done by creating difficulties for farmers. That is no way to combat inflation in a meaningful way. I submit that we ought to think seriously about exercising some kind of economic control over some of the bigger corporations and business enterprises in Canada. Many of these corporations are having a field day because of the policies of this government.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
When we look at the bank profits for the last year we see that they are the highest ever or at least the highest this country has seen for a long time. Corporation profits are up a great amount this year over last year. These people are not going to voluntarily co-operate to fight against inflation if they do not have to do so. Why should they? The basic motivation of free enterprise or capitalism is competition and profit. If these people are good capitalists or free enterprisers, they must have a respectable figure in the profit column. They will not co-operate with the government if they do not have to do so.
They are not faced with the high interest with which the wage earners are confronted. They do not have to borrow huge sums of money. They just reinvest much of their own profits in their own business. Meanwhile, the person on a fixed income of $5,000 to $8,000 a year who is trying to buy a house has to borrow money at a high interest rate. He is penalized. The same applies to the small businessman. His business is not big enough to maintain itself. He is affected by the policy this government adopts in the fight against inflation.
I could mention a number of effects this government's policy on inflation is having,

December 17, 1969
Income Tax Act
but I can perhaps sum up by saying the cure this government is offering is perhaps even worse than the disease itself. I think the government is going to realize this very shortly. There are a number of other reasons why I wanted to participate in this debate at this time, but other hon. members have already mentioned these things so perhaps I should only emphasize some of them.
As I already stated, I believe the surtax is very regressive. It is a tax on a percentage basis. This type of tax is not fair to the average and low wage earner in Canada. It is not as bad as a social development tax or as bad as when it was first introduced in the House a couple of years ago. We all remember the events that occurred when this tax measure was first introduced.
Let us look at the surtax as it is today. The burden is basically on the wage and salary earners all across Canada. The projected income from this tax in 1970 will be approximately $155 million. Of this amount, $115 million will be collected from the wage earners. Most of the revenue will come from these people. I maintain this is very regressive. I suggest we should not pass this bill but instead start seriously thinking, discussing and debating many of the reforms which have been suggested by members of this House and by many organizations. Some were even in the white paper introduced a short time ago.
If we pass this bill we will be taking a backward step. We will be procrastinating. We will not be trying to solve the problem before us. The tax system as we know it today is unjust. We are not going to patch it up by passing the bill before us. We are not even going to begin shifting the burden of taxation from the lower and middle income groups to those who can afford it.
These are some of the reasons why all hon. members, particularly those from western Canada who are concerned about the economy in that part of the country, oppose the bill before the House today. It is a very regressive measure. It is perpetuating the type of taxation system we have today. It is also preserving the type of social-economic society which we have, instead of making the changes that are necessary.
I am quite sincere in saying that the vast majority of the people in my constituency do not like this tax. They are very much against it. I appeal to the government, as strongly as I possibly can, to abolish this surtax and not to pass this bill. If the bill is passed, I ask the

minister responsible to guarantee that this will be the last year he will come before this House and ask for an extension. The former minister of finance promised the people of Canada this measure would be applicable only for 1968 and 1969. No one expected it to be applicable to the coming year, and I know many people throughout Canada were caught by surprise. I hope the government or the minister responsible can assure us this will be the last time the House will be asked to extend this measure. Better yet, let us vote against it and begin some meaningful dialogue on reforming the entire taxation system.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to join many other members who have opposed this measure. This bill to extend the surtax for an additional year is really an illegitimate offspring of the original bill of some two years ago which was to apply a 5 per cent surtax on individual income tax. It was proposed by the former minister of finance in November of 1967 and was subsequently defeated in February, 1968. This makes it not only an illegitimate bill, but also an orphan since the parent bill was killed. It was killed because it taxed personal income and not corporations.
Even though the subsequent measure, an extension of which we are now debating, levied a 3 per cent tax on individual income and corporations as well, it is still grossly unfair. If this bill is passed, in 1970 the government will collect an additional $115 million from the individual income tax payer and only $40 million from corporations. This is a ratio of 3 to 1, that is $3 from the average, medium and low income taxpayers in Canada and $1 from corporations.
In the remainder of this year, an additional $25 million will be collected, $25 million from individuals and $5 million from corporations. This is a ratio of 4 to 1, $4 being collected from individuals and $1 from corporations. The total tax revenue forecast for 1969-70 is on a ratio much closer to 2 to 1, that is $2 from individuals and $1 from corporations. Because of these figures, I just quoted surely this surtax makes the measure regressive and grossly unfair. This has already been pointed out by previous speakers. The corporations are still getting off too lightly in comparison to the individual taxpayer. The corporations still will not be paying their proper share of the surtax or of all the other taxes for which they should be liable.
December 17, 1969

If this bill is to have something good in it, there should be a tax of 5 per cent on corporations and 3 per cent on individual income tax payers to provide some measure of equity and some application of the principle of ability to pay. In his budget speech of last June 3 the minister denied the surtax was a measure to raise additional revenues for the government.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
May I quote what the minister had to say, as reported at page 9417 of Hansard for June 3, last?
In making this proposal tonight I am mindful of the implication given last October that these surtaxes would be allowed to terminate as scheduled and that this was a factor in determining the series of tax measures then introduced. It will be clear to everyone, however, that the extension of the surtaxes at this time is required for the purposes of economic stabilization, and not for budgetary revenues.
What the minister is really telling us is that he does not need the money. He intends to take $25 million this year, 1969, and $155 million in 1970 for a total of $180 million which he says he does not need. We in this group would like to be helpful to the minister. Since he says he does not need this money, and since he says he is imposing this tax in order to fight inflation and help stabilize the economy, we wish to assist him by indicating ways in which he could use this money he does not need.
Let us begin by drawing attention to a glaring case of need, a case where justice is due. I refer to the grain farmers. In the last crop year they exported some 305 million bushels of grain and we used about 150 million bushels domestically for a total of 455 million bushels. If the minister would take the $180 million additional revenue which he will get from this surtax and apply it so as to make available a deficiency payment of 40 cents a bushel to the grain growers of western Canada he would find that would just about use up the money he says he doesn't need. Another reason for my figure of 40 cents is that it represents the amount by which the farmers have been gypped by reason of the prices during the present and previous crop years. Here is a just direction for the application of funds which the minister tells us are not required for revenue. I say forty cents a bushel because wheat farmers took a 20 cent per bushel drop last crop year and twenty cents a bushel less in the current crop year.
Income Tax Act
If the bill passes the minister will get this money anyway. Surely, there must be an appropriate place to apply it. I have suggested a deficiency payment of 40 cents a bushel to the grain growers of western Canada. But if the minister does not think their case is justifiable he could easily use this money to increase old age pensions, the pensions of retired members of the RCMP, the CNR, the Public service and the Armed Forces all of whom have been miserably treated by a miserly Liberal government-the $1.60 a month boys.
I am not being facetious when I suggest these measures. My hon. friends on this side of the House have been making such proposals for many months. Indeed, a similar suggestion has been put forward by at least one hon. member on the government side to help relieve the difficulties which are facing hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are engaged in agriculture or in receipt of pensions. As I say, I am not trying to be facetious; I am putting these proposals forward as being a proper manner in which to spend this $180 million. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) will still be left with a surplus of $100 million if his forecasts are reasonably accurate.
The minister made it clear that continuation of this surtax was meant to help fight inflation and promote the stabilization of the economy. But how can a tax increase of this sort-and I say it is an increase, because it was supposed to expire at the end of this year-help fight inflation when the greatest portion of it will be collected from the very people who are not contributing to inflation in any way? In fact, the tax will hit a great number of citizens who are among the first victims of inflation. Everyone needs to be concerned about inflation, of course, but when concern leads to a state of preoccupation which takes the form of perpetuating hardship on hundreds of thousands of Canadians while privileged corporations go merrily on their way, it is obvious that the government is guilty of the grossest kind of negative thinking associated with the old line dinosaur parties. If this were not the case, why would the government, in its war on inflation, be attacking the very people who are not contributing to it? I am speaking of the average and low income earner, the farmer, the small businessman and people like them who are the victims of inflation. Surely, the government in introducing a measure of this kind, is attacking the problem backwards. Why cannot the government attack inflation by hitting those

December 17, 1969
Income Tax Act
who are the cause of it? The cuts imposed by the government hurt its own employees and strike at sections of the economy which are already depressed. Failure to provide adequate increases in pensions for large groups in our society has the effect of ensuring that those groups will continue to be among the worst victims of inflation. I contend that the use of funds for purposes of the kind I have indicated could not be considered inflationary if the government were at the same time to take firm measures in the areas where inflation is caused.
Under the proposals before us the individual income taxpayer is to be taxed at a ratio of four to one for the balance of this year and three to one next year as compared with corporate taxpayers. I said earlier that the bill might have been more attractive had it proposed a 5 per cent surtax on corporations and a 3 per cent surtax on individual incomes. I say this in the light of the results- I suppose one could call it the success-which the corporate community is now achieving in Canada. It appears that up to the present they have been very little influenced by the government's anti-inflationary policies. Months of preaching and pleading by government spokesmen aimed at getting the private sector to exercise restraint have produced little or no result. We have all heard talk about the example the national government itself was trying to set. What effect has it had on the private sector? None which is readily apparent. In fact, to judge by the actions of a number of corporations in the last few months, it seems to have had the opposite effect. While the government was cutting back, it seems the corporations were doing everything they could to maximize then' profits and improve their positions vis-a-vis those of their competitors.
The action of the Steel Company of Canada, recently followed by the rest of the steel industry, proves that the private sector either has no faith in the success of policies the government is following as far as inflation is concerned or else they intend to act entirely in their own selfish interest, and the national or public interest be damned.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Let us take a look at the condition in which the corporations find themselves. Let us look at what I consider to be the primary contributor to inflation, bank rates. Surely, high interest rates are a major factor in inflation. Surely, they hit the ordinary people the hardest and the "firstest." Banks have ignored the

blandishments and pleadings of the Minister of Finance and the government. They have gone merrily on their own way. A surtax will not mean very much to them. Even an increase of 1/10 of one per cent in their interest rates will more than make up for any surtax they may have to pay.
In 1969 the Bank of Montreal enjoyed a very nice year with a net profit after taxes of $32.5 million compared to $25 million the previous year. This represents a 33 per cent increase. The Bank of Commerce had a net profit after taxes of $41.3 million compared to $32 million a year ago, representing an increase of 27 per cent. I should like you to inform me of any person in agriculture or a union member or a small businessman who received that kind of increase in the past year and a half. I submit you will not be able to find one anywhere in the country.
The Bank of Nova Scotia enjoyed a 26 per cent increase in its net profits, which jumped from $17 million to $27 million. The Toronto Dominion Bank enjoyed a 25 per cent increase. Its profits amounted to $17.8 million as compared to $14 million the previous year. The Royal Bank of Canada had the poorest increase. It only had a 12 per cent increase in its profits in 1969, that is $40.8 million as compared to $36.4 million. The poor old Bank of Canada, as compared with the others might be considered almost a social aid candidate. The total net profits of the seven chartered banks on my list in 1969 amount to $164,141,000 compared to $132,481,000 for 1968. That makes an average increase of 23.9 per cent this year over last year.
The Bible tells us how the money changers were driven out of the temple about 2,000 years ago, but it seems to me that the so and so's have snuck in the back door since. Today's interest rates amount to usury. This contributes to these unconscionable profits which make the people of our country victims of inflation through victimization by the banks. This cannot be allowed to continue.
To suggest that a 3 per cent surtax will fight inflation is just sheer nonsense. No corporation, Bank or any kind of big business will really be affected by this tax because they can easily absorb it. The surtax figures we have show $5 million for 1969 and $40 million for next year in respect of corporations. They will absorb that increase very easily through price increases and through a marginal increase in interest rates that most of us will not notice. These institutions will not be affected in the slightest. They will not be harmed. They will still have all the money
December 17, 1969

they need to put into our economy and make inflation worse. Unless some kind of stop is put on excess profiteering and usury in the form of high interest rates, the surtax cannot fight inflation. It will just perpetuate the situation.
Let us take a look at a few other candidates for the social welfare list, if one is to believe the private enterprise spokesmen. I refer to those that will not be hurt or affected by the surtax on their corporate incomes. Surely, everyone knows about the increase in the cost of living, and how rising food prices affected it. According to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics summary of quarterly corporate profits after taxes for 1968-69, the food and beverage industry in the first half of this year showed net profits after taxes of $115 million, an increase of $27 million over the first six months of the previous year. According to the DBS figures, the food and beverage industry in 1967 had a net profit after taxes of $191 million. This went up to $227 million in 1968 and the forecast is that there will be a similar increase in profits after taxes in 1969.
I mentioned the steel industry a minute ago. Let us look at the figures in this DBS report regarding the primary metal industries. In the first six months of 1968 they had net profits after taxes of $113 million. In the first six months of 1969, they showed profits of $129 million. It is interesting to note that this was at a time when the Minister of Finance was pleading with the private sector to show restraints. At the end of six months this year their profits are $16 million higher than they were for the first six months of last year. The steel industry then proceeded to Slap on a six per cent increase on prices for steel. The steel manufacturers need this increase like they need another hole in the head. If these were good corporate citizens they would be as concerned and interested as anyone else in fighting inflation and would take some responsible course of restraint. Instead of that, their greed runs away with them at a faster pace than ever.
Let me refer to some other poor organizations the Minister of Finance does not want to be too hard on. Let us take the chemical and the chemical products industries, our friendly polluters. They had a net profit after taxes last year of $134 million. At the present rate of profit, in the first two quarters of 1969 they will show an increased profit of $16 million after taxes over last year.
The finance, insurance and real estate sector, which includes our friendly bankers,
Income Tax Act
seems to be in terrible shape. In 1967, they showed net profits after taxes of $391 million. In 1968 things looked up for them and they managed profits in the amounts of $530 million. In the first six months of 1969, this sector of our society showed net profits of $296 million after taxes, an increase of 47 per cent over the first six months of 1968.
Unless the Minister of Finance, this government and Parliament places ceilings or restrictions on the kind of excess profiteering and greed the private corporate sector is showing, all the tax bills in the world designed to fight inflation will have no effect. These companies will simply raise interest rates and prices in order to absorb this tax increase.
It might be interesting to note those sectors of the economy referred to in this same DBS quarterly table which are not showing these increases in net profits. The category known as "other non-manufacturing," which includes agriculture, forestry, fishing and construction, in the last quarter of 1968 is shown as having had net losses in total of $18 million. In the first quarter of 1969, they showed no profits after taxes, and showed net profits after taxes in the second quarter of $10 million which is down $2 million compared to the first six months a year ago. Farming, fishing, forestry, construction, wheat, houses, fisheries and the lumber industry have all been in a depressed state. That is the reason I suggest this is the type of area in which the minister might use the $100 million he says he does not need. To think that we can expect this part of the private sector, the corporate giants, to act as fine, upstanding corporate citizens voluntarily heeding the plea of the government and the Minister of Finance is a delusion of some large proportion because this has been tried before and did not work. But Liberals never learn. They are the same breed of cats now they were in the 1930's, the 1940's and the 1950's. They never learn. They still practice dinosaur policies which did not work in the past.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Some Liberal members may really believe that if the minister asks nicely, these corporate giants, these excess profiteers in a time of inflation, will listen and scurry back to their board rooms and will not increase prices and interest rates but will voluntarily lower profits in order to fight inflation. The Minister of Finance and the government seem to believe this when they call for these

December 17, 1969
Income Tax Act
restraints from the private corporate sectors. Again, they delude themselves. Again, they mislead the public into thinking this is the proper way to fight inflation. They quickly bring in mandatory legislation and orders in council in respect of the public sector but quietly ask the private sector to voluntarily limit their actions. Never if the government lives to be 1,000 will it see the day when this will happen. These are the causes of inflation. It is not the low and medium income areas we are asking to pay the 3 per cent surcharge which are causing inflation. They are the victims of it. I suggest to the Minister of Finance that if he has to have a surtax he should collect it from the banks, financial institutions and corporations which are taking ever-increasing profits at a time like this. There is no excuse for this. It is not good Canadian corporate citizenship. It is betrayal.
These corporations will absorb through price increases any kind of tax increase the government places on them. If this government wishes to really effectively fight inflation, it will place restrictions on increases in profits and from corporations. The government might even think of going back to the old excess profits tax which was in effect during the Second World War. I do not think it was used well enough, but it was something. Unless something of this nature is done, inflation will continue. I am no economist. I do not know too much about economics except these simple things about which I have been talking. I can get these things through my head. What bothers me is that we have a depression. Some people call it a recession. The only difference between the two is that it is a recession when you are out of a job and it is a depression when I am out of one. Whatever we call it, whether a recession or depression, we have it in many sections of our economy while we are having inflation. I always thought the two were separate and did not happen at the same time. But no, this Liberal government has managed to organize a mix of the two. Of course, we could depend on a Liberal government to do this.
When the extension of the surtax was announced the government painted a very rosy picture of what would happen. As recorded at page 9414 of Hansard for June 3, the Minister of Finance said:
As for the state of the economy, one of the most important highlights detailed in the Budget Papers was the gathering momentum of activity toward the end of 1968, and the carrying forward of a strong advance into the current year. All elements

of demand-consumer expenditure, capital investment, exports and total public spending-have contributed to the acceleration. Real production has turned strongly upward and unemployment, which reached a high point of 5 per cent in the middle of last year, has since declined.
This would make a humorous skit for the New Democratic Party's Christmas caucus party tonight. It is very funny. It is not funny however, for the people who have been fooled by it. Let me proceed a little further:
There have also been a number of important developments in our trade, the balance of international payments, and our foreign exchange position, especially in regard to arrangements with the United States. These have been set out in the Budget Papers, and it will not be necessary for me to review them in speaking this evening.
Looking forward at this time to the balance of the present year, we can now expect a growth rate stronger than in 1968 and considerably stronger than we anticipated last October.
One might laugh again.
With a gain in employment of about 4 per cent, an advance in real output of better than 5 per cent, and assuming an increase in prices about the same as last year-
One has to chuckle again.
-the gross national product is likely to rise by 9 per cent.
What a rosy picture the minister painted last June 3. It is not so rosy any more. Now, he wants to extend his 3 per cent surtax. There is another little item which appears in today's Toronto Telegram. The heading is "Canada alone in output drop". The report states:
Canada is the only one of 12 leading industrial countries of the western world to show a slump this year in its industrial production.


Max Saltsman: On a par with Portugal.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Yes, but Portugal is a member of NATO; it is a friend of ours. Is it not strange that we have a drop in production at the same time that the taxes increase and bank profits go up. What in blazes is going on? I admitted my ignorance in economics and fiscal matters. I wish the parliamentary secretary or the minister would elucidate in simple terms for me and for my hon. friends opposite, because I am sure they are as puzzled over this type of thing as I am.
The surtax bill is unjust and unfair. It places more taxes on the victims of inflation. It applies insufficient taxes on those who cause inflation. It is a typical Liberal government step backwards! I for one, and I know my colleagues on this side of the House, could not look ourselves in the face tomorrow, let
December 17, 1969

alone look at anybody else's, if we were to support this kind of outrageous measure, this fagade for a war against inflation, coupled with the minister's statement that he does not need the money. I do not mind being kidded and fooled a little bit; I do not mind a little horseplay and a few practical jokes. This might be funny to look at six months from now or a year from now, but it is not funny now to the victims of inflation. It is not funny when one watches the increases in profits after taxes of those people who are not affected by the minister's tax proposals. These are the people who ignore the needs of this nation, ignore the national and public interest; who think only of themselves and their few shareholders. These are the people who sit in boardrooms outside our borders and make decisions, without any concern or reflection about Canada, the place where they have all the privileges and where they can take without giving.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Until this government or any government brings in a meaningful tax reform and an equitable tax system no one in this group will support these patchwork, idiotic, stupid tax measures. They are just nonsensical. No evidence has been presented to show how a bill like this has worked in the past two years or, if it is passed by the House, will work in the coming year, "for the purposes of economic stabilization" in the minister's own words. What slightest bit of evidence does the minister have that in the past two years the measure has accomplished this? There is none. The fact is that the opposite took place. I will make a little prediction;-and my crystal ball will not be any more cloudy than that of the Minister of Finance-that the opposite will take place also next year, whether or not this measure passes. This measure will not make the slightest difference to the government's phoney fight against inflation. It will have no effect on restraining the private sector. When I say, "the private sector" I am sure Your Honour realizes I mean the private corporate sector, including our lovey-dovey finance companies and our friendly bankers across the street.
I plead with the government to do something better than this. They have the brains and the talent, if they would just get rid of their outmoded beliefs and ideas, their 19th century Victorian concepts of running a nation. Forget about the surtax and bring in
Bilingualism, and Biculturalism legislation that, in a time of inflation will restrict those who take excess profits. The government could reduce profits by way of an excess profit tax or by way of selective price controls.
Give us a prices review board. We hear much about the government's concern about rising prices and about unjustified price increases which contribute to inflation. We have a Prices and Incomes Commission which, in my opinion, is the largest and most colourful wallpaper job I have ever seen. It is not going to do anything. It will not have any authority or any power. To my knowledge, it has not done any effective investigation into price increases over the past several months in several major industries in Canada. Let us put some teeth in the prices and incomes commission. That will do more to achieve the economic stabilization which the minister wants than a two bit measure such as this one-two bits from corporations, but much more than that from individual taxpayers.
There are many other ways in which the government could heed some of their own people. They could even heed the odd person on the opposite side of the House. They could heed the Economic Council of Canada. They could heed the Canadian Labour Congress, the pensioners associations, the Federation of Agriculture and the National Farmers Union. I would not expect them to agree to and implement every demand placed on them by all these organizations, but surely they could change what they have been doing.
I will repeat that I cannot support such a measure and I hope the government will have second thoughts about it. I hope they will withdraw it and bring in other measures. Failing that, they could at least amend the surtax bill so that the taxes paid by each corporation would be equal to those paid by the individual.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41 (2) I table herewith in both official languages Book 3 of the report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism.
Air Transport AIR TRANSPORT

December 17. 1969



AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS-ANNOUNCEMENT OF SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTE

Mr. Speaker:: Before the minister makes an announcement he has to obtain leave of the House to return to motions. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I am pleased to announce to the House that the government and the Canadian Air Traffic Control Association have reached agreement on a contract, subject only to ratification by the association membership.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The agreement covers all of the issues that were in dispute, including hours of work, pay, terms of agreement, vacations, training, shift differentials and designated holidays.
The parties have agreed not to release further details until the ratification process is completed.
I would just like to add my own personal tribute to the hard work and responsibility shown by both sides of this dispute, whose representatives have been working hard at it behind closed doors since this morning. It is due to their hard work that we have this agreement.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I would just like to say very briefly that I am sure all members of the House and the country at large will be pleased to learn that an agreement has been reached, subject to ratification which we hope will be forthcoming. I hope that this agreement will not only bring peace and continued service for those travelling by air during the Christmas holidays but that it incorporated also provisions which will ensure an adequate ground service and conditions to provide suitable recruitment; that, in brief, it will ensure that this very highly skilled personnel will be available in sufficient numbers to provide safe air travel to people using Canadian airports and air space.
As I said, I am sure that every member of the House and the whole country will be greatly relieved. I hope that it will be possible for the government-I say this without being facetious-to develop machinery to avoid such cliff hanging situations.

[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I am sure there will be a sigh of relief across the country that a settlement has been reached, subject to ratification by the government of Canada and the Air Controllers Association. A great many people have been perturbed, specially those who were planning either to have some of their family return for Christmas or were planning to go somewhere for Christmas to visit friends and relations. I am sure many hon. members have had, as I have had, most pathetic letters and telephone calls from people who thought their season's arrangements were going to be upset in the event of a strike. I know there will be a great feeling of satisfaction that there will be no strike and that air services will continue at a normal rate.
I would like to express the hope for two things. The first is that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) is going to continue with his studies into the whole question of strain and tension on air controllers. The evidence in the United States indicates that this is a group of workers who have special stress and who ought to have some special working conditions. It also indicates the need for training a great many more of them so that they will not have to work the very long hours they are required to work now, and this not only because of the effect on their health but because of the effect on the safety of the community.
Without injecting a jarring note or wanting to spoil the happiness of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) at having reached a settlement, I wish to say it seems to me that these negotiations with government employees ought not to be dragged out for six or seven months on some issues that it seems to me perfectly obvious could have been settled long ago. For instance, you get simple requests that they should not be required to work more than 12 hours in one day, or more than ten consecutive days without a day off. I would have thought these things could have been settled long ago. The real question, Mr. Speaker, and may I say-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I bring to the attention of hon. members-would the hon. member kindly resume his seat? I have to bring to the attention of hon. members that it is now beyond six o'clock, and if we are to proceed with the debate there should be unanimous consent. At the same time, I think
December 17, 1969	COMMONS
we should all be fair to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) and to a representative of the Creditiste party. I would hope that, taking this into account, hon. members would want to grant unanimous agreement to allow the hon. member to complete his statement and also to allow a representative of the Creditiste party to make a statement.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I can say what I have to say in two sentences. One is that I think the invisible guidelines, which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) keeps insisting don't exist but which the negotiators who sit down with employees insist do exist, ought not to be continued unless the government is prepared to guarantee employees that they will have some protection in the matter of prices, rents, and interest rates. The other thing I wish to do is to congratulate the President of the Treasury Board on having successfully concluded an agreement.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, we are also quite pleased with the announcement made by the President of the Treasury
DEBATES	2115
Air Transport
Board (Mr. Drury). I believe those negotiations have been quite successful. We must also commend the two parties, and we believe that it was the most economical way of solving the difficulty.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I assume that in the circumstances there will be a disposition on the part of hon. members not to proceed with the motion of which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) has given notice, and if this is agreed I invite the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, unless there is unanimous agreement that we could change the subject of the motion then since the motion has served its purpose, I am very happy to withdraw it.


Mr. Speaker:: It being after six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
It being seven minutes after six the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Thursday, December 18, 1969