1969-06-13

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Special Committee on Official Languages.
[Editor's Note: Text of foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table, in both official languages, copies of the report on the results of the first working session of the constitutional conference.

As hon. members will know, the conference on the constitution at the last February session decided to meet from time to time in working sessions with officials present and participating. On the agenda of this first working session was the beginning of discussion on the distribution of powers, and particularly the taxation and spending powers and the constitutional aspects of regional disparities. On all these items the conference was productive and considerable progress was achieved.
The federal government had prepared on all items some working papers which I intend to table in this house within the next two weeks, when they are printed and ready. I wish to emphasize that the federal propositions on these items, as well as on all other ones, were put forward to advance the discussion in a preliminary way and do not constitute fixed and final positions. Indeed the same attitude was taken by provincial governments.
In particular, on the distribution of powers, all governments noted that the discussions about taxing and spending were subject to a
satisfactory division of jurisdictions being developed. I made it quite clear at the conference, and I want to emphasize here, that any conclusions on the taxing and spending jurisdictions would be subject to a distribution of legislative functions which will ensure a strong central government capable of facing the many demands placed upon it by the people of Canada.
Within that context, Mr. Speaker, considerable preliminary consensus was reached on access by governments to taxing powers, on the rules that should govern the spending power and on the constitutional aspects of regional disparities.

Mr. Speaker, the premiers also agreed to meet again before the end of the year. Even though we have not yet decided on the agenda for the next meeting, I expect that consideration of the distribution of powers within the constitution will continue, especially with regard to some aspects of economic powers, redistribution of revenue and social security.
Mr. Speaker, the drawing up of a new constitution for the Canada of tomorrow is an intricate procedure which will still require many discussions and a number of meetings. It is not a task for impatient or weak men. It requires perseverance, moderation and a generous view of the future.
I think that the working session which just ended constitutes an important step in this direction.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on the progress that has been made at the conference. But if governments in this country are going to cope effectively with some of the severe problems facing the people in various parts of the country, and in the country at large, they are going to have to make a great deal more progress, and make it a great deal more quickly than the Prime Minister seems to be able to report this morning.
The most important accomplishment of this week's federal-provincial conference seems to

June 13, 1969
Official Languages
be the agreement that t'he provinces should have access to almost all fields of taxation, including indirect taxes. To the extent that this meets a long-standing grievance of the provincial governments, to the extent that it recognizes the heavy financial burden that the provinces must carry in trying to discharge their constitutional responsibilities, this agreement can certainly be considered as progress. But if it means only a heavier burden on the backs of t'he Canadian taxpayers it will seem to be the worst possible news and at the worst possible time.
If governments in this country are going to be able to provide the services that are needed without a level of taxation that is intolerable, it is obvious that it will be necessary to do much more than simply open up new tax room for one level of government or the other, or invent new ways of exacting taxes from people.
The federal and provincial governments must go beyond this agreement, which gives them approximately equal rights in the tax field, and decide how the revenues are going to be distributed between them. The two levels of government must treat the question of distribution of powers as a matter of urgency and begin at long last to match revenues and responsibilities. The country is long overdue for some consensus among the levels of government on what the priorities ought to be, to assure that the taxpayer is not crushed and yet assure also that essential services are provided with adequate support at the various levels of government.
These, sir, are vital questions, questions on which depends to a large extent the effectiveness of government in Canada in meeting the social and economic needs of our people. These are the essential questions and the governments seem at long last to be approaching them, but ever so slowly.
Surely the gut issue is really what level of government should carry out what responsibility, and how much in taxes is needed for that purpose?
As to the possible veto by the provinces on federal spending in areas of provincial jurisdiction there seems to have been agreement in principle, but the details have yet to be worked out, and I presume worked out initially by the continuing committee of officials. As to the question of regional disparity I am pleased to see the importance given to this in terms of the constitutional discussion, but of course the attack upon it really depends for effectiveness upon the measures put forward by the government.

I gather from the communique that a progress report was made by a committee of ministers on the subject of reform of the Supreme Court, the Senate, fundamental rights and official languages. Considering the priority that the Prime Minister had established for a declaration of human rights at previous federal-provincial conferences it is somewhat surprising that this question seems to have been relegated to a less important position. There seems to be at least a change of emphasis as far as the federal attitude is concerned.
Altogether sir, I am happy to acknowledge the fact that some progress has been made. But in light of the problems that urgently need to be attacked, relating to the economic future of the country and its people, it still seems to be very slight progress indeed, and none of us can be satisfied until a great deal more progress is made in matching revenues and responsibilities and in coming to an agreement on priorities, so that governments can turn from what appears to the people to be an endless preoccupation with the constitution, and move forward in an attack on some of the outstanding problems facing the country.
Again, sir, I look forward to an opportunity to study the working papers presented to the conference by the government, and which the Prime Minister proposes to table in the house shortly. I again express regret that representatives of the opposition parties were not permitted to attend the conference as observers because I believe such attendance would have assisted us in knowing fully what is going on, and would have assisted us in discharging our responsibilities to the people of the country.
I hope the Prime Minister will follow up the indication he gave in the house a few days ago and consult with the opposition parties about the establishment of an all party committee of the house to consider constitutional matters, as I believe this would be an important step in moving matters forward to increase the understanding of the house and of the Canadian people about the problems involved, and would lead us more rapidly to a solution of these admittedly very difficult problems.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, we are glad the Prime Minister has reported that in his opinion progress has been made at this federal-provincial conference. Whether or not progress has been made, of course, will be determined by the results. We shall await
June 13, 1969

those results with great interest. We have not yet had an opportunity to study the working papers. We are glad the Prime Minister will have them tabled as soon as they are ready.
I must say we are deeply concerned about the reports which have emanated from this conference with regard to the proposals of the federal government for sharply curtailing the initiative of the federal government and that of parliament with regard to shared cost programs. If reports that the government intends to divide Canada into four senatorial regions are correct and that any shared cost program would require the approval of three of these regions, then in our opinion we are putting Canada into a constitutional strait-jacket.
The Prime Minister speaks of wanting a strong central government. Certainly Canada needs that at the present time, particularly to deal with matters such as housing, urban renewal, slum clearance, manpower training and higher education, to name only a few of the problems facing this country which cross federal-provincial legislative powers. If we are to be put in a position where one senatorial region and a part of another senatorial region can veto a program approved by parliament and desired by a part of the rest of Canada on a provincial basis, then we will make very little progress.
I hope the Prime Minister later will be able to tell the house whether or not any part of a senatorial region will be able to veto the wishes of the other provinces in that region. Does a single province have the power to veto the wishes of the three other provinces in a region? If so, all it would require would be one region containing a single province, and another region with one province objecting, to prevent a shared cost program being put into effect.
I should like to submit that almost all the great advances in social security legislation that have been made over the last 50 years would have been vetoed by such a provision. We would never have had old age pensions in 1926, had such a provision been in effect. We certainly would not have had hospital insurance had that been in effect, because at that time only the provinces of Saskatchewan and British Columbia were favourable to the legislation and prepared to affirm it. We would not have had medicare, had that type of constitutional provision been in effect.
We hope the government is not taking an inflexible position on this matter. The Prime Minister said of course that no policy is fixed,
Official Languages
but the mere fact that the submissions have been made to the provinces means that if the provinces agree the federal government will find it very difficult to extricate itself from the very restrictive situation it has precipitated in respect of discussions of constitutional change.
[DOT] (11:20 a.m.)
The proposal that the provinces be allowed to collect indirect taxes at the manufacturers level is something about which we will have to get more details before we can formulate any position with respect to it. I want to point out that indirect sales taxes may be the most painless way to collect money, but this is not always the most progressive way. There must be some clearly defined areas within which this will operate.
Let me suggest to the house that the matter of the changing of the constitution of Canada does not involve just the prerogative of the heads of 11 governments who happen to be in office, due to the particular political situation at a given time. This matter of the constitution is of concern to all Canadians, and certainly of concern to this parliament and the ten legislatures.
That is why in this party we have been advocating for the past four or five years that there ought to be a constitutional committee of this house, so that when the federal government takes its proposals to a federal-provincial conference it would not be taking a party position, but an all-party position which could be supported by all parties in the house and would have general support throughout this country.
For that reason I hope the Prime Minister will follow through on the suggestion, to which he gave tentative approval the other day, of setting up as quickly as possible a constitutional committee to which all working papers and communiques will be referred. Then this whole question will be discussed by a House of Commons committee or, if necessary, a joint committee of the House and the Senate in order that the decisions which are reached will have maximum support, since the results will have far reaching implications for all Canadians.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, if the recent conference is a step towards a concrete revision of the constitution, we approve, of course, because for many years

June 13. 1969
Inquiry into Drugs Use
Quebec, especially, has felt somewhat ill at ease within confederation and, unfortunately, no one wanted to deal with that problem.
There might have been a good reason for holding this conference in camera, but we think that the Canadian people should always be kept informed about what goes on in the country, so that no one will get an unpleasant surprise as was the case for instance when the official languages bill was brought in. It was then noticed that some areas were surprised to see that the federal government had finally instituted bilingualism in its departments and organizations.
From now on, such conferences should be public so that the whole population may follow the discussions. In this way, even those who are the most strongly opposed to all change will gradually come to believe that change is needed, that certain gaps must be bridged, that the situation must be improved, briefly that we must progress. Therefore, we hope that the next meetings will be held publicly.
The Prime Minister tells us that the revision will take a long time, even a very long time. I wish to point out that the procedure should not extend for too long a period, for there are chances that the province of Quebec by itself could bypass us. That means that while we have taken too much time to realize that some changes ought to be made in our constitution, we should not now make the necessary changes too slowly, for impatience can disorganize unity in the whole country.
Mr. Speaker, having said this, I believe that the conference was a decisive step and that we should keep in mind that the spokesman for the province of Quebec at the next conference might not be the same man. I think that this eventuality should be seriously considered.



PERSONNEL OF COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY INTO NON-MEDICAL USE

Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) I should like to table copies of a document containing the names of members of the committee of inquiry into the non-medical use of drugs, together with their curricula vitae.



NATIONAL RESOURCES AND PUBLIC WORKS


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I gather that there have been discussions among those interested in the work of the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works to the end that in order to complete its business it would be desirable to refer the annual report of the National Energy Board for the year ended December 31, 1968, which was tabled on April 1, 1969, to that committee. If the house is generally agreeable, perhaps that could be made an order of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ATLANTIC REGIONAL FREIGHT ASSISTANCE ACT


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-207, to authorize assistance to transportation in the Atlantic region.
Motion agree to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.



MARITIME FREIGHT RATES ACT


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact that the substance of Bill C-207, now introduced, incorporates what is in Bill C-182, I wonder if it would meet with the general agreement of the house to have Bill C-182 withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed:
Order discharged and bill withdrawn.


Mr. Baldwin:: Have you any others you want to withdraw? A couple of budgets, maybe?
June 13. 1969



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister say whether he took the opportunity to meet separately with the premiers of the western provinces this week. Was the position of the western wheat growers discussed, and may we expect an early announcement as to what assistance, if any, is to be forthcoming to meet the immediate and very serious cash problem faced by the western wheat growers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, arrangements had been made for the three western premiers to meet with ministers of the federal government responsible for one or another aspect of wheat and agriculture. The arrangements did not go through because the timing of the conference was upset by the fact that it ended earlier than anticipated. But meetings did take place singly between, I believe, all or most of the premiers, various ministers and myself, during which we did talk about wheat.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister reply to the latter part of my question, as to whether we may expect an early announcement as to what assistance is to be forthcoming, if any, to meet the difficult cash position of western wheat growers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it might be noted that there was not agreement among the premiers themselves as to the best ways in which this should be done. I merely add that if any announcement is to be made, it will be made by the government in the usual way.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I express the hope that the government of this country will take the initiative and discharge its responsibility, if we cannot get unanimity from all the provinces.



PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION-DISCUSSION WITH OPPOSITION PARTIES AS TO SCOPE AND TIME OF SITTING

Gerald William Baldwin: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would like to return to the question I asked the Prime Minister earlier. I say this with great sincerity. Will the Prime Minister not discuss with the opposition parties the nature
Inquiries of the Ministry and scope of any parliamentary committee which may be established or discussed?
I say this, because if I may be permitted to voice my opinion, in the final analysis it is for the people of Canada to make a decision and, through their acceptance or rejection of governments, to manifest their desire. Does the Prime Minister not agree that it is most important to the people of Canada to have a full and adequate knowledge of what the matters are that are at issue and what are the decisions that will be made?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Concerning full and adequate knowledge, we have always tabled our working papers, and we will table the ones we used at this conference. People will have full and adequate knowledge of our current position. However, whether or not they will ever have full and adequate knowledge of the position of the opposition is doubtful.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether, contrary to what he stated the other day, he would consider setting up the parliamentary committee during this session and perhaps making arrangements for it to meet during the summer recess.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is not the intention to have the committee set up before the summer recess. I said I would be prepared to discuss with the opposition parties the question of the establishment of a joint Senate and House of Commons committee which would meet in the next session.


Mr. Sfeven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: I have a further supplementary question which I should like to direct to the President of the Treasury Board. Now that the dominion-provincial conference is over, can the minister say what was the cost per premier of opening the tunnel from the Chateau Laurier to the centennial centre?



DAIRYING-DISCUSSION BETWEEN REPRESENTATIVES FROM ONTARIO AND QUEBEC

Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister, following the question of the Leader of the Opposition who asked a while ago if the Prime Minister had met with the premiers of the western provinces concerning the condition of wheat producers.
Inquiries of the Ministry Did the Prime Minister meet with the Quebec and Ontario premiers to discuss another sector of Canadian agriculture, namely the dairy industry which is in a state of stagnation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the matter was obviously not on the agenda of the conference. It has nothing to do with constitutional matters. On the other hand, the premiers concerned did not ask to discuss the matter with me. In private conversations, they talked to me about matters other than those discussed at the conference, but milk was not mentioned.



APPLICATION OF SENATORIAL DISTRICTS TO COST SHARING PROGRAMS-CONDITIONAL GRANTS

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the right hon. Prime Minister a question. In view of the press statements which have emanated from the federal-provincial constitutional conference and the misunderstanding which may follow from these statements, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the federal government proposes to divide Canada into senatorial districts in dealing with cost sharing programs, and whether the government proposes that three of these districts have veto power over any cost sharing programs in the future?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, our position will be submitted in all the details which bear on it in a matter of days. The question as asked by the leader of the New Democratic party calls for a lengthy explanation of our position. There is a desire on the part of the federal government to establish some kind of national consensus before the federal government embarks, not on all the aspects of its spending power, but on the use of conditional grants to provinces.
The federal position would not apply to grants to individuals or institutions, nor indeed to unconditional grants, but merely to conditional grants. It is a complicated formula.
I do not mind replying to any series of questions on the matter, but the document will be tabled in a few days.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I had hoped that the Prime Minister would make such a statement on motions, giving us the full information; but in 
June 13, 1969
view of the fact, if we may judge correctly by reports, that three regions would be required to approve a cost sharing program before it was implemented, am I to take it that in these regions where there are four provinces all four provinces would be required to agree before that region's vote could be considered to be in favour?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should not take it to mean that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If it does not mean that, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister what it does mean? Can a region's vote be divided-two of the regions containing four provinces, four in the west and four of the Atlantic provinces- and assuming that a region is divided, two provinces or three provinces being in favour and one opposed, what would be considered to be the vote of that region? Would it be for or against? And will a single province or region have the power to veto the decision?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The answer is no again, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am asking the Prime Minister for information which is surely of vital concern to the people of this country, and the Prime Minister has given us no information on motions. Surely we are entitled in the question period to get some clarification on this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has asked a question and received an answer.



DISCUSSION OF REFERENDUM IN QUEBEC

David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
He said earlier that the question of the Canadian constitution was brought up at the federal-provincial conference. Could he tell me whether mention was made of the referendum to be held next fall, as announced by the Quebec premier? Did the Prime Minister discuss the matter with the Quebec premier?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This matter was not on the agenda, Mr Speaker.

June 13, 1969



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: In
the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs I should like to direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister and ask him whether the government has appointed Paul Gerin-Lajoie, a member of the Quebec national assembly, as a member of the Prices and Incomes Commission, and if so will legislators from the other provinces receive similar appointments?


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


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The appointment of this individual and other appointments to the Prices and Incomes Commission was leaked to the press this morning, and I think the house is entitled to know, coincidental with the press knowing at least.



BEEF-INQUIRY AS TO APPOINTMENT OF JOINT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE PRICES

Gerald William Baldwin: May I
ask a related question to the President of the Privy Council? Will he indicate whether it is the intention of the government to appoint a joint Senate-House of Commons committee to deal with the price of beef, and if so will the committee have any teeth?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That will be pretty tough to say, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence and ask him whether it is his intention to table a white paper or make a definitive statement on motions with regard to the detailed implications, not only for the government but for the forces themselves, of changes being made by the government in the defence policy.


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to table a white paper but I think I have indicated to the house that I would like to make a progress report before the house
Inquiries of the Ministry adjourns. As it stands now, I will be able to make a statement, not a definitive statement because we are still working on the model, but an interim statement or a progress report by June 23, or by Monday of the last week in which the house will be sitting.


Gerald William Baldwin: This government does not believe in definitive statements.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether he will be able to indicate in his statement the progress made with regard to obtaining a refuelling plane to take care of the CF-5?



FINANCE


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the banking committee of the House of Representatives in the United States, and particularly its chairman, is concerned with the constant and high interest rate, and that that committee has decided to investigate the reason for the rise, as well as the banking and financial structure relating to it, I should like to ask the minister whether he would agree to the referral of the problem of rising interest rates to the finance committee of this house so that it could meet and study the problem.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I will consider the hon. member's suggestion.


David Lewis: Of course I appreciate the minister's suggestion that he will consider it. May I ask him whether he could decide before June 27 to refer this matter to the committee and also arrange that the committee meet during the summer recess.


Edgar John Benson: That depends on how long my consideration will take.


David Lewis: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the sense of humour of the Minister of Finance, one hears it so seldom that it is appreciated, but I would like to know from the minister just how long he will take to make up his mind. He may think it humourous but the people of Canada do not.


Edgar John Benson: I was quite serious.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me the hon. member is repeating a question he has already asked.

June 13. 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry EFFECT OF HIGH INTEREST RATES ON CANADA SAVINGS BONDS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Earlier in the week, Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister of Finance whether he believed that the change in interest rates in the United States as reflected in Canada would affect the holding of Canada savings bonds. To that he replied: "I do not really think it will have any serious effect on the holding of Canada savings bonds." In view of the announcement by the Bank of Canada that net redemptions of Canada savings bonds in the past week reached $26 million, almost twice the normal rate, will the minister say whether there has been any change in his position since Tuesday?


Edgar John Benson: course, we did not know at that time the level at which bank rates would settle in Canada, and all I can say is we shall have to keep a very close watch on the redemption of Canada savings bonds.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I want to be sure I understand the Minister of Finance. Is he suggesting to me that when he gave that answer on Tuesday 'he did not anticipate there would be a change in the bank rates in Canada, following the change in interest rates out of New York?


Edgar John Benson: I did not know at that time the level at which the prime rate of banks in Canada would settle. What is more important, I did not know the rates the banks would be paying on deposits.


David Lewis: In relation to the redemption of Canada savings bonds may I ask the minister whether he is giving consideration to removing some of the tax incentives now available to equity investors or, alternatively, to providing extra inducement to invest in Canada savings bonds and other government bonds?


Edgar John Benson: The whole matter of what the various incentives are to be is dealt with in our white paper on tax reform which I hope to bring out during the coming summer.



REQUEST FOR CALL OF DOMINION OF CANADA PERPETUAL BONDS

Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: In view of the extremely low interest rate of 3 per cent on Canada perpetual bonds, and in view of the fact that they are so often held by elderly people, would not the minister consider calling these bonds, particularly in view of the 
fact that yesterday they were worth only $42.50?


Edgar John Benson: think this question has been adequately dealt with both by my predecessors and by myself. If we were to call these bonds at par a lot of people who bought them very cheaply would make a big capital gain; it would not benefit the original holders of the bonds, except in a few instances.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Would the minister not consider overcoming that problem by calling bonds up to the year 1955, or thereabouts?


Edgar John Benson: We cannot trace ownership. EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



MAINLAND CHINA-REQUEST FOR PROGRESS REPORT ON CANADIAN RECOGNITION

Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkion-Melville):: 1
wish to address a question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Can the right hon. gentleman tell the house when we may expect a progress report on the subject of negotiations by our government toward diplomatic recognition of mainland China?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to what the Secretary of State for External Affairs has been saying.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance; it is one which concerns, maybe, the "have" provinces and the "have" cities. Bearing in mind current anxiety as to the application of depreciation deferment in respect of commercial buildings, especially as to the relevant dates, and the position of buildings not covered by construction agreements, will the minister consider making a statement in the clarification of this whole matter?


Edgar John Benson: As
to the exact incidence of this measure-when it applies, and to which properties it applies-a press release is being issued today and I should be glad to send a copy to the hon. gentleman. As he knows, this is a very complicated matter as to the cut-off date.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: With the greatest of respect to the minister-and I am not trying to be
June 13, 1963

argumentative-does he not think this subject is so important that he should ask permission of the house to revert to motions and then make a statement here, before giving information to the press?


Edgar John Benson: This is a technical matter, Mr. Speaker, involving dates at which certain measures apply. I should be pleased to send the hon. member a copy of the press release;
I would have brought it with me, but I overlooked doing so.


Gerald William Baldwin: Are you putting it to music?



ATLANTIC REGIONAL FREIGHT ASSISTANCE ACT


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: My
question is for the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. Is it his intention to proceed with Bill C-207, now that it has been given first reading today, before parliament rises for the summer recess?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, as fast as we can get the necessary co-operation of all parties.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The minister knows he can always count on the co-operation of members on this side of the house. May I ask whether this is a priority item of legislation to be passed and completed before the house rises for the recess?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I would hope so, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: A supplementary question. Will the measure now before the house be of an interim nature and will the minister plan further legislation based on the report of the Committee on Transport and Communications which is due to come in next week?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


James Aloysius McGrath: My supplementary question is by way of clarification. I should like to ask the minister how he was able to anticipate a report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications which is presently under consideration by that committee, and which recommends precisely the bill which the minister introduced in the house today.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, it is never hard to anticipate the hon. member.
Inquiries of the Ministry HIGHWAY SAFETY



ESTABLISHMENT OF BOARD TO REDUCE DEATH TOLL

Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker? Bearing in mind the continuing toll of death and injury on our highways, is any progress being made with regard to the establishment of the public board on highway safety which was announced by his predecessor?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: It had been my intention to make a statement on motions today, but in view of the fact that the Prime Minister was making a statement I have deferred doing so until the next day I am in the house, which is next Tuesday.



NATIONAL ARTS CENTRE


Alfred Dryden Hales: I should like to direct my question to the Secretary of State who reports for the National Arts Centre. I see the minister is not in the house, so I will direct it to his parliamentary secretary, Mr. Speaker. Was it with the approval of the minister that Mr. Ron Singer, director of national art youth programs, has arranged facilities on the National Arts Centre terrace, starting at midnight tonight and continuing for 48 hours, for a group of people who refer to themselves as "broaders" from 15 Daly Avenue, to speak on the subject of peace?


Mr. Robert Stanbury (Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State):: The Secretary of State will be responding to questions on Monday, Mr. Speaker.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Would the Parliamentary Secretary ascertain whether it is the intention of the minister to use the terrace and surrounding areas of the National Arts Centre as a duplicate of Hyde Park?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, but the minister does not administer that territory.



ALLEGED INEQUITIES IN DELIVERY QUOTAS

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Mr. Speaker. In view of statements that steps would be taken to correct inequities in grain delivery quotas in western

June 13. 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry Canada would the minister undertake to investigate continuing inequities in quotas, and can he indicate the prospect for grain deliveries by the end of the crop year?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: I have a report on the situation here, Mr. Speaker. There are at present 4 on unit quota, 19 stations on a one-bushel quota, 204 on two bushels, 579 on three bushels, 664 on four bushels, and 347 on five bushels. I am assured by the chief commissioner that his hopes are still very high that all stations will be on a five bushel quota by the end of the crop year.


John Stratford Burton: Can the minister say whether immediate steps will be taken to ensure that areas which are still on a unit quota, a one bushel quota or a two bushel quota will be given immediate priority-rather than attempting to extend the quota at other points to five bushels at the present time?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I said before that this was being done, Mr. Speaker.



SUGGESTION TO INCREASE BROKERAGE COMMISSIONS

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the minister consider discussing with the wheat pools and the grain companies of western Canada the idea of increasing the brokerage commission for the sale of grain rather than paying large sums of money to them for storage, whereby the pools and companies are making large profits from storage.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Thank you for the
advice.



EXHIBITIONS


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the vigorous speech made by the former mayor of Toronto, the hon. member for York West (Mr. Givens), to the effect that there is a great disparity between amounts of federal aid given to Montreal and Toronto, does the government intend to adjust this disparity by giving a federal grant to the Canadian National Exhibition and by seeing to it that Toronto has greater representation in the cabinet?



SHIPPING


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister's department investigating the latest mishap in a series of sinkings of steel hulled tugboats. In this case I am referring to the Hutowko Queen, which sank on Sunday, June 8, in the Fraser River. If so will the cause of this latest shipping loss be considered for inclusion in terms of reference of the inquiry appointed to study the sinking of the Emerald Straits?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to consider that possibility. In any event, the whole question of tugboat safety will be given detailed study either during the commission hearings or subsequent to that.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The question I am about to ask is similar to the one I directed toward the government benches one week ago, when the minister was unavoidably absent from the house. I asked then why he had not met the National Committee on Indian Rights, which sought a meeting with him prior to the issuance of the white paper. I think the minister had previously given an assurance in the house that he would be meeting this group late in May or early in June.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, that group convened in Ottawa and held discussions with officials of my department. It had been understood that it would not be necessary to meet me at this first meeting. They had asked to meet me on Friday, but I had then left Ottawa. And while the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) was asking a question in the house, the delegation was having discussions with my deputy minister which lasted nearly two hours.
June 13, 1969



TAXATION

[Stage Direction]
IMPLEMENTATION of principle founded on ABILITY TO PAY
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the findings of a survey just published at the University of Waterloo to the effect that the level of taxation has no significant effect on the taxpayer's incentive to work, will the minister now consider implementing the principle that people should be taxed according to their ability to pay, which is embodied in the Carter report?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I happened to see a report of this survey in the press. The findings of the report certainly are not in accordance with my experiences with taxpayers as Minister of Finance or formerly as minister of national revenue.


Winona Grace MacInnis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister may say that the taxpayers surveyed are not the sort he is familiar with. Nevertheless, if the taxpayers the minister knows about, as well as those who were surveyed, were to be taxed according to their ability to pay, I think the result would be much better.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Edgar John Benson: The taxpayers I know are ordinary people, like me.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. What additional efforts is the minister making to exploit the value of eating high protein, low priced fish during this period of high meat prices?



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that a little over three weeks ago he was able to assure me that he was working on the question of increasing the pensions of retired employees of Canadian National Railways,
Inquiries of the Ministry can he now tell me what progress he has made in his consultations with the Canadian National. Has he anything hopeful to report?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: There has just been brief consultation, Mr. Speaker, in which a report has been asked for. I have had some correspondence which I will be discussing with C.N.R. officials next week.


Stanley Howard Knowles: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the minister will be prepared to make a statement in the house some night on the late show.



WATER RESOURCES


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Even though the Canada water act was not intended to be debated during the present session of parliament, is it still the government's intention-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member kindly ask his question.


Mark Willson Rose: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Is it still the government's intention to introduce this legislation during the present session?


Hon. Oilo E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, it is still our intention to introduce this legislation and to have it read the first time during the present session.


Mark Willson Rose: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask the minister to make a statement on motions about interim steps the government is planning with relation to federal water standards and pollution control?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I may take the opportunity when presenting the bill for first reading for a coincident statement on motions.



SHIPMENT OF OFFSHORE PRODUCT TO AREA WEST OF OTTAWA RIVER

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I am addressing the question to that minister who just completed answering the previous question. A few weeks ago he

June 13, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry was asked a question in the house to do with the movement of petroleum products from foreign sources west of the Ottawa Valley, and he said he would investigate what was going on and report back in due course. Has the minister completed his investigation? Is he able to inform the house of his findings and of any proposed recommendations?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have a fairly up to date indication-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the minister wishes to make a statement I suggest that this is not the proper time to do it. That should be done on motions.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. While making a statement at the first opportunity on motions about the question of the movement of petroleum products and about any proposals the government wishes to make, will the minister also give to this house at the same time a statement with regard to the objectives of this government as they affect domestic oil markets. Also, will he tell us what are the objectives of this government with regard to the penetration of the United States market. Will the minister do that, Mr. Speaker?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will consider that.



SUBMISSIONS BEFORE U.S. TASK FORCE ON IMPORTS

Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Although the government apparently has decided not to file submissions containing its views with the chairman of the United States task force on oil imports, is the government keeping in close touch with submissions that are being filed. In due course will the government make known to this house the results of the inquiries of that task force?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we are of course keeping a very interested eye on the progress being made with regard to submissions which have come forward. The manner in which this study in the United States is going forward of course has serious and important implications for us. We are confident that the study will analyse in a careful manner the facts which exist. We are also confident that those facts will indeed lay the basis for a very sound future for the Canadian oil industry.



NATIONAL ARTS CENTRE


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State. There is a report that our National Arts Centre is already in financial difficulties. It is short of funds for advertising and lacks money to hire adequate protective staff. Has this matter been drawn to the minister's attention. If so, what action is planned?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, the minister will be in the house on Monday.



SHIPBUILDING


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Have there been discussions about Canadian Vickers in which he participated. During these discussions did Quebec Investment Corporation offer to purchase Canadian Vickers on the condition that the Canadian government give Canadian Vickers some contracts on an interim basis. May I ask whether the government has refused to so so, and is that a final decision?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I read with great interest the article in this morning's newspapers on this question. There are at least four errors in the report. There have been no such negotiations so far as I am concerned, and the statement attributed to me that Canadian Vickers is "a cancer that should be removed as soon as possible" is an absolute lie.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I did not refer to the statement because its language was not typical of the minister. He would not use it.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Thank you.


David Lewis: Can the minister inform the house whether the Government of Canada has decided not to give any contract to Canadian Vickers, even though some arrangement might be made to continue that company in operation?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that that is a hypothetical question.
June 13, 1969


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, with respect, I know that the C.N.T.U., the union concerned, has been negotiating with the Quebec government and with representatives of the federal government. I assure you there is nothing hypothetical about the situation at Canadian Vickers, and these discussions. Perhaps Your Honour would permit the minister to answer.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The distribution of contracts for marine construction is not my responsibility, but I have inquired and I was told that the only possibility this time is for repair jobs. I would like to underline the fact that other shipyards in Quebec are doing fairly well.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. It is very brief, but very urgent. May we hope for government action or at least an announcement on the question of increasing the pensions of retired civil servants before we recess at the end of June?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot control what the hon. gentleman might or might not hope, but I would not feel justified in encouraging anyone to expect an announcement before the end of the session.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary or related question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Minister of National Defence whether we may expect such an announcement from him before the end of June with respect to the retired members of the armed forces?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, my answer would be quite similar to the one given by the President of the Treasury Board. Actually it is out of my hands now. The problem is being studied for all former employees of the federal government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the Solicitor General were here I would ask him the same question with regard to retired members of the R.C.M.P. I would hope I might receive a favourable answer from him.
Telesat Canada Act GOVERNMENT ORDERS



TELESAT CANADA ACT


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General and Minister of Communications) moved: that Bill C-184, to establish a Canadian corporation for telecommunication by satellite, be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to say that this bill does not have the unanimous support of all members of the house. I am not prepared to support this legislation for the following reasons: First, this country was built and is what it is today primarily through the efforts of the enterprise system, a system which is foreign to the thinking of those governments which do not allow that type of system. In this system government certainly has a role to play. That role should be to create a climate for the proper operation of the enterprise system, that is, to formulate, impose and administer proper rules and regulations-laws, if you will-so that enterprise will work for the benefit of the most citizens of this country. This includes proper laws against the formation of monopolies and the proper regulation of unavoidable monopolies. It also includes something that is long overdue-proper laws to protect the investing public. The government also has a place in those areas where enterprise either cannot or will not do something that it required for the public good.
The minister has on several occasions used the completely spurious argument that this bill is necessary for the completion of the job of nation-building started by the C.P.R. about a hundred years ago, and that this bill is only the present-day application of that policy. That is nonsense, Mr. Speaker. In the case of the C.P.R. there was nobody available who was able to undertake the construction of that project and the government quite properly became involved in its financing, but not its ownership.
In this case the communications industry has been prepared for some time to construct a domestic communications satellite. Here I would like to refer to the brief of the Trans-Canada Telephone System. I quote from the second paragraph on page 2:
Realizing its responsibility for the development and provision of all forms of telecommunications, the telephone industry has been studying the implications and the potential of telecommunications

June 13. 1969
Telesat Canada Act
by satellite for many years. In fact, as early as 1962 the industry submitted to the Minister of Transport a comprehensive brief on space communications in Canada, followed in 1966 by briefs to the Science Council of Canada. In May, 1967, the Trans-Canada Telephone System, in association with Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Telecommunications, submitted to the Minister of Transport a formal proposal to build and operate a multipurpose domestic system, entirely financed by the common carriers and satisfying all the anticipated demands for service that had been indicated by government, industry and the public up to that time.
When this bill was in committee I questioned the minister about the position of the Trans-Canada Telephone System. All he would say was that he thought the government's present approach was the best approach. The minister did not take that opportunity to say that the facts contained in that portion of the brief which I quoted were wrong or that the proposal was inadequate. So I can only assume that the Trans-Canada Telephone System was prepared to do the equivalent of what is now proposed in this bill.
Apart from objecting to the bill on the basis that it is unnecessary, I also object to it on the basis that we do not know what it will in fact cost the taxpayers of this country. It appears we are being asked to vote a total sum of $79 million, up to $30 million which the government would like to invest in equity capital and up to $40 million for debt financing, an amount which would enable the government to put up the satellite itself without reference to the common carriers or the public. We still have no guarantee that the public or the common carriers will be a part of this transaction.
Apart from that cost, and I think it is very important at this time because we are faced with a record budget, record taxes and a rising cost of living which is encouraged by the activities of the government, I think the government has an opportunity here to set an example to the private sector of industry by getting out of a field where it is not required and really has no business being in the first place. Apart from the possible cost of $70 million, there is also the cost of making the system useful for the purpose for which the minister says he wants it in operation, that is, to a large extent to deliver television programs to the far northern areas of Canada. It should be understood that this system will not deliver television programs on its own to the northern areas and that additional investment will be required for that purpose. This system will not transmit television directly into the homes of people. Ground 
stations must be built to receive a signal from the satellite for retransmission to people's homes. We cannot get any estimate of what this will cost. We could be faced with the expenditure of another $70 million to make this system operative in the way the Minister of Communications1 anticipates.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
Primarily I object to this approach because the government should not be in such a project when somebody else can carry it out. Secondly, I object because we do not know how much money we are being asked to spend. The government has an opportunity to let private investors show what they can do for the country. When the United States approached this problem it arranged a partnership between the investing public and the common carriers, which has operated very well. Why have the government involved here when there is no need for it? I for one, Mr. Speaker, cannot support this legislation.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, as other members of my party have indicated on numerous occasions, we are strongly in favour of the minister's idea of establishing a company to develop a space communications satellite, but we are equally strongly opposed to the way he is structuring the company so that it will be mainly in private hands instead of coming under government ownership. Before I finish my remarks I am going to try to move another amendment calling for less public ownership than we originally wanted in the hope that I may be able to persuade the minister to accept that approach.
Like the minister we are in favour of this space communications satellite because it is necessary for Canada, as an important industrial country, to enter into new fields of technology and to be ahead in the developing scientific revolution of our times. We agree with him that the considerations are political and social, as well as technological development for the country. We agree with the minister that the satellite can play an important part in distributing encouragement for people of both official languages across Canada. We agree with him that the satellite can be of great benefit to remote communities everywhere in Canada, particularly in the north. We agree with him that this system can have great value for educational use in the provinces and in the territories of Canada. Finally, we agree with him that the system which this bill envisages can be of great
June 13. 1969

value to Canada in research and development in a field of great importance to the future of every industrial nation.
It was for these reasons that Mr. Schreyer, one of the first speakers for this party and until recently a member of the house, expressed enthusiastic support, as did others and as do I, for the notion of developing a ground-space communications satellite. We want to make it clear that despite our strenuous objection to the way in which the minister has sold out the public interest of Canada in this bill we are in favour of the idea of developing the kind of system that this bill sets forth.
Why does the minister insist on giving private control a 70 per cent interest in the ownership of this company? The bill itself does not set out the proportions, but the minister has stated that he intends that there should be public ownership to the extent of 30 per cent, ownership by common carriers to the extent of 30 per cent, and ownership by private investors to the extent of the remaining 40 per cent.
It is impossible for me to see how the minister can avoid the simple fact that that arrangement would place this company, essential to Canada's political and social development, essential to research and development progress in the field of technology, essential as a base for continuing the scientific revolution, in the control of the private corporations of the country, those corporations that already have too much control in the field of communications. If he says to me that they will have only 30 per cent and that 40 per cent will be available to private investors, then without hesitation I say to him that the private investors will either be associated with these corporations or will have exactly the same orientation as these corporations, and that in fact 70 per cent of the ownership of this company will be in private hands that are motivated by interests that have nothing to do with public interest. It is worse than that, Mr. Speaker. I would have understood it coming from some other members of the cabinet, but I cannot understand it coming from this minister. I cannot see how he can fool even himself by the words he has spoken on this subject before the standing committee and in the house.
I point out to hon. members and to the people of Canada that the common carriers will not only have an ownership interest in this company but they will be the corporations that will provide components and services to the company, part of which they
Telesat Canada Act
will own, and some of these corporations will be the ones that purchase services from this company, part of which they will own, since they will own at least 30 per cent of it and probably have control over another 40 per cent.
They will sell components and services to themselves and they will purchase services for themselves from this company which they will own. This is vertical integration of the most evil kind, and there is no way in which the minister or the government can avoid that fact.
Why are we doing this? Why are we giving this tremendous power to Bell Telephone, R.C.A. Victor and Northern Electric that already have an oligopolistic control of the communications industry in Canada? And remember that RCA Victor and Bell Telephone to some extent are tied in with American corporations in this field. Why are we handing over to these corporations control of what the minister has called the nervous system of our society? Why is the minister so adamant about letting them have control?
We ask another question, Mr. Speaker. Can we envisage any other situation but that this arrangement will mean we will have a public guarantee for the investments of the private corporations and of wealthy private investors? If the company set up under this bill makes profits they will benefit but if it should make losses-Mr. Speaker, my words in this connection will be in Hansard and I stand by them-the public purse will make good those losses and not the corporations and private investors. So we have a company that is to set up something essential to Canada; yet we give these private corporations and their individual friends the authority to control it and to deal with it as they see fit. And because we are not going to let it go broke we are to make sure their investment will always give them a profit, or they will be at liberty to pull out.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
Why is the minister doing this? If there is one field in the western world in which public ownership has been recognized as desirable it is the field of transportation and communications. We have recognized that in this country. We have not made it necessarily exclusively public, but we have recognized that we should have a publicly owned radio and television system. We have recognized that we should have a publicly owned railway system, although at that time we really recognized it because the private corporations had

June 13. 1969
Telesat Canada Act
failed. Our party recognized that the trans-Canada pipeline ought to be under public ownership and that it was a sell-out of Canadian interests to let it be built under private ownership. Because of that, eventually it fell into the hands of foreign United States corporations.
Why are we doing this in this case? Is it timidity on the part of the minister? Does he lack the courage to build this company as a public corporation for the benefit of Canada? Is it the pressure by the common carriers that the minister has been unable to withstand? He walks out to stand behind the curtains to have a smoke and ease his conscience. He will have to do more than smoke.
I ask the minister whether it is the pressure of the private corporations which he did not have the courage to withstand? Is it that Bell Telephone, Northern Electric and R.C.A. Victor were too much for him and that he did not have the earlier courage he had when he was a minister in the Quebec Liberal government? He has left so much of his past in ashes that the pile of ashes fills this house every time he deals with this subject.
Why is he doing this? Is it because of the cost? He told us the total cost would be between $60 million and $70 million. The government will have to pay approximately $30 million in any event. From the point of view of an economist, if you are not an economist of the 18th century, does it matter whether the money raised is raised by one agency or another? Obviously it does not matter. It does not matter whether the $60 million or $70 million is raised by an agency of the government, a Crown corporation, or by a private corporation. The economy is affected to exactly the same extent. So there is no economic reason for this fear. It is just as sensible to raise the necessary funds for this corporation by means of securities as it is to hand over 70 per cent of the equity control into greedy private hands.
Is the minister afraid-and I have had this suspicion as I read the speeches of the minister-that unless he plays ball with these large corporations they will not provide the technical know-how he needs? Are we in the kind of spot in this country that these corporations can dictate to us by saying they must have a hand in this or they will hold back the knowhow and experience they have? If this is the situation then it is time these corporations were hit pretty hard, because much of the research and development they have carried on has been carried on with federal funds

given to them by the Department of Industry precisely for that purpose. Surely we can tie strings to the funds we give them so that the results of their research and development will be made available for the benefit of this country and the people of this country.
Has the minister so buried his previous fairly open-minded approach to private and public ownership that he is now completely in a doctrinaire strait-jacket to the extent that he cannot have any public ownership in a field which cries out for it? I do not understand the obstinacy of the government in respect of this great undertaking which the people of Canada will greet with enthusiasm when they understand and know about it. Our country for too long has been behind in the field of scientific and technological development. As a result of the fact that we have permitted our economy to be placed in the hands of large corporations, we have for too long left to them the research development and technological advance. We must protect the public interests of this country instead of letting the private corporations have the final control.
Before the committee, on second reading and by amendment at the report stage we attempted to persuade the minister and members of this house to amend the bill so that the corporation would be totally publicly owned. We failed to succeed at each one of those stages. Our suggestion was defeated in the committee and later in the house. I want now to appeal to the minister to give serious consideration to the proposal that the Crown should have at least a majority ownership in this corporation. Perhaps the result will not be too bad if 40 per cent, 45 per cent, or 49 per cent of the shares of the corporation are made available to common carriers or private investors so that they may play their part.
The New Democratic party has never opposed the notion of partnership between public and private ownership in those areas where it is desirable and useful. In my opinion and in the opinion of my colleagues, there is no need in this case for such a partnership. Total ownership by the government for the people of Canada is what is needed in respect of such a company, but since the minister and the majority of hon. members will not accept that I appeal to them to have the courage at least to make sure that the government of Canada will have majority control in the equity of this company, leaving private investors to have a minority interest. Surely the minister cannot object to that. Surely there is nothing wrong with the proposal that the government.
June 13, 1969

should have at least majority ownership of the shares of this company so that at no point can a combination of the private investors, corporate and individual, gang up and take over control of this new company. For that reason I do not see any need for me to take the 40 minutes I could have. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That Bill C-184 be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, for the purpose of amending it so that Her Majesty in right of Canada shall own no less than a majority of the company's shares, thus assuring public control of the company at all times.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the amendment moved by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) reads as follows:
That Bill C-184 be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, for the purpose of amending it so that Her Majesty in right of Canada shall own no less than a majority of the company's share, thus assuring public control of the company at all times.


An hon. Member:: Does the hon. member agree?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I agree that parliament is entitled to control any activity or company. There are actually in Canadian statutes provisions that enable the government to safeguard public interest at all times, and, for that purpose, it needs not have ownership of those companies.
I believe that the role of the government is not to own companies but to help the development and the expansion of private industry.
That is why I have said and repeated time and time again that some Crown corporations, especially in the field of communications, should be sold to private enterprise which can operate them more easily than the State.
That is where my views differ from those of the hon. member for York South who would like to see the government control just about every company in Canada, by nationalizing them, by socializing them because, according to the members of the New Democratic party, companies make profits which should go back to the Canadian people.
Now, it has been proved repeatedly that any State organization is much more costly than private enterprise from the point of
Telesat Canada Act
view of administration, and in every other respect, so that a government that would be progressive should instead help private enterprise, allow new companies to be set up under supervision however, because there are laws to be respected, and if other laws must be adopted, let us do it. Only that does not mean that we must, as the federal parliament, as the Canadian government, own the company. The members of the NDP want the government to own the companies.
I could give typical examples. I remember when electricity was taken over by the State in the province of Quebec. I saw the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications (Mr. Kierans) who was at his desk a while ago. He believes in State ownership. However, he does not, in the case of Bill C-184.
The Postmaster General and Minister of Communications has already stated in the province of Quebec that the only party which had a definite and reasonable political program, likely to assist Quebec in its development, was the New Democratic party. I see him behind the curtains. He remembers no doubt that in 1960, 1961 and 1962, he was a New Democratic; today, he is a Liberal-


Jean-Luc Pepin: He is an intelligent man.


David Réal Caouette: -and of course, he accepts Bill C-184. I accept it on principle. However, the minister does not do so on principle but for partisan reasons. He is answerable to cabinet. Otherwise he would be simply asked to go back home or to come and sit over here, to my right, not as a collaborator but as the architect of nationalization.
Mr. Speaker, I come back to the nationalization of electric power. Mr. Rene Levesque and his colleagues, including the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications, told us that the profits made by large companies such as the Shawinigan Water & Power, the Northern Quebec Power, by the 11 or 19 companies which have been nationalized, would be redistributed among the people of the province, that bad capitalists would stop devouring the small people, that profits would make it possible to reduce the cost of electricity in Quebec.
But 7 years after the nationalization that was to make Quebecers "masters at home"- the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications is aware of that slogan "Masters at Home", through the nationalization of

June 13, 1969
Telesat Canada Act
electricity-are the Quebec people more masters at home than they were in 1962? Let us see if the nationalization of the Shawinigan Water & Power has provided Quebecers with a better service. It is precisely the opposite. Nationalization in Quebec today costs more than a billion dollars. Hydro-Quebec has to pay in interest, $704,000 per day on its debt! Yes, $704,000 per day, before opening the door of the head office in Montreal. Was the cost of electricity reduced? It was increased by at least 30 per cent. Such is the result of nationalization. They introduced in the Hydro-Quebec administration appalling red tape and bureaucracy that devour all the profits private companies used to make, without improving the services provided to the people.
Such are the results of nationalization, not only at home, as concerns electricity, but in all companies. In all state-owned companies, it costs three times, four times, even five times more than when private enterprise provides the services.
Profits are made by private enterprise. The purpose of private enterprise is to provide services and make profits. But profit is an incentive, it is what enables someone to assume responsibilities and take risks. The government does not care about risks, there are no responsible people.
If one calls the headquarters of a Crown corporation, who is responsible? One wishes to speak to the general manager; he is not responsible. One speaks to the secretary, to the private secretary; they are not responsible. Nobody is responsible.
In the private sector, there are responsible people who think in relation to the future. Those are people who take responsibilities and risks. Those people can lose by taking risks, but they can also make profits. If they make profits, they increase their business. If they lose, they can go bankrupt. Thus, those people play an important part in the development of our economy.
It is for this reason, Mr. Speaker, that we oppose strongly the amendment proposed by the hon. member for York South and seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). We do not want the government to meddle in everybody's business. We do not want the government to take decisions for the individual. The government must not take any initiative. It is the people who make up the government who can take or dispense with initiative. Every time the [Mr. Caouette.l
government helps private enterprise, no matter, the latter makes profits of course, but this is even less expensive than an operation that is uneconomic and whose administrative costs are five or ten times higher.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
This is what I wanted to point out this morning, with regard to Bill C-184.
I know the government has to pave the way for the establishment in Canada of a corporation for telecommunication by satellite. It will not only serve the federal government but also the provinces. This corporation will be established by the government but will remain independent from it. It will, however be answerable to parliament.
If at any time a state-owned corporation fails to play its part properly, nothing prevents parliament from passing legislation to bring it to heel.
Undeniably, parliament is sovereign in Canada. A state-owned corporation is not and there is evidence of this in many fields.
When we inquire, for instance, about the C.B.C. which is a Crown corporation, we are always told that the government cannot make decisions, that the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) has no say in those matters. It is nevertheless a Crown corporation which should be brought to heel, especially now, for it shows unwillingness to co-operate. Highly-placed people who seem to believe, quite wrongly, that they own the C.B.C. It is therefore the duty of the government and parliament to interfere and to determine the ends to be attained.
Those are not partisan ends and the purpose of the C.B.C. should be to inform the Canadian people about what is going on from coast to coast across Canada. Canadians should first of all be informed and also be made aware of the beauty of their country. Deficiencies may be pointed out, surely, but with more objectivity. That is why I often find fault with the C.B.C.
Some people say that because Caouette is not invited by the C.B.C., he has a grudge against the Corporation. This is quite untrue. Sometimes, Liberals should be invited by the Corporation and they are not.
I have often blamed the C.B.C. in connection with the separatist movement. The C.B.C. is responsible for the upsurge and the image the people have in Canada of the separatist movement in the province of Quebec. Every time there was a small demonstration of protest, C.B.C. cameramen were on the spot.
June 13, 1369

Telesat Canada Act
But for the centennial celebration of confederation, the C.B.C. was absent. Why? Because there are avowed separatists among C.B.C. officials. I have no objection to their being separatists, but I object to the fact that they want the general public to believe that all the people are separatists. That is bad. That they have a right to express their opinion, very well, but those with different political opinions should be able to express them also.
Mr. Speaker, I just spoke of one of our Crown corporations, but we have also the C.N.R. and the C.P.R. which can be closely watched by parliament. In fact, here in the house we have the right to criticize the Canadian National railways because that corporation is or should be supervised by the government.
We do not always maintain adequate control over those corporations but the parliamentary rights remain just the same. It rests with us to take our responsibilities and to state to those companies our proposed objectives, in order to serve better the interest of the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, we are pleased that the government is introducing the bill aimed at creating a Canadian corporation for telecommunication by satellite which we believe will serve not only the federal government, but also the various Canadian provinces which could use those telecommunications to reach the people. For example, the province of Quebec and the other provinces should have t'he right to use those means of telecommunication by satellite, but always with a creative objective in mind, that is to enable Canadians to know themselves better throughout Canada and to communicate with one another, to know their country before they learn about Viet Nam, African countries or Europe.
Knowledge of world geography is a good thing, but presently too many Canadians are ignorant of the geography of their own province or country and do not even know where Manitoba is. People will say: It is in the West. Yes, but where? They cannot tell. They do not know where Vancouver is. They are aware it is a western city, but they could not say where it is exactly.
Telecommunications are at the service of the Canadian population and the present government has the responsibility of using them in the interests of Canadians, because it is introducing the legislation. No matter what 29180-639
political party is in power, future governments will have to be fully convinced of the service the people expect of them.
We accept the principle of the bill aimed at making communications easier in Canada and abroad.
The amendment moved by the Socialists does not please us at all because we do not want to see too many crown corporations. We want the government to encourage personal initiative through private enterprise and to keep on developing our country because private enterprise alone in a position to do so. We have proved it in Canada, a big country with a small population. If we compare Canadian achievements with what the Socialists or the Communists have done in the whole world we have a right to commend private property and personal initiative. Let us respect the freedom of the individual, and instead of opposing his development or expansion projects, let us help him as much as possible, so that Canada can become the grandest country in the world, where life is comforlable, where the freedom of the individual is recognized as sacred, where respect for the individual and personal freedom are promoted.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, since I intend to deal primarily with one point, and I hope to make it before one o'clock, it has been graciously agreed by my colleague and leader in this matter, the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquar-rie), that I make my contribution on the specific point now and give him the opportunity this afternoon, without any hiatus, to cover the full measure of his thinking on this bill.
My point concerns the type of partnership we are asked to bless by passing this legislation. As hon. members who sat on the committee are aware, one clause of the bill empowers the Governor in Council to determine the division of shares among the three groups, that is, the government, the common carriers in the telecommunications field, and the public. My understanding up until this morning had been that it would be a one-third, one-third, one-third division. I think I am correct in assuming that the telecommunications share will be on a one-third basis and that there will perhaps be a somewhat different division as between the government and the private sector. Before we deal with the amendment presented by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), I think the

June 13, 1969
Telesat Canada Act
minister should at least give us some indication of how he proposes to deal with this matter.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
I have mentioned the powers the Governor in Council will possess under the Telesat bill. I shall direct my remarks to this point for the next few minutes. There are 46 clauses in the Telesat bill. In 11 of those clauses powers which are to be exercised by the Governor in Council are set forth. I regard some of the powers as necessary, some as unnecessary, and others fall into the area of opinion with regard to whether they should be included in the bill. As I have said, these powers are to be found in 11 of the 46 clauses.
In my opinion the powers granted in clauses 3 and 4 dealing with incorporation are necessary. Somehow the company has to be started and there have to be incorporators. In clause 6 the Governor in Council is given the power to approve the acquisition by the company of shares in companies with similar objects. In clause 10 the Governor in Council must approve both the price and the proportion of shares issued. I do not know how that body can determine the price of shares when presumably there will be a number of them at least floating about on the free markets of Canada. Nevertheless, we are being asked by the minister to give this power to the Governor in Council.
Clause 12 deals with the appointment of directors from the government side. I think this is a necessary power. In clause 12 also the Governor in Council is given power concerning bylaws and direction before the issuance of shares to the other elements of the partnership. Clause 13 deals in part with a vacancy among the directors appointed by the Governor in Council. This is a necessary power. Clause 14 concerns the approval of the election of the president of Telesat Canada by the Governor in Council. To me this seems to be the most questionable feature of the whole set-up. If there is to be some kind of partnership, then it should be a partnership indeed as well as in word. To give the Governor in Council a veto, which is in effect what this amounts to, over the appointment of a president subsequent to the first president to me is anathema.
Under clause 20 the Governor in Council has to approve transfers among the common carrier element of the partnership, as well as the bylaws dealing with such transfers. Under clause 38 the Governor in Council must approve the shares to be held by the Minister

or Finance or some other agent of Her Majesty. Under clause 41 the Governor in Council must approve the loans which can be made to Telesat by the government. Finally, clause 43 provides that the Governor in Council must approve amendments to the schedule of common carriers found at the end of the bill.
The witness before us at the standing committee was Dr. Macintosh who had been a leading figure in the discussions with the department before the bill was introduced. I should like to read a portion of his testimony. It is to be found at page 1950 of Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence No. 38. I was asking him about the powers of the Governor in Council in the areas I have just listed. Dr. Macintosh said:
As a general observation, I confess that it appears to me that there are quite a number of instances in the bill where the powers of the board are subject to approval by Governor in Council. I would hope that such instances could be minimized, because a board of directors which has any sense of responsibility would want to have its authority coterminus therewith.
By that I mean that to the extent to which you require approval of Governor in Council, you ship the locus of authority beyond the board to the government of the day-and to that extent you erode the character of the company as a private corporation.
I think this is good philosophy and I do not think that Dr. Macintosh would be happy to know that of the 46 clauses in the bill 11 deal with specific powers of the Governor in Council. I asked him about the point concerning the approval or veto of the Governor in Council of the appointment of subsequent presidents. Dr. Macintosh replied, as recorded at page 1951 of the committee proceedings:
As to whether subsequent appointments of president should be so approved, I would have some reservations.
I asked him a good number of questions about the other powers of the Governor in Council, but I think that on this one the point was made quite effectively. I do not think that the government will be prejudiced in its position in the Telesat corporation by allowing a free selection of the president of this body. I think this is an arrogation by the government of powers which they should simply not possess and there is no good reason why they should possess them.
I liken this corporation, if it is to be divided on a one-third, one-third, one-third basis, to two tigers setting up house with a rabbit. One of the tigers is a sabre-toothed tiger and in that respect has an advantage over the other tiger because he has longer teeth. The
June 13, 1963

second tiger is an ordinary tiger and represents the telecommunications industry which probably will be fairly united in its role in this corporation because it is a national system, and the one major group outside the system, in Quebec, is knocking at the door and trying to gain entry into the club. So we have the sabre-toothed tiger-the government -the ordinary tiger-the telecommunications common carriers-and finally the rabbit representing the hundreds or perhaps thousands of Canadian citizens who will be part owners of approximately one-third of Tele-sat. They will be a largely unorganized group, but the rabbit will have to have a fair amount of speed to keep out of the way of the tiger with the long teeth and the tiger with the short teeth. In fact, I suggest that the way this venture is being set up the rabbit will have to have the ability and agility of Bugs Bunny and also his luck to survive this type of operation.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could have the consent of the house to revert to motions before we rise, for the purpose of putting a procedural motion?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: There have been some discussions about the hours of sitting for next week and, if the house is agreeable, perhaps we should make an order somewhat along the following lines:
That in the period ending not later than June 30, 1969, the number of sitting days to be allotted to the consideration of the business of supply shall be reduced to 11;
That in the event of government orders being called on more than one day following the summer adjournment of the house, two sitting days shall be allotted in that part of the current session to the consideration of opposition motions with the proceedings thereon being subject to the provisions of Standing Order 58;
That on Tuesday, June 17, 1969, and Thursday, June 19, 1969, the house shall meet at 10 a.m., rise at 1 p.m., and resume its ordinary hours of daily sitting at 2 p.m., provided that government orders shall be taken up between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. and that the daity routine of business shall be taken at 2 p.m. in these sittings;
Business of the House
That on Wednesday, June 18, 1969, the hours of sitting shall be 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. to 10 p.m.;
That on Friday, June 20, 1969, the hours of sitting shall be 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. to 6 p.m.; and
That when proceedings on any government business set down for consideration on any of the said days have been disposed of prior to the hour of adjournment provided for that day, the house shall stand adjourned until the next sitting day, except that on Tuesday and Thursday next the house shall take up the adjournment proceedings.
[DOT] (1:00 p.m.)
If there is general agreement, perhaps it should be made an order, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As
far as we are concerned, Mr. Speaker, there is the general agreement to which the minister referred. There is just one point that I should like to be sure is covered. I hesitate to speak of it because it sounds as though I am protecting the government's interest, but still one has to be fair-


An hon. Member:: Somebody has to look after them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has
the minister checked with the authorities to make sure that under this proposed order the final vote on the main estimates will be taken on the last allotted day in June? Normally one would understand that this final vote would be taken on the 13th sitting day in this semester. Having put the 12th and 13th days off until fall, has this question been taken care of? I have been studying the rules since I received this document and I can see the possibility that the point is covered, but I believe the government would want to be sure.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the number of allotted days has been reduced to 11. The provisions of Standing Order 58 otherwise apply, although the proceedings on the estimates and the appropriation bill will take place on the 11th day rather than on the 13th according to Standing Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
Telesat Canada Act AFTER RECESS

June 13, 1969
The house resumed at 2 p.m.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Kierans that Bill C-184, to establish a Canadian corporation for telecommunication by satellite, be read the third time and do pass.
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I confess that as a result of a combination of too much courtesy this morning and too little agility I lost the place in the order of speakers which is usually reserved for the chief spokesman for the official opposition party. Since there was before the house a government motion asking that this bill be read the third time I thought, in my courtesy, that the minister who is the sky pilot of this legislation might wish to speak first. I also wish to say, having heard the impassioned eloquence of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) in moving his amendment, that I felt the only thing I could do in my righteous indignation was to rush out of the chamber and pull my telephone from the wall and then kick to smithereens my second hand RCA Victor record player in order to show an appropriate attitude toward the vicious princes of privilege to which the hon. member so eloquently referred. Fortunately I was able to restrain myself. I still have telephone service which invariably is far better than the mail service I am getting these days.
In the many sessions of the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts we heard interesting and informative witnesses and I appreciate very much the views and special knowledge they placed before us. I also wish to say that in my opinion the chairman of the committee did an excellent job in presiding over that part of the committee's deliberations which dealt with communications. I participated only in those discussions. The witnesses before the committee broadened the knowledge of hon. members. New Vistas were opened and new information was obtained. While much was revealed, Mr. Speaker, much was not revealed and broad areas of uncertainty remain.
While the committee held many meetings and while there was an apparent impatience in some quarters that matters did not proceed with greater dispatch, it should not be forgotten that this is a major undertaking. It is one which will cost Canada many millions of dollars, far more, I fear, than currently estimated. The whole question is one which has important ramifications, both of national and international character. Therefore there is no need for any of us to feel that too much time and effort were devoted to this major, complex and important matter.
It is unfortunate that this most important and most costly project should be launched from a pad of such deep and thick ballyhoo. In the press from time to time have appeared some far-out articles, the writers of which must have been giddy as they allowed their thoughts to orbit with the satellite. Many of the minister's futuristic and glamorous skywriting orations, often given at times of darkest disarray in the Post Office Department, helped to inflate the expectations of some Canadians. References to "blanketing the north" and "giving complete coverage" as well as other inflations of expectations, have certainly clouded the picture and distorted the spectrum.
With the passage of this bill, with the establishment of Telesat Corporation, with the successful launching of the domestic sateUite, very likely from a United States launching pad, there still will not be a colour television set in the domain of every remote dweller in Canada's north. Santa Claus will still not have cradle telephones in his workshops. Putting it very simply, the blanket of the north will still have some very thin spots and quite a few serviceless holes. I therefore feel I must perform a bit of dialectic surgery today, Mr. Speaker.
In the public mind reality is badly mixed with the minister's dreams. The reality ought to be separated from the puffery. Skywriting, I know, is fun. It is so much fun that one usually careful official of the Department of Communications was so uncareful as to say:
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
That is why Canada was one of the first countries to become interested in communications satellites. It promised to solve all our problems.
On a slow press day, talk of newspapers in the home, telescanners, telephones in the sky, all brought by Telesat, will make the front page. It all serves to divert attention from the fact that all last week's papers, brought by

June 13, 1969

the Post Office, will probably arrive at one time, maybe tomorrow.
In the area of costs, we have an example of reality being obscured. The minister tells us in great detail that the Telesat Corporation will be paying out approximately $65 million. This is only part of the story, the whole picture must include other investments. Among those he revealed in the committee sessions which we did not know about before are $43.5 million in investment by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, echo suppressors at $250,000 each, rearward microwave links by carriers at unknown cost. One of the minister's officials estimated that these would cost $500,000 and another gave a more comprehensive figure of $3 million. A fairly significant disparity! I, of course, have no cadre of technical experts to draw upon but must do my best to obtain information from some of the technically and scientifically expert people not in the governmental empire. From estimates I have received I am convinced that it will cost a great deal more than $3 million for the rearward connections to overcome interference for a complete system of satellite telecommunications.
There are definite differences of opinion as to the effect of radar installations on the proper, efficient operation of the satellite system. It is hardly a military secret to indicate that there are some fairly complex pieces of equipment in the Canadian north and also in the north of the United States. There are those with technical competence who believe that it will cost dollars to make the existence of those establishments compatible with the proper operation of the satellite system.
Last April the minister told us, using his now immortal phrase, that we are buying a Volkswagen system instead of a more elaborate Cadillac system. I liked that expression, but I have the painful fear that we just might be getting the Volkswagen on Cadillac terms and Cadillac costs. These estimates, as we try to sort them out, appear to be unsure. Where in the minister's statements of costs of the TV receive-only ground stations does he include the well known principle that construction costs are as much as two and a half times greater in the north than in the south? Why did some of his best officials who have never built a TV broadcast facility underestimate by 40 per cent the figure quoted by the C.B.C. for the essential transmitting facilities? The minister I am sure regards this as an important project. He is determined to bull ahead with it. On one occasion he said that 17 launch failures will not deter him. That is
Telesat Canada Act
interesting. I hope the minister, who is called many things, will not find himself nicknamed the father of the National Arts Centre in the sky.
In another way reality should be distinguished from myth. This project is a heavily subsidized one. Twice taxpayers are asked to subsidize it, through the minister's department and through that of the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) who sometimes answers vaguely for the C.B.C. And then taxpayers who have telephones may well be asked to subsidize this system once more through higher rates, and we have had a good deal of discussion about these in the committee.
On April 14 the minister told us that four goals would be met by his Volkswagen system. The first of these goals is to bring television to the north. We have found that there is a good prospect television service will be extended to some of the north and in some other areas in the north television will be improved. In a good many areas of the north many years will pass before they will be watching Don Messer, Bonanza or any of the other old programs, to say nothing of any new ones.
The second goal, improved telephone service to the north, will be met only marginally. It would be very unfortunate if Canadians living in the north ever got the impression that when Telesat is functioning all they will have to do is ring up the nearest telephone company and it will instal a cradle phone right away. The telephone people told us some of the problems they will have. In areas of concentrated population it will come, but this is pretty well the prevailing picture at the present time. We were given figures of the extensive costs for ground stations. Figures were tossed off such as $1.3 million for telephone service alone.
The minister also spoke about the importance of television in two languages for all Canadians. Here perhaps there is an unfortunate mixture of myth and reality. The minister spoke about the new era commencing. We all want an extension of services in both languages across the country, but where are the details? Will Vancouver have a very high frequency French language station? Is Calgary to have such a station? What are the details?
What has to be done to extend the use of French language television outside central Canada? From C.B.C. testimony, it is clear that the same goal could be obtained through existing technology. I think it is passing

June 13, 1969
Telesat Canada Act
strange to hear this minister speak of fostering French language and culture outside of central Canada. Last month he was on a television program. He was there under the gun for ever-increasing postal rates. The minister knows what happened to some French language publications which had circulated outside the province of Quebec. L'E-vangeline of Moncton, in a province that is about 40 per cent French, by the minister's own admission is in serious difficulty because of higher postal rates. It will be in more difficulty when the rates go higher as new stages of imposition are reached.
There was reference to Le Devoir, that great journal of thought and opinion which brings to areas outside of Quebec the thinking of very independent and very able editorial writers. It is strange that this minister holds out such glowing terms of promise of French language television while at the same time he takes away the reality of the expression of French language periodicals.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
His fourth goal-he did not go as far as Presbyterians usually do; he only went to four-establishment of a second and supplementary service to the existing east-west microwave network, is going to be a very important development. On this I only offer the following excerpt from the evidence given to the committee by Mr. Krupski of the Trans-Canada Telephone System, a group who are now on much better terms with the minister than they seemed to be several weeks ago:
The advantages of a satellite system for east-west telecommunications will also be marginal. The existing east-west telecommunications systems are sufficiently ample and diverse to meet all present requirements and are capable of being readily expanded, as needed, to cover the requirements for at least ten years at low incremental cost.
That is another one of the big four. Now I must point out some very important omissions. This bill, full of detail as1 it is in many matters, makes no reference to regulation by statute or by law. I am not so concerned about the extent to which the government is involved in this project. I do not share the fears of some of the members of the N.D.P. The government is there. The minister is there. But parliament is not there. Regulations clearly set out in the statute applicable to this organization and to all bodies in telecommunications1-that is what is missing and that is what should be there. In the white
[Mr. Macquarrie.l
paper it was forecast that it would be there. Page 60 of the white paper reads:
The regulation of a satellite communications system will have to be related intimately with the regulation of terrestrial communications. This is necessary, because of the need to share common radio frequency bands, to avoid wasteful duplication of facilities, and to interconnect all facilities into national and global networks. The regulations must, of course, also provide for communications systems which do not use radio frequencies, for example, cables. There is therefore increasing urgency to develop comprehensive regulatory legislation on telecommunications.
In view of these facts, the government is already inquiring into new legislation which will ensure the comprehensive regulation of telecommunication services, both terrestrial and satellite.
That was the white paper. The date of the white paper was March 28-not 1969 but 1968. Now we are told of a task force, or is it a study group, which is just getting under way. We have had explained to us the establishment of the intradepartmental committee. Apparently only those in the Communications Department are going to be studying this matter, although the question is much broader and covers more than one department. But this group, in comfortable privacy, will be considering the theory which should underpin the regulation of telecommunications.
The minister is very cool and calm about it. It gives him greater ease than smoking, as suggested by the hon. member for York South. He thinks that in three or four years time we should be able to work something out. Mr. Speaker, we are launching a multimillion dollar project and we are told that some time in the future, a few years ahead, we will get around to having regulatory legislation brought forward and passed.
There are many things we have been asking about in recent months. When the Bergeron or Whitehead mission left last fall for a grand tour of Europe we got the impression that it was going to learn many things and tell many things. We have asked many times for its report. Where is it? Was the mission successful?
What is happpening in the negotiations with the C.B.C.? When will we know the price to be charged for the CB.C.'s three channels? Again we ask, what about the discussions with the provinces, especially the province of Quebec which has made certain moves and studies and has made contacts
June 13. 1969

with other countries in reference to this matter? On May 28 the Prime Minister of Quebec told his National Assembly:
As far as Canada is concerned, it appears that they are ready to put some channels at the disposal of Quebec . .. This is all subject to negotiation as to the character, the form, of Quebec's participation. These are all subject to negotiation.
We hope the minister will tell us something about these negotiations. But perhaps more important than anything else I have said before on this whole question is the great lacuna in so far as parliamentary control is concerned. When the minister was asked whether the report of the Telesat Corporation would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, and be examined by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts his reply in committee on April 22 was:
I would doubt that very much. I stand to be corrected on it, but I think it would be tabled in the house for information. Obviously members could raise questions on it, but could not conduct an examination of it as it is not a Crown corporation.
Later on he said:
Right now I would say, no, but I would like to reserve my answer to that question so I can discuss with my officers all the implications in it. Would that destroy the independent status of the corporation? That is what I would want to assure myself of.
The lack of parliamentary control is a very important matter. There are many questions to be asked.
There is also the question of the location of the stations, how many ground stations there will be, and how much they will cost. When we asked where they would be nobody could tell us. How you can count them and cost them without locating them I do not know.
We look forward to the minister taking us into his confidence in regard to the contracts. He told us on May 20, speaking in the modern jargon which he likes so well:
A critical path, leading to the construction of the satellite itself and its launching, demands that initial contracts for the satellite be given in early May or June.
In effect he said that although the bill is not through one chamber in this parliament, let alone two, and has not received royal assent, these contracts must be initialled in May or June.
Who is receiving the contracts? Has the minister been successful in guaranteeing Canadian content? We would like to know these important things. There is much back-patting about the technological nationalism of
Telesat Canada Act
this project. When we used to say, "What about purchasing an American made bird, which would be cheaper and would probably give better service" we were told, "Canada's independence is worth something." But I wonder about some of the companies to be involved in the building of the Canadian satellite. Will they not be, or some of them, fully owned subsidiaries of U.S. firms? Who will do the launching? And I ask a bit rhetorically, I must confess, are all of the common carriers listed in Schedule A living in a world of virginal detachment from U.S. big business?
So much for the technological and idealogi-cal purity of t'he minister's nationalism in this regard. The bill itself is something less than a fascinating piece of literature. It does not grab one all that dramatically, but it does provide for the government of Canada in one clause to put up $30 million, and in another clause to make a loan up to $40 million, and that is not exactly peanuts even in the Bona-venture era. It is not peanuts in an age when a government can be very sensitive in certain other fields, when a government and a minister can close up a post office with the snap of a finger if it runs behind by a few hundred dollars, when a government can say that even though the P.E.I. causeway would be self-amortizing in a very short time, this is not the time to go into such ventures. In a time of belt-tightening, again I say that sums of $30 million and $40 million are not exactly peanuts.
My hon. friend from Halifax has mentioned the board of directors, perhaps the most pusillanimous board of directors in the history of corporate law. They cannot even elect their own president without government approval. T'he bill is laden with assertions of ministerial or governmental sovereignty and authority, and so I am not worrying about the role of the government or the minister. He will be in there. But there are many other implications in this bill, and especially in the developments which will follow.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
Some Canadians perhaps are leery that a man who, to use the kindest expression I can think of, has had an unspectacular career in running the Post Office, should now move into an orbit so much vaster. There is a little quiver of concern, I suppose, when one reflects on the postal zoning fiasco in Canada's major cities, the demise of publications and the disarray of mail service generally. I am prepared to say that the current estimates of

June 13, 1369
Telesat Canada Act
the cost of the satellite system which have been bandied about in the last few weeks and months will soon become as obsolete and useless as the five cent stamp. I have no hesitation in predicting that the $65 million figure will go down in history as the most conservative estimate ever made by a Liberal minister, and there have been some dandies in that category. Why would there not be, because after all the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) is a colleague of the Postmaster General and he knows how to do things.
My friend, the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart), put a price tag of $200 million on this project before it is through. I do not know how precise his calculations are, but I am inclined to think that 'history will reveal him to be a little better at computing what the future holds for the taxpayers than some of the members sitting on the front benches of his own party.
Having expressed my genuine concern, my anxiety and my continuing desire to have more information on the matter and less bunkum, I can still say I believe I am speaking for the people of Canada and certainly for this party when I say we realize we are now on course, that the measure will become law, and we wish well for those involved in this very important development. We can only hope that all will be well. We hope that the success of the Alouette and ISIS program, rather than the failures of the Post Office, will set the tone for the future of Telesat and other aspects of communications. This is our hope and wish. The scientific communities in this country have done well. We can take pride in their achievements. I believe we all want to encourage technological and industrial innovation and want Canada, if I may use the expression, to maintain a place in the scientific sun. We want all Canadians to get the best service they can in communications, and we in this party even include the written word in communications and would like that to go through as well.
So we of this party do not intend in any way to delay or retard the passage of this measure. We think it might be a good thing if the minister had this bill out of the way so that he might get back to minding the store in the Post Office and perhaps diminish a bit the disarray his previous actions have done so much to encourage. So I say that despite the eloquence of the mover of the amendment I cannot support it. I think there is plenty of the government and plenty of the minister in this measure now. And as I say, as the minister grows wiser and sadder and accepts

some of the changes I have suggested and brings in some improvements in the next few years through decent regulatory legislation, I hope the measure will fly better than we anticipate. We wish him well and want Telesat to succeed now that the decision has been taken.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, on April 15 last, the day after the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications (Mr. Kierans) made his speech introducing the motion on second reading of Bill C-184 designed to establish a Crown corporation to be called Telesat Canada, I made a speech in which I dealt especially with the cultural and legal aspects of the setting up of that corporation.
I am still nonplussed, while waiting for the answers to the six specific questions I then put to the minister, about the establishment of the Telesat corporation, more especially in connection with the strategic and extremely important situation of the other Canadian majority, namely that of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, we are still waiting for the answer to those questions, not for political purposes, but in order to know the minister's and the government's thinking on Telesat, particularly because of Quebec's position.
We would not want the Telesat corporation to become a source of conflict for Canadians.
I had put the following question: Will the system be bilingual? The minister nods assent, and we would like the bill to provide some guarantee with regard to bilingualism.
I know that the minister answered partially to that question during consideration in committee. At that stage, he gave an eloquent testimony, on which I congratulate him. I was told so, and I read about it, but even if the minister said in the committee that bilingualism will be enforced by Telesat with regard to broadcasting, that is not a written guarantee.
Anyone who is familiar with the history of Canada knows that several things, which were written in the British North America Act, have not been respected.
I wonder how things that are unwritten, that were only mentioned by the minister, will be respected in the future. That is why we would like the minister to consider this request seriously, to amend the bill, to show goodwill, he who was once a Quebec minister, and give such a guarantee to all Frenchspeaking Canadians, because the whole
June 13, 1969

Canadian people are affected by this bill, so that the network reflects truly the image of a Canada which everyone wants, a bilingual Canada, at the very moment when we are in the process of passing the bill on official languages.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, I feel this is a significant point, and we can no longer be satisfied with words. We must put in the act specific guaranties with regard to bilingualism, otherwise it will only be another hope or dream, but not a reality. How can we be sure that Tele-sat will truly respect bilingualism? In fact, parliament cannot efficiently control the various Crown corporations, whether they be departmental, agency or proprietary corporations.
The only protection Parliament may secure in regard to Crown corporations is to provide in the act for the protection of bilingualism we want to be recognized by Crown corporations.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw the minister's attention to the five other questions, in order that he may give the house the assurance that those questions will actually be answered. To avoid taking up the time of the house, I should like to refer the minister to page 7521 of Hansard for April 15, 1968, where appear the six questions I asked, in the hope that at the end of this debate on third reading, he will enlighten us.
I ask the minister to reconsider those questions, because after reading his evidence before the committee, I feel we do not have any assurance. And much less so, after getting the following answer to question No. 658 I put on the order paper, and I quote:
1. Has an application lor a broadcasting licence by a provincial government or its agents ever been rejected and, if so, when and with respect to what applications and on what grounds?
The answer was as follows:
1. No. The policy of the government, as stated in the House of Commons on May 3, 1946,
Obviously, there is need in this connection for adjustment and updating-
-is still in effect that since broadcasting is the sole responsibility of the federal government, broadcasting licences shall not be issued to other governments or corporations owned by other governments.
This means that the policy in effect since 1946 not only compels the provinces to participate in Telesat and to accept it, but also prevents them from having their own system.
Telesat Canada Act
So, if the minister does not answer my questions, it means that he approves of te 1946 policy and thus gives the federal government the right to interfere in the field of education, That is an infringement of the constitutional rights of the provinces which can only intensify the constitutional conflicts at the very time when an attempt is being made to review and revise our constitution.
In addition, the answer stated as follows:
The task force is to study all aspects of this subject in order to assist the government in fulfilling its undertaking to facilitate the development of adequate broadcasting facilities to meet provincial requirements for the transmission of educational programmes. The Task Force will undertake a variety of specific assignments-
-and this is the point I am trying to make-
-and is not asked to produce a comprehensive report.
On the basis of that question which is directly related to the subject under discussion and which also concerns the provinces, the federal government appoints task forces that study the reports of other committees and nothing gets done that way. But as the representatives of the people we cannot obtain a copy of the findings of those so-called experts.
This is why we cannot determine if the minister is sincere when he says that this system will respect bilingualism, the provinces' stand and privileges.
I think that is a basic question. I do not want to turn this into a storm in a tea-cup, but I would merely ask the minister, when he brings the debate to an end-at least we hope so-to enlighten us and dispel the doubts which the Canadian people might still have.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would have some very short comments to make which could be summarized as follows: When we read Bill C-184 now under consideration, we are entitled to ask ourselves certain administrative questions.
In what group under the Financial Administration Act 1952, Revised Statutes of Canada, chapter 116, would Telesat be classified? This is a legal matter which is not specified in Bill C-184. There is no such provision in the legislation. I think this is a legal mistake and omission that can be fatal.
There are departmental, agency and proprietary Crown corporations. The Corporation's status is not defined in the legislation.
I remember that in his initial speech, the minister merely pointed out that the legal

June 13, 1969
Telesat Canada Act
status of the corporation was very complex. Mr. Speaker, it would certainly be appropriate for the minister and his experts to study this matter more closely and tell us what kind of Crown corporation it is, because it is not defined in the bill. In other words, will the corporation come under the Financial Administration Act? In the affirmative, parliament would have absolutely no control over Telesat even if it contributed to its financing, and this would be extremely serious.
I should like to deal with the audit of financial operations. How will it be conducted? By the Auditor General of Canada?
Clause 37 of Bill C-184 mentions an auditor. Who will he be? That is a most important question and we hope the minister will not fail to give us a reply to that.
Who is to appoint that auditor? The Auditor General of Canada? The only thing we are sure of is that an auditor is mentioned in clause 37 of Bill C-184. In other words, if the wording of this legislation is compared with that of similar acts organizing and establishing Crown corporations, it appears that the Auditor General will not have anything to say.
Would it not be useful if the Auditor General of Canada, who as everybody knows is an official of parliament, the man designated by parliament to audit the financial activities of the Crown Corporations and the departments, a wonderful instrument for hon. members who wish to know the good and bad features of all the administrations, were to audit the books of Telesat? It means that the government wants to reserve itself the right to appoint one of its dear little friends to audit the books of that Corporation.
Mr. Speaker, is any favouritism contemplated through the appointment of friends of the Liberal party as auditors of the Corporation? That is exactly what happens as far as the C.N.R. is concerned.
The same situation prevails insofar as Air Canada is concerned. In my office, I have documents dealing with that subject. I had put some questions in that connection. I could show all hon. members that in the acts establishing the C.N.R. and Air Canada, only one auditor was mentioned.
As a matter of fact, the Auditor General has never managed to audit the books of those two corporations, and hon. members will recognize that they are two important corporations. Telesat will also be among the most important corporations.

[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
On several occasions, the committee on public accounts recommended that the Auditor General of Canada be appointed to audit the financial operations of all Crown corporations. According to this bill, it is possible that they will be friends of the government instead of officials designated by parliament, or in other words by the Auditor General. The Auditor General of Canada himself said, in a number of annual reports presented to this house, that he was willing to audit those books.
Mr. Speaker, no one says anything against these proposals and the same game will continue, they will nominate a party supporter, a lawyer or an accountant from Montreal or Toronto, who will audit the books at a cost of thousands of dollars, and parliament will have to be satisfied with information that
government transpire.	supporters	will	allow	toWhen the	minister	tells us	that	the
government and the public are both shareholders and that they can both participate in the financing and administraton of the corporation, it goes without saying that parliament and the public we represent should be able to appoint an accountant to audit the books of this public corporation which Telesat Canada will be.
Scandals like the ones which happen every year at t'he C.N.R. and Air Canada would have to be avoided. When I speak of "scandal", it is obvious that I simply refer to bad administration within those companies.
Will the situation with regard to Telesat Canada be the same as that of Panarctic Oils Limited, in the sense that no information can be obtained?
Mr. Speaker, like other hon. members, I put a series of questions on Panarctic Oils Limited because I was interested in the management of Crown corporations, including that one. I received only evasive answers which amounted to nothing at all. I received no information on those corporations which do not even issue an annual report. That is quite strange when parliament boasts of exerting parliamentary control.
Telesat Canada will have exactly the same legal status as Panarctic Oils Limited, so that if the situation is not clarified, it will not have to make an annual report, even if such a provision is written in the act.
I can see the minister rising in a moment to say: "The hon. member for Lotbiniere is
June 13, 1969

wrong, because such clause of the Act provides for the tabling of an annual report. I should like to refer him to the Act under which the Panarctic Oils Company Limited has been incorporated. He will find himself that it is impossible to see any mention of an annual report by this corporation.
Mr. Speaker, it is not enough to have laws; xhe Auditor General of Canada should audit public accounts to give the house a report on the management of these corporations because they are financed by the government and private enterprise.
Those are the brief remarks I wanted to make at this point of the debate and before closing I should like to remind the house that I vigourously oppose the motion moved by our hon. colleagues from the New Democratic party which intends to give the government the majority of shares in Telesat Company of Canada-and not a third as provided for in the present act-in order to make of Telesat Canada a Crown Corporation.
I ask my colleagues of the N.D.P. to think about that. When one considers the question of corporations, one finds that the most efficient ones are not those that are nationalized.
I should also like to remind my colleagues of the N.D.P. that, at the present time, parliament has no control over Crown corporations.
My colleagues from the New Democratic party, who are precisely the great champions of parliamentary control, made a mistake when they introduced this motion, as they say the opposite of what they have been doing so spiritedly since the beginning of this session, namely to call on the government to account for what it is doing, and I wish to commend them for that. But by presenting a motion to nationalize one area of the industry, like Telesat Canada, they enable the government to take away from parliament the control it could have.
One needs only to look at Hydro-Quebec, in the province of Quebec, or at the other corporations that were nationalized through expropriation or under a legislative measure, to realize that the members have no more say, that they cannot criticize any more except in public. This means that there is absolutely nothing we can do.
As a Creditiste, I believe in private enterprise. Now, on account of the importance of this project and since Telesat pertains to the communication field from one ocean to another, the government must have its say,
29180-640J
Telesat Canada Act
since it must represent all the Canadian people from coast to coast.
Another good thing about this corporation is that the public can share in its financing. Therefore, since the war, the government, through its crown corporations policy, has shown more and more of a trend towards corporations of that type, financed by means of three sources of capital: the government, the public and the private sector.
And the trend-it is irreversible-is more and more towards that, because nationalized enterprises are unable to administer themselves properly and to provide an adequate service. On the other hand, the public does not have access to them. The trend is therefore irreversible, and it allows parliament to exercise a bit more control.
Naturally, everything will depend on the attitude of the minister in this regard, and the replies he will give us. However, we believe in private enterprise and we are happy that Telesat should be the object of legislation in this session, because communications between Canadians from sea to sea must be improved as soon as possible. Those who live in remote regions, the Northwest Territories and other areas, for instance, must have the same cultural, educational and other facilities as Canadians in other areas, and in this connection I wish to congratulate the minister.
In closing I should like to ask him to answer the question I put to him a while ago, not by playing politics but by giving us specific answers and assuring us that the unfortunate situation that exists in the case of Panarctic Oil Ltd, will not recur when Telesat Canada is created.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, I am now in a position to give the house a few points of information. Hon. members have raised some points relative to costs, contracts and to the actual launching of Telesat. As I informed hon. members during the committee stage of the bill, discussions have been going on with United States authorities to secure agreement on the necessary launching arrangements. Our objective has been to secure the most efficient and cheapest launching services. For this reason we have never at any time dreamed of encouraging the government to enter into or search for a launching capability of its own; this could easily lead us

June 13, 1969
Telesat Canada Act
into expenditures of some $800 million without any assurance of success.
I am able to say that these discussions with the United States have been satisfactorily completed by an agreement in principle. The necessary technical details will be agreed upon later. I would like to read to hon. members the text of a public statement which has been agreed to by both governments:
Discussions have recently taken place between Canadian and United States authorities concerning launching services required by Canada to place a Canadian communications satellite in synchronous orbit in 1971. The satellite would be used to provide a domestic communications system for Canada, plans for the establishment of which were announced by the Canadian government in the White Paper of April 1, 1968. The U.S. government has indicated that it would be willing to provide the necessary launching services on a cost reimbursable basis pursuant to appropriate arrangements. The Canadian government will be taking appropriate steps in Intelsat to ensure technical compatibility between the Canadian and Intelsat systems and in the ITU in accordance with ITU agreements.
This agreement in principle, which I welcome as evidence of Canada-U.S. co-operation in the vital field of space communications, will enable officials of the two governments to proceed with the necessary, detailed, technical and financial discussions. I would refer to a phrase used by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), "critical path", and say that we are trying to be on target. I do not share the hon. member's pessimism about the cost of this project. Those concerned with the project have worked very closely together, and I am confident that the cost will be less than the $65 million which has been mentioned.
I have today instructed officials of the Department of Communications to open negotiations with RCA Victor Limited of Canada on the procurement contract for Canada's domestic communications satellite. Provided these negotiations result in satisfactory price, quality and performance schedule terms a formal contract will be awarded to RCA Victor. At the same time, similar negotiations have been initiated with Northern Electric Limited for construction of the communications transponder of the spacecraft. Upon conclusion of these negotiations the contract with RCA Victor would include a direction to award the transponder subcontract to Northern Electric.
* (3:00 p.m.)
These two Canadian firms will thus be responsible for the main elements of the planned domestic communications satellite, the cost of

which is estimated at $25 million to $30 million, exclusive of launcher.
Both RCA Victor and Northern Electric are leaders in the fields of space and telecommunications. It is my information that all of RCA Victor International's expertise in spacecraft telecommunications resides here in Canada. RCA Victor was the manufacturer of Canada's Alouette II and ISIS I scientific research satellites, as well as of the Mill Village, Nova Scotia, ground receiving station built for Canadian Overseas Telecommunications Corporation. Northern Electric, which maintains the largest research establishment in Canada's communications industry, is currently building transponders for one of the Instelsat IV series of communications satellites.
The award of the principal communications satellite contracts will bring significant development both to Canada's communications industry and to our scientific community. Subcontracts and supplies will be sought among other Canadian firms as well as among companies in the United States and in Europe. Our object is to secure as high a Canadian content as possible, provided the price is right.
RCA Victor would operate as the contractor responsible to Telesat Canada, the tripartite government-private industry-public corporation authority, the creation of which is currently being considered by parliament. The actual construction contracts will be awarded by the corporation.
We have been through an extensive and thorough analysis of the project, both on second reading and particularly in the committee stage. I have learned a great deal about the value of committees during those sessions, and I believe I have replied openly and frankly to the majority of the questions that were raised here again. Most of them we have already dealt with in the committee.
I cannot possibly accept the amendment proposed by the members of the New Democratic Party and I request that it be rejected.


Robert Jardine McCleave: May I ask the minister a question? Would he outline the proposed division in the issuance of shares? This was a point on which the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) and I were at variance in our understanding of it. It might help us if the minister could clarify the point before we come to a vote.


Eric William Kierans: I have used different figures at different times.


David Lewis: Hear, hear.
June 13. 19G9

Telesat Canada Act


Eric William Kierans: I have said that a possible division of the shares could be one-third owned by the government, one-third by the public and one-third by the common carrier, but this is still to be worked out. On other occasions I have said that the division could be 30, 30, 40. This is a matter for bargaining and for arrangement at the time of the actual launching of the corporation.


David Lewis: Both the hon. member and I were right.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, the minister has advised us that the main contract for the construction of the telecommunications satellite system has now been awarded to RCA Victor. I should like to ask the minister this question: Since RCA Victor is a Canadian subsidiary of a U.S. company, what precaution has been taken to protect Canadian citizens with regard to patent rights? My understanding is that the patents to the satellite system, to the component parts, and so forth, are taken out by the parent company in t'he United States. Canadians should have protection with regard to these patent rights. I should like to hear the minister comment on that aspect.


Eric William Kierans: Telesat Canada would retain sole world rights to each patentable invention but it could conceivably enter into licensing agreements with its contractors, in which case royalties would accrue to the corporation. This matter also will be subject to negotiations and will be covered in a section in all the procurement contracts. But we certainly intend to look after Canadian interests to the fullest extent. I may say that we have a tremendous back-up capability in all the Canadian scientists, engineers and technicians who have worked at one time for my colleague, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) in the defence research telecommunications establishment and have now been transferred1 to the Department of Communications. This gives us tremendous management and indeed scientific leverage.


David Lewis: Hear, hear.


Mr. Perrault:: I have a question for the minister. The minister made reference to two Canadian companies, RCA Victor and Northern Electric. I hope the minister can give us some assurance that competent Canadian electronics companies in other parts of the country will be given a fair chance to bid on the satellite and its components and the ground stations. I do not want to see all of
this industrial enterprise concentrated in central Canada.


Eric William Kierans: I think I can give the hon. member some assurance in this regard. We know of the capability in Vancouver.


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


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications.
Can he tell us if the auditor, as it is mentioned in section 37 of the said legislation, will be the Auditor General of Canada?


Eric William Kierans: No. An auditor will be appointed. The directors of the corporation will appoint an auditor and every year a balance sheet will be tabled in the house which will study and criticize it, if necessary.


André-Gilles Fortin: I wish to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
In view of the fact that in the case of Panarctic Oils Limited, the report is tabled but not handed to hon. members, can the minister assure us that this annual report will be tabled and handed to all hon. members since it is not the Auditor General of Canada who will audit it?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Before recognizing the minister may I point out to the house that it is an unusual procedure to allow an extended question period at the third reading stage. I will allow the minister to answer this question but following his answer I should like to put the question to the house.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, I will urge directors of Telesat to see to it that a balance sheet is tabled each year.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.

June 13. 1969
Division


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must bring to the attention of hon. members that it is highly irregular for hon. members to come into the house after the roll call has been commenced. After the taking of the vote:
[DOT]	(3:30 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. 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.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT, 1954     AMENDMENTS CLARIFYING DEFINITIONS AND DEALING WITH THE INTEREST RATE ON INSURED LOANS, AND OTHER MATTERS- REPORT STAGE

[Stage Direction]
The house proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-192, to amend the National Housing Act, 1954, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
John Gilbert: National Housing Act, 1954 units. Last year no more than 10,000 such units were built, despite the recommendation by the Canadian Welfare Council that the minimum number of public housing units1 that should be built this year should be between
20,000	and 30,000. We have no indication from the minister of the number of units of this type that he would like to see built. It was disappointing when the minister told me and other members of the committee that he had made no allocation, with respect to the moneys directed to C.M.H.C., with regard to public housing, urban renewal and so forth. We are now in the middle of June and still no allocation has been made with regard to the moneys granted to C.M.H.C.
The minister was reminded that one of the ways to fight the high cost of housing is to impose a ceiling of 4 per cent on interest rates with regard to homes to be owned by people with incomes of less than $6,500 per year. I have received no assurance from him that he is going to take action in this critical area concerning these people in the lower income groups. In fact he has given no assurance with regard to the bringing down or rolling back of interest rates. This is the reason I have moved that clause 2 be deleted from the bill. We could then revert to the formula in the old act whereby the interest rate on government long-term bonds calculated quarterly is used as the basis and 2} per cent is added to it to arrive at the cost of money for housing mortgages. I appreciate that this would probably mean mortgages of between 9 per cent and 10 per cent. But if the minister would show some courage and display compassion to the Canadian people he would impose a 4 per cent ceiling on interest rates for mortgages sought by people with incomes less than $6,500 per year, and he would work out another formula with regard to interest rates for people above the $6,500 level.
I am rather proud that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) has on many occasions been bold and direct in his criticism of the government with regard to the lifting of the present formula. In effect he has said that it would be disastrous to lift this formula. It is very nice to know that we have the support of a man of courage and compassion such as the Leader of the Opposition. It is almost a damnable shame that we can put men on the moon, spend millions of dollars on satellites, yet cannot provide decent, clean housing for Canadians at reasonable cost. It is for this 
reason I move the deletion of clause 2 from the bill.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, the amendment presented by the hon. member who has just spoken and a similar amendment presented by myself in exactly the same words-and that by coincidence-to exactly the same purpose-and that is not coincidence-arrived within a few minutes of each other at the Table one day. Perhaps because I am a little farther down the corridor than my hon. friend my amendment arrived in second place, and rather than put Your Honour in the invidious position of having to do a King Solomon in judgment it was decided he would move and I would second his amendment, and the disposition of his amendment would dispose of both amendments. I think that was a reasonable course to take.
Dealing with interest rates I would point out there have been three stages in interest rates relating to national housing. At first they were fixed by statute. In the second stage the formula was varied so that, as my hon. friend has explained, the rate on longterm government borrowings was taken and 2i per cent was added thereto. That was an adjustable interest rate, fixed a certain number of times a year. Finally, there is the proposal in the legislation before us this afternoon to free interest rates from control and allow them find their own level.
The task force on housing headed by the former minister dealt with interest rates on pages 28 and 29 of its report, as noted by my hon. friend. I think this is worth emphasizing again, and I quote directly from the record:
A rise of one percentage point in interest rates adds more than $9 to the monthly payment on a $15,000 "5-year mortgage, raising its total amortization cost by more than $2,800. A two percentage point increase in the same mortgage raises the monthly payment some $19 and the total cost over 25 years by about $5,700. These are hardly insignificant amounts. Nor do they tell the whole story. Developers and builders operate on credit, too. When their cost of money, short or longterm, is high, they have no alternative but to reflect this increasing cost in higher prices for their product.
So there is a multiplying effect in what higher interest rates can do. The task force goes on to say there are no simple solutions in dealing with interest rates, and one has to concede that. But then the task force, with this in mind, says categorically at the bottom of page 28 of its report:
Mortgage interest rates must come down.
June 13. 1969	COMMONS
Then there is the recommendation which has found its way into this legislation, and I quote:
To ensure a more continuous and even flow of mortgage funds and in the hope the N.H.A. rate might well decline, the task force therefore recommends that:
The interest rate for insured loans under the National Housing Act be freed to find its own level in the financial market place.
I suggest that the key words there are "in the hope" and "might well decline." There is certainly a hope that they might decline but I think it is a very fanciful hope.
A few years ago we dealt with the Bank Act and the formula for interest rates contained therein. The proposal brought before us removed the 6 per cent interest rate ceiling on loans made by chartered banks. This was to allow them to compete with the nonbank finance intermediaries and also to allow those rates to find their own level in the marketplace. The late hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands asked during that debate, as recorded at page 8419 of Hansard for October 6, 1966:
Do I take It from that, that the minister anticipates that if restraints were taken off immediately, there would immediately be a dislocating jump in interest rates?
The then minister of finance, who is now cultivating the junior Chinese diplomatic community in Europe, replied:
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, I said that I felt there would be apprehension on this score.
That was the strongest quotation we could find in recent years in our research dealing with the removal of the ceiling on interest rates. I repeat again what the Minister of Finance said:
Mr. Speaker, I said that I felt there would be apprehension on this score.
Since the ceiling was removed we know what has happened to bank interest rates. We have received some pretty rude reminders in the last few days of what can happen to interest rates.
The hon. member for Broadview was good enough to compliment my leader, the Leader of the Official Opposition, who would have liked to take part in the vote that it is expected will take place on this amendment. Unfortunately he has to attend a political convention of some considerable dramatic import in the province of New Brunswick. I should like to quote what the Leader of the Opposition
National Housing Act, 1954 said in the house on June 2 this year as reported in Hansard at page 9339 with regard to the very problem with which we are dealing this afternoon. He said:
What government having at heart the best interests of the Canadian householder would seriously consider at this time removing the interest ceiling on C.M.H.C. mortgages and abolishing the maximum differential permitted between long term government of Canada interest rates and the maximum that may be received with respect to mortgages?
I am referring to government guaranteed loans in connection with housing. What government thinking of the ordinary Canadian would consider doing this when we see increasing indications that money is to be in short supply and that there is to be competition for available dollars? There is every indication that interest rates will rise further.
That prophecy has certainly been realized and in a remarkable short period of time.
Indeed, rates have been rising so steadily that one can take increased rates almost for granted. Our expectations in this regard are fortified by predictions.
I know that orthodox finance is in favour of taking off the ceiling. I say that orthodox finance is not always right. If the government takes the position it is necessary to remove the ceiling in order to get more money into housing, that at least is an honest position, although it would probably result in people paying higher interest rates. But for the government of Canada to put forward this proposal and seriously suggest at this time, in view of the current and anticipated conditions in the money markets, that removing the interest ceiling will lower interest rates on C.M.H.C. loans is pure folly. If the government cannot do something to help poor Canadians, for goodness sake do not make things worse.
Those were the words of the Leader of the Opposition. I think everyone who is concerned about the effect of what we are being asked to do by this legislation will take those words very seriously indeed.
I should like to make two points with regard to interest rates. First, they have not generally been up to the maximum ceiling permitted in the formula that has been in effect for the last two years or so. They have been a bit below, so there has been some dampening effect, I suggest, in having such a formula in use.
The second point I wish to make is that these loans are insured so that a large element of the risk is thereby automatically dissipated for the mortgage lender. He cannot possibly lose by investing his money in mortgages under the housing scheme covered by National Housing Act mortgages. So I suggest there is a great deal of difference between taking money and investing it in the housing field and investing it even in the common stocks of Canadian commercial companies. I
June 13, 1969

National Housing Act, 1954 think there is a big difference indeed. It is the principle of insured loans and the almost negligible risk which I think is important and one the government is losing sight of in bringing in this measure at this time.
Finally, sir, there is the cost factor involved. I suggest that 40-year mortgages with interest rates the way they are now place people in an almost impossible financial quandary. This places a terrible financial burden on the backs of the people which they will carry from the time they enter the housing market, say at the age of 20 or 25 years, until they retire at the age of 60 or 65 years. That is a full working lifetime in which they will have to carry the tremendous burden of high interest and mortgage costs. I suggest there must be people who are clever enough to devise a formula. There are certainly people around who have heart and who would want a formula to be devised and who would agree that housing is one of the necessities of life.
I believe we should have a housing program and a philosophy that will ensure that our young people can become a part of it when they start out initially. I say "initially" because the term appeals to me. If a person wishes to wander from house to house like a nomad taking part in speculative enterprises that is one thing, but the person who wants to have decent shelter should not be saddled with ferocious costs involving a second mortgage with rates anywhere from 16 per cent to 24 per cent. I suggest that it is a social necessity to give young people a break in this country. I do not think I am exaggerating the situation in any way. We are exaggerating it by the formula the minister suggests to us in this bill.
The fact is that 80 per cent of the people of Canada want to own their own single family homes. It is also a fact that the number of single family starts in relation to all housing construction has declined steadily. One could almost say that 80 per cent of the people could not under any circumstances now own a single family dwelling. That is the pity; that is the tragedy. That is the reason this amendment comes before the house this afternoon and is going to be supported.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being four o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills, notices of motions, public bills.
[Mr. McCleave.l


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there have been some intensive negotiations in various parts of the house concerning private members' hour. I should like to give some indication of what I think has been agreed to. Perhaps I might refer to page 33 of the order paper. The first order of business is in the name of the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Stewart). My colleague has agreed to let that item stand for the moment on the understanding that it will be dealt with within this private members' hour to finality. Nos. 2 to 5 would come next in successive order. It has also been agreed, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 75(3), that the report stage of item No. 3, Bill S-30, should be taken at this sitting. It is also understood, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 74(2), that after second reading items No. 4 and No. 5, Bill S-22 and Bill S-18, will not be referred to the standing committee but will be considered in committee of the whole.
If I have reflected accurately the agreement, perhaps this could be made an order of the house in respect of private members' hour.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the remarks of the minister are an accurate statement of the agreement that has been reached.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the proposition explained by the President of the Privy Council. Is it so ordered?


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



PRIVATE BILLS


Robert Jardine McCleave: that Bill S-34, respecting the Nova Scotia Savings and Loan Company, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, be concurred in.
Motion (for concurrence) agreed to.


Robert Jardine McCleave: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
June 13. 1963

Mr. D. Gordon Blair (Grenville-Carlelon) moved: that Bill S-30, respecting the Perth Mutual Fire Insurance Company, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, be concurred in.
Motion (for concurrence) agreed to.


Duncan Gordon Blair: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


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

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, February 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hogarth that Bill S-22, respecting Gillespie Mortgage Corporation, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Shouldn't this have been moved by an hon. member who is here?


Mr. Speaker:: This motion was moved originally by another member.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Touche.


Mr. Speaker:: In accordance with a special order passed earlier this day, this bill will now be considered in the committee of the whole.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and by special agreement considered in Committee of the Whole, reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. Chappell that Bill S-18, respecting the Canadian Order of Foresters, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and by special agreement considered in committee of the Whole, reported, read the third time and passed.

Mr. Douglas Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay) moved: that Bill S-31, respecting Canadian
Private Bills
Pacific Kailway Company, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, be concurred in.
Motion (for concurrence) agreed to.


William Douglas Stewart: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to make a few remarks about Bill S-31. This bill is really enabling legislation for the C.P.R. to construct rail access to the C.P.R. empire in southeastern British Columbia for the purpose of providing transportation services to companies mining coal in that area.
It is no secret that many wildlife conserva-tionalists, and those people concerned with pollution in the province of British Columbia, have expressed strenuous reservations about the devastation to the landscape and the ecological upset that strip mining operations of this kind will cause.
This particular bill provides for transportation service for just that portion-a vast area in this region-which has been marked for exploitation by those interested in the strip mining of coal. I think it is important to record here just how extensive this area is. An area of some 80 square miles is already under lease from the province of British Columbia, that is licences have already been granted to three separate coal companies. This amounts to 50,000 acres so far, and there probably is more to come once we pass this rail line extension legislation. Fifty thousand acres of mountains and the best wildlife habitat in British Columbia will be destroyed forever in the name of industrial progress and the gross national product. A fifty thousand acre area for hunting, recreation and tourism now risk erosion and the exposure of the substrata, which will carry pollution and harmful substances into the nearest creek.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
What will be done with the product mined in this region? I think this is an important question which we 'have to examine. It will, of course, be shipped through the Roberts Bank super port in its raw state, to serve the industrial demands of the secondary industries of Japan. British Columbia will continue its historical pattern of dependence upon an extraction industry and primary industrial base, like some northern banana republic, exporting our resources and extending

June 13, 1969
Private Bills
secondary industrial employment opportunities to some other country. What will the province of British Columbia receive for all this ravage? As I understand it, the royalties amount to 50 cents per acre, whereas Kentucky, which has had 50 years experience with these kinds of coal company depredations, charges $25 per acre. Because of its history and unhappy experience with King Coal, Kentucky has developed much more stringent state mining legislation than that which the province of British Columbia has enacted.
I am well aware that any person or group attempting to place a higher value on wildlife and landscape conservation than on an industrial operation of this magnitude will be considered either a sentimentalist or a kook. I am aware, too, that if you live in that region and need a job, you need it right now and not in the future. This area has been in desperate economic straits for years. Many of the people living there welcome these new developments because they will provide an economic transfusion and improve local employment prospects.
I think the attitude in the area is something like this: The people say, "We've been poor long enough. Lord, we don't need another mountain, and to hell with a few elk; let's move them somewhere else". I can appreciate how they feel. But in any of these major developments does anybody ever think of instituting ecological cost-benefit studies so that the public can be assured that it is to everyone's long term advantage to proceed; or do we always, on the contrary, rush to obtain the fast buck and leave the future to take care of itself?
I would like for a moment to ask a few questions about clause 3 of the bill which deals with the Fraser Valley or Roberts Bank end of the line. Hon. members will recall that last fall when we attempted to gain information from the then Minister of Transport regarding the rail routes through the Fraser Valley to serve the new super port, we were informed that since this new line was internal to British Columbia and the national railways not involved, there was no federal interest in the matter.
I think the lower mainland members particularly will also recall that the municipalities through which the line was to pass were picked off one by one and kept in the dark about the precise route until it was too late to do anything about it. It must also be said that because of the aggressive stand taken by the 
Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board to the Roberts Bank route, the planning board itself-probably the best in Canada-became the first victim of this new rail line. It was chopped into four pieces so that it would become less troublesome to the provincial government, even though the board was itself a creature of that government. When it became time to evaluate a particular rail line as opposed to planning in the lower Fraser Valley, the rail line won and the planning board was out. Clause 3 of the bill provides as follows:
The company-
That is Canadian Pacific Railway.
-upon such terms and conditions as are agreed upon by the directors of the respective companies, may enter into an agreement to purchase an interest in and may operate its trains over such lines of railway as the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority may construct in the province of British Columbia.
After being assured last fall that there was no national railway interest in this line, suddenly, through the back door so to speak of Bill S-31, we find that at least one national railway has a very real interest in the line, because the bill uses the words "purchase an interest in". There may be nothing very sinister in this, Mr. Speaker, but Canadians have a right to be cynical about the activities of Canadian Pacific Railway. I think it is fair to say that all railways operating in the lower mainland of British Columbia have an understandable desire to be assured access to the super port. There are two rail lines other than the C.P.R. and the hydro railway operating in this region.
Clause 3 may mean that the C.P.R. is going to finance the new Hydro extensions in return for lower running rights charges. This may be sensible financing on the part of the provincial government. On the other hand, we do not know at this point how much interest in the line they intend to purchase. In spite of all our efforts in the committee, we were unable to obtain this information. If it were 10 per cent or 25 per cent, no one would be particularly concerned; but if it is 51 per cent, which would represent a controlling interest, I think everyone has a right to be concerned because it then becomes a federal matter. What are the terms of this so-called agreement which is to be negotiated? In our committee hearings we were unable to ascertain anything at all in this respect. This is our major concern; we wonder what equity the C.P.R. will have, and whether they will have a controlling interest. I believe all hon.
June 13, 1369

members have a right to know the answers to these questions, because Bill S-31 is the enabling legislation in this regard and through its provisions Canadian Pacific will be able to at least purchase an interest in the hydro railway.
Having said all these things, Mr. Speaker, it would be a very simple matter for members of this party, or any other for that matter, to talk this bill out today or on subsequent days. We could do all kinds of unpleasant things to the bill in order to delay its passage. We could cause all kinds of trouble to the companies involved, including the possible loss of coal contracts. However, we shall not do this.
The responsibility for the leases, the strip mining, the erosion, the loss of wildlife, tourists, and the rail lines rests squarely on the shoulders of the provincial government. It must be emphasized that resources, as members of the house know, are strictly a provincial matter. They are fully the responsibility of the province, and theirs alone. We are not going to be manoeuvred into a position of employing what is really just a delaying tactic-it could be described as a rearguard action-with regard to this enabling legislation which will provide access to leases already signed by the provincial government.
I think that it is enough that we point out the possible inherent dangers and ultimate costs. It is enough that we tell the people of British Columbia, through this house, who is directing the show. If the citizens of British Columbia find that this is not what they want in terms of their environmental future, I believe they will know exactly who to blame and how to express their dissatisfaction at the appropriate time at the appropriate ballot box.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak briefly on this bill. The hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) has covered most of the points with which I would have dealt. First of all, I should like to draw attention to clause 3 of the bill. It is a matter of concern to me that we were not allowed to raise this issue in the house because it was not a federal matter pertaining to the railway system. Now, we find that once the B.C. hydro has built part of this rail line to Roberts Bank, the C.P.R. will be able to purchase part of it. Certainly, this information must have been available several months ago when this issue was before the house. I feel that members of this house
Private Bills
should have had an opportunity to discuss this issue at that time. However, I am not going to say much more about it. I think the hon. member for Fraser Valley West has covered this point rather adequately.
I should like to deal with one or two other clauses of the bill, one of them dealing with the 34 mile railway spur which is to be built up the Elk River and the Fording River. I think we are in a rather awkward position. I believe that a great amount of questioning research would have had to be done on it had it come before the provincial legislature. Here, in Ottawa, we find that provincial governments let mineral and timber leases, and then when access is required by a rail line or perhaps some company wishes to build a road on land that is leased-in this case it is a rail line-the matter comes under our jurisdiction. I think that the provincial governments owe it to the people under their jurisdiction to make certain that when leases are granted, they are granted in the best interests of the people of the province. Nobody can convince me that a royalty of 50 cents per acre of coal land is a good return to the general public. Mind you, there are other indirect returns from the economic development of these resources which we do not take into consideration at this time. The hon. member quoted the difference between the royalties paid in this area and some that had been paid in the United States, and there is absolutely no comparison.
These old leases were let many years ago by the provincial authorities, and they have nothing to do with this house. Unfortunately, we are not in a position to go to the provincial government and demand that a better return be made to the general public because these mistakes were made many years ago.
Again, we are in a very awkward position here. There is no doubt in my mind that this strip mining venture will pollute both the Elk and the Fording rivers. However, the pollution of these rivers is a provincial responsibility and can and should be stopped by the provincial authorities. This is the awkward position in which we find ourselves when we consider this bill.
There is one more thing I should like to say. It seems to me that when we have a number of very fine areas with good coal resources it does not make too much sense to jump all over the country making a start on half a dozen mines. If there were proper development of the present coal resources, we could cut down pollution to the minimum.

June 13, 1969
Private Bills
Again, I will point out to the sponsors of the bill that this is a provincial responsibility.
There is one point that I would like to make before concluding my remarks. It seems to me that it can apply both federally and provincially. It is really a challenge to wise resource management and it should be applied in this area. Possibly some assistance should be given by the federal authorities with regard1 to wise resource management in the Elk and Fording river area because the waters from these rivers flow into the Kootenay River and eventually end up in the Columbia which, of course, is an international river and as such comes under the jurisdiction of the federal authorities.
I agree with my colleague that a committee or a major task force should be set up to evaluate the feasibility of reclamation in south eastern British Columbia and to consider the effects of surface mining techniques, including erosion, acid water production, sediment production, slides, highwalls, and the feasibility of revegetation. I think there should be a joint study, federal and provincial, in this regard. It could be a good guideline for projects which no doubt will be started in other parts of Canada at a later date.
I think that a special study should also be initiated-again by both the federal and provincial authorities-to consider the effects of surface mining on fish, wildlife, plants and aquatic insects, and that funds and staff be provided for this project immediately. I also believe that this study should include the effects on the Libby reservoir of sedimentation and pollution from the mining operations in the Elk Valley. There is no reason why the federal and provincial governments should not have a joint study of the two aspects which I outlined briefly.
There is just one more thing I would like to say before sitting down. We realize, especially in this area, the need for economic development. Jobs will be provided by the opening up of areas such as this. But again I want to point out that the responsibility for proper protective measures must come mainly from the provincial authorities. The responsibility for a proper return to the provincial purse must fall upon the provincial authorities.
I should like to conclude by saying that we will let this bill pass, and I trust that organizations in British Columbia will use all the persuasive powers they have to make certain that the companies involved, and the provincial government especially, live up to the

strip mining regulations recently laid down by the province of British Columbia. I trust that the people in the area will be satisfied with the results.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. So that those of us who are here might understand the situation, could it now be made clear that, according to the orders we have agreed to, we shall now sit until 6.31J p.m.?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Until 6.32 p.m.; is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of Bill C-192, to amend the National Housing Act 1954, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
John Gilbert: -that Bill C-192, to amend the National Housing Act, 1954, be amended by deleting clause 2.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Mr. Henry Laiulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, since we are resuming consideration of Bill C-192 on the National Housing Act, and more specifically of the rather similar amendments which have been moved, I will say now that we will certainly support them because it is a matter of helping those in need of housing.
Mr. Speaker, we will never do enough in the area of housing for that is one of the most important factors for the development and growth of the human being and of the family.
June 13, 1969	COMMONS
Human beings have to be protected and, therefore, must live in decent housing.
In our society we have everything necessary to build houses, to give our families suitable dwellings.
This bill is a severe setback since the already sky-high ceiling on interest rates has been lifted.
It seems to me that big finance is left free to do as it pleases. It was believed in the past that the removal of ceilings would bring about competition between financiers and that interest rates would fall in the process.
We saw what happened when we amended the Bank of Canada Act and the Chartered Banks Act. We were asked to get rid of the ceiling on interest rates, and almost all Liberal, Progressive Conservative and New Democratic members of parliament agreed at that time, saying that upping the interest ceiling was a logical course of action since rates would decrease as a result of greater competition.
But what happened was quite the opposite. We fought with all our might. We raised every possible objection, but the interest rates continued to climb. In fact, all financiers have increased the interest rates, thus reducing the purchasing power of citizens, raising the cost of living, causing inflation and further annoying all Canadian citizens.
As far as housing is concerned, it is illogical to abolish the ceiling on interest rates, because I think it should not go over 3 per cent. Here, in this house, we should adopt a rule, since it is one of the most important factors, in order to give the individual what he needs and what he is entitled to, his dwelling, his property, a home port, if you want. The Canadian citizens must be in a position to return to their home port as often as they wish. This is where the family recuperates. It is there also that the head of the family or those in charge of the family recover their courage and their drive to be able to work, to build, to raise a family properly and to do their personal and civic duties.
If we do not have that, we will prevent the development of the Canadian family and of the individuals.
Mr. Speaker, what is being done now in the field of housing, I ask you? Legislation is brought in to develop that sector, it is claimed, when it is only to help the damned finance, if you will pardon the expression, Mr. Speaker. Big finance is being helped, not the people when such legislation is introduced. People, human beings and the family
National Housing Act, 1954 are exploited. The Liberals accept this exploitation of the family through such stupid legislation and through offensive, cruel, stupid and even criminal regulations.
Here is what I read recently in a newspaper, and I quote:
You buy a $24,000 house? Then, you can boast of having purchased a $84,000 house rather than a $24,000 one. Yes, because with a $20,000 mortgage over 30 years at 9| per cent, you will have paid as much as $60,000 in interest in thirty years. And so your house will cost you $34,000.
If someone buys that house and gives $4,000 cash, then a $24,000 house costs $60,000 in interest, at 9| per cent. When the rate of interest is 11 and 12 per cent, and the loan is to be repaid over 40 years, interest charges go up to $110,000 or $120,000 for a $24,000 house.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Does that make any sense to you, Liberal members? Are those laws and regulations really meant to help and protect human beings or that damned finance? That is what you are working for. That is what you are doing. Those are the great regulations you offer the people but they will not forget.
People have the right to live and Canadian citizens have the right to adequate housing, since construction materials exist, engineers are available and the unemployed are ready and willing to build houses. It is because we do not have the necessary money, because credit is limited, and because we refuse to lend one red cent if it does not yield 10, 12, 15, 24 per cent in interest; thus, big finance is protected at the expense of the taxpayers, of those in need of a roof over their head.
In a logical economy a Canadian citizen who wants to build a house should be able to pay it in ten years. Such a house should not cost more than $10,000 for an ordinary worker; yet it costs $18,000 to $25,000 at the present time. There is swindling everywhere, not only with regard to the cost of building materials but also with regard to taxes levied by the government on those building materials. A lot is said about those taxes, but they are not abolished.
Canadians are encouraged to build houses by being told: Instead of lending you $15,000 or $18,000, we will lend you $25,000 and we will extend the repayment term to 40 years. We have never seen such a catastrophic situation as far as housing is concerned, and the government has the nerve to tell the Canadian people that they help the humble folk, that
June 13, 1969

National Housing Act, 1954 they improve the legislation to help the poor to improve their lot, to help them to build decent houses, when nobody will be able to build one, except those to whom finance will advance money, because they earn $15,000, $18,000 or $20,000 a year. In a little while, even those who earn such a salary will be unable to get a suitable house for themselves.
Therefore, some improvements should be made. The Liberals will not do it, because they are too devoted to partisanship and not one of them will denounce the dreadful things attributable to big finance. There are several Progressive Conservatives who would also be reluctant to do so.
We have been elected by the people to administer its property and to give it protection. Only 10 per cent of the population are represented by the big financiers who control credit. Then, instead of taking the side of the population which represents 90 per cent of those who elected you, you prefer to go along with the 10 per cent that is exploiting the people. That is what the Liberals are doing. That is the direction they have taken so far, and it is under such conditions that the Liberals have governed the country up to the present time.
There will certainly be an end to this, perhaps a tragic end, but I shall not be responsible because I have done my duty. If you did the same, we could perhaps avoid such difficulties or avoid the dreadful things that are coming.
Canadians are living in a free country, yet, building materials are not being put to use and nothing is done about the unemployed. No effort is being made to adopt proper regulations and laws and to find the required techniques to build houses at a low cost. Nothing at all is done about all those things. The only thing that is being done is getting organized so that costs may be as high as possible, so that financial institutions may make as much money as possible. To hell with families! To hell with children! To hell with society! That is the goal you are after, you of the Liberal party, with this housing legislation.
Things cannot go on like that forever and the end may come sooner than you think.
I ask you to take your responsibilities as I take my own, and to condemn such a terrible situation.
I do not like to say such things. I do not like to hurt other citizens who are as honest as I am, and who would like also to live in a more perfect and more humane society. It

hurts me to tell them that. Many among you entertain a spritit as humanitarian as mine but you do not have the intestinal fortitude to do what I am doing.
Every elected member should work in that frame of mind and we should organize the economic realities to make them more practicable, more human, so as to provide for all possible opportunities in a country such as Canada, with its tremendous wealth, where the increasing population is entitled to the benefits of technology, science and progress.
The people are entitled to all those things and that is why we should work and combine our efforts to that end so that a just society may prevail. If we worked to that effect we could say that we are doing something and we could commend you instead of blaming you. We are blaming you because what you are doing does not make sense.
Mr. Speaker, I would have a lot more to add but, in closing, I thank you and once more I ask those who still have some conscience left to get hold of themselves and to do everything which is humanly possible in order to improve the situation and to provide for the appropriate and normal development of our Canadian family through technical and scientific progress and everything else we can make available to it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief. I do not think I can be as fiery as the previous speaker was. I have always taken the position that when we are elected to this house we represent first Canada, then our province, then our constituency. I hope I may be excused for talking about Calgary this afternoon but there are certain matters I should like to bring to the attention of the house.
At the present time we are considering an amendment to Bill C-192, clause 2 of which has to do with the removing of the ceiling on interest rates. The amendment seeks to delete that clause and to protect the people of Canada who wish to purchase homes. In this country it has been difficult for people to obtain money for down payments and mortgages. It might be well to consider for a moment what has been done in the United States. In that country, when citizens need money for any purpose they set up a special type of corporation and various citizens subscribe varying amounts of money towards that corporation. A ceiling of $10,000 or $20,000 is often set
June 13, 1969	COMMONS
with respect to amounts being invested. Citizens of Canada could set up similar corporations. I submit that interest earned from money invested in such corporations should not be subject to income tax. The money put into such corporations would earn a reasonable rate of interest and the people who are shareholders of the corporations could, within a reasonable time, accumulate quite a large chunk of money which could be used for house building or any other good purpose. It would be a case of average people helping average people. That is one way to solve our housing crisis. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) was good enough to listen to my suggestion with respect to grain. I hope the government will also consider the suggestions I have been making in my remarks, since our people need all the help they can get in solving the housing crisis.
I wish to deal with a second matter that affects Calgary. Since the second world war the city of Calgary has been developing at a rapid pace. It has a population of almost 400,000 people now, if one includes the suburbs. At the outbreak of war, the population of the city was between 60,000 and 70,000 people. Its growth has been brought about as a result of affluence over a long period of time in our agricultural, ranching and petroleum industries. Also, secondary industries which have sprung up in this city have helped to increase its pace of development. Many of those secondary industries depend on the primary industries which originally brought about the expansion of the area. It should be noted, Mr. Speaker, that four hon. members of this house represent ridings that are closely related to the city of Calgary. We have the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Harkness), who is our senior member; I represent the constituency of Calgary North; a Liberal hon. member represents the riding of Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney) and, of course, we have the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher). We four represent the city of Calgary here.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
We must ask ourselves one question at this time, Mr. Speaker. Why should the city of Calgary be brought before the bar of this house and tried for being too successful. This course reminds me of a criminal being brought before the bar of justice and told, you are guilty. The city of Calgary is guilty because it has been successful. It has developed into a fine industrious city. The people

National Housing Act, 1954 are basically average people and fairly affluent. The city has its pockets of poverty, like any other urban city, and has its rich. Some credit must be given to governments at all levels for stimulating the industries to which I am referring.
This government talks about changing the constitution. I never knew the constitution of Canada or any new constitution would be such that it would make an exception of any selected area which had been able to become successful through its initiative and ability to create. This is what is being done with Calgary, Toronto and other urban centres. The government stated it was making a certain kind of budget to apply to those areas which will affect housing, interest rates and, in fact, the whole economy. The government states this budgetary provision will apply to one area of Canada and not another.
By amending the constitution and using the budget, the government has stated the city of Calgary will now come under a different financial law than some of its neighbours. Let us take a look at how ridiculous this system is. I will use a practical example such as a bank building. The decision to build a bank building in the city of Calgary does not result from the deferment of depreciation for two years on a building to be built in Pictou county where they do not require that kind of building. Under this system of selectivity, the government has changed the constitution and the whole economic tone of the city. I would have thought that would have been sufficient. That was the first crack we received last week from this government of the just society.
I would have thought the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney) would have been pretty upset with that one piece of bad news. What has the government done now? The minister responsible for housing is in the house and he can deny the information I have. I wish the hon. member for Calgary South were here at this moment. He is away on official business and is absent for no other reason. By not being here, he is probably doing a better job than I am doing at this moment. Maybe it is better that he is not here because it is difficult for a government backbencher to get up in this house and attack the government. That can only be done in caucus. The only trouble with that procedure is it is like winking at pretty girls you never see. Unless what you are doing gets back to your constituents, they do not know that you are working. However, that is politics.
June 13, 1969

National Housing Act, 1954 Let's take a look at what the government has done to housing in Calgary. I received a very long wire from the city council. They are worried about both these matters. I have also received a wire from the chamber of commerce. The minister said part of the news release that went out was true and part was untrue. I know what the minister is doing. He is delaying the cancellation of the need for urban development in the city of Calgary until we go home June 27. When the house is closed, he will then make the announcement, just as the government did with respect to NATO. He thinks that once he plays a trick on the opposition, he can try a new one tomorrow.
Everyone is wondering how much more western Canada can take from the government. It almost appears as though this government is trying to see that never again is a Liberal elected in western Canada. I agree with that. It is the only part of the government's policy that is worth while. I quote from the news release:
Usually reliable sources here say that the federal minister responsible for housing, Robert Andras, has decided to turn thumbs down on all urban renewal projects across Canada except four-at the most five.
I received a copy of this Scott report from Calgary.
From what I can gather, there's one in the west, at Ladner near Vancouver; two in Ontario, one of them Sault Ste. Marie, and one on the east coast, St. John's, Newfoundland-a fifth may get last minute approval.
This is what the report says. These are not my words.
But it is certain that Pat Mahoney, the only government M.P. from Calgary, was given the bad news a few days ago.
This does not mean he is the only member but he is the only one who was given the bad news a few days ago.
The mayor of Drumheller was here seeing the housing minister, Mr. Andras, on Monday, and he apparently learned that the urban renewal project for Newcastle and Naemine will remain in the freeze along with the whole of east Calgary. Sources say the government feels large and largely commercial renewal projects are just too expensive for municipalities at today's interest rates; Ottawa wants to put its money into low rental housing and condominium housing projects, not commercial redevelopment. The urban renewal limbo will be in effect for at least two years. The government is springing the long awaited announcement on Canada's municipalities at the end of the first week in July after M.P.'s have returned home or headed out on vacation. The urban renewal cancellation comes as a second blow to western cities in the midst of a building boom: the first being the

Benson budget which defers depreciation for two years on all commercial development in Calgary and Edmonton.
I don't know how much more socialistic than that you can get, and I say that in a philosophical sense. The government is trying to say this provision will equalize things. What this system means is that since there are pockets of poverty throughout this country and a lack of development for one reason or another, the government is going to start implementing laws through the budget affecting housing production in order to give people the opportunity to live in dignity. It intends to reduce to a poverty level cities such as Calgary and Toronto, some of the best areas in Canada. This is what the Liberal party is doing. They do not want success in the whole nation. They feel Calgary is too successful.
The pay-off came when I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) a question. This is the best answer that has ever been given since Mackenzie King said there would not be one five cent piece for unemployment. Either the minister did not understand my question or he was being brutally frank about reducing certain areas to poverty. I want to make sure this is on the record. The question I asked on June 4 appears at page 9729 of Hansard. It reads:
Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. The question is serious and arises out of the budget. Is the government giving any consideration to the economic fact that the budgetary measures in regard to the deferral of capital cost allowances will slow development in Toronto, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver, and in particular increase unemployment in those areas, as well as rents that are already high?
I said this would cause unemployment in Calgary because the skilled and unskilled men, 30 per cent of our labour force, are now engaged in the building of comercial buildings. These have now been hit by the Benson budget through deferred depreciation. Who will put their money into these projects if depreciation is not allowed?


An hon. Member:: You can transfer to housing.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Do you think for one moment that Home Oils having a development in the north and wanting to erect a building from which to operate their new development will say to the government they will cut out the development in the Arctic and cancel the building?
June 13. 1969	COMMONS
I will now read the answer I received from the Minister of Finance:
Mr. Speaker, the effect stated by my hon. friend was the exact purpose of this budgetary measure,-
In other words I asked, will it increase unemployment? The minister said that was the exact purpose. That is even better than Mackenzie King's statement that there would not be one five cent piece for unemployment. The Minister stated:
Mr. Speaker, the effect stated by my hon. friend was the exact purpose of this budgetary measure, namely to slow down construction-that is, commercial construction, not industrial construction such as homes, needed roads and so on-
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
In other words, he says we have done this to Calgary, Toronto, to Hamilton and to Vancouver. Surely, this is a change in the constitution. Parliament never approved it. Apparently the government amended the constitution through a budget. The government has called the city of Calgary to the bar because it was successful in its development, and has told it, "You must be poor like the other cities."
The government's policy should have been designed to help those areas that are pulling themselves up by their bootstraps. If members of the government got off their so-and-so's and got wheat to markets there would be money available for housing at a reasonable rate of interest. If the government stopped allowing the United States to tell Canada, "You must cut back your oil exports," then trade between the United States and Canada would be balanced. We would have more money for housing at a reasonable rate of interest. That is the kind of progress that would breed success. Then, if the government wanted to pour money into other areas that need it for other kinds of development, that would be another kettle of fish and should be done. I appreciate that certain parts of the country are more affluent than others because of their proximity to resources and other factors. But the Liberal policy with respect to those cities that are successful seems to be, "We are going to drive your skilled and unskilled men out of work and make you as poor as the rest of Canada."
I think I owe it to my city to get up in this chamber on a Friday afternoon, even though there are not many members present, and say these things when speaking on this bill. I say that this government policy is destroying the nation. Certainly, members of the government have a mandate, but this should not mean
National Housing Act, 1954 they are going to carry out policies that were never promised to the people. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said he promised nothing. He delivered nothing. Now, he is going on to destroy those areas that have prosperity.
In his address to the Convocation of the University of Alberta, the Premier of Alberta dealt with this matter when he pointed out that there are pockets of poverty and pockets of affluence in the province. He pointed out that Alberta has an image of great prosperity but, like every other province, Alberta has its economic problems. Taking the image of prosperity, the federal government sat in judgment on the city of Calgary.
How the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney) can endorse the government is beyond my understanding. I am not criticizing him because I know he must stand up in caucus and complain about it. I can say the same thing with respect to the two ministers without Portfolio, the one from Saskatoon (Mr. Lang) and the one from Winnipeg (Mr. Richardson). It is no wonder that the one from Winnipeg says western Canada may separate. The people out there are fed up with the government, and are annoyed with this constitutional change made without reference to the law. The minister shakes his head. Let him stand up in his place and say that Calgary will get its urban renewal scheme as requested, and also the city of Drumheller. If he does so, I will have lived up to my responsibility by influencing one cabinet minister into action.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on the amendment before us, I wish to say at the outset that I have considerable sympathy with the feelings and the depth of concern expressed and inherent in the amendment itself. Having said this, I have to add that from all I have heard nothing would suggest that the restoration of the ceiling on interest rates could do other than inhibit the flow of funds into the residential mortgage market, which is the thing we want to avoid at this time.
There has been a suggestion that we should restore the interest ceiling on mortgage funds to a level of 2J per cent above the long-term government bond yield, adjusted every quarter. As I say, if we restored an interest ceiling at this time it would have the effect of inhibiting the flow of funds into the residential mortgage market.
10132	COMMONS DEBATES	June 13, 1969
National Housing Act, 1954
To the hon. members who propose the action inherent in the amendment I suggest that in order to make it stick, or make it valid, they would have to go into a much more comprehensive form of control of the economy than this type of "ad hocery" would suggest. In other words, funds going into the residential mortgage market will be meeting investment competition from other sectors, and to make the residential mortgage market competitive with other forms of investment they would have to go so far as to consider controls on the yields of such other investments. This would inevitably lead to what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) has indicated would be a closed economy, and we would inevitably have to face up to the possibility of controlling and pegging wages, prices and profits. That would be a totally restricted economy, and I do not think anyone is ready to take that kind of action at this time.
I also believe that in order to assure the flow of mortgage funds into the residential market under a controlled ceiling we would have to go even further than what I have suggested. We would have to look into arbitrary legislation to control and regulate the amount of funds that the various lenders would have to put in, to make sure these were adequate, under a fixed rate of interest.
But even if these things worked in Canada, in spite of the fact that the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) says that international monetary matters and interest rates really do not affect the mortgage market in this country, I really do not think we could stand in isolation from the kind of events that are distressingly taking place elsewhere in the world. We are all aware of the increased interest rates in the United States. We are all aware of the turmoil in which European money markets find themselves. Just the other day the daily rate for Euro dollars went as high as 12 J per cent. All this has a bearing on our own situation in Canada. We just cannot exist in isolation from other countries.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
As I say, although I am in total sympathy with the concern expressed about high interest rates, I doubt very much if the method suggested by hon. members opposite would supply a cure. There is another particular reason that I would be very concerned to see this amendment passed, based on my theory that it would inhibit the flow of money into the residential mortgage market. I indicated in my statement on second reading
[Mr. Andras.l
that I want to allocate more of the C.M.H.C. capital budget to low income housing than has been the case previously. I have looked over the allocation of the C.M.H.C. capital budget for the past few years and have noticed a rather interesting trend. The trend was that as the pressure of interest rates against previous ceilings in the country became more intense, inevitably the pressure on the C.M.H.C. budget in respect of section 40, the direct lending aspect of it, was evident. I would appeal to hon. members to recognize that the allocation of the C.M.H.C. capital budget this year, to a larger extent than ever before, will be in respect of the program I would describe as section 16, section 16(a), section 35(a) and section 35(c) concerning the limited dividend non-profit public housing operation of C.M.H.C. I would say that if there is an inhibition concerning mortgage funds in the private sector with regard to residential mortgages, then there will be an incredible pressure later this year on the capital budget of the corporation by those who wish to obtain direct loans from the government so far as the portion of funds for this purpose is concerned.
So, as I have said, I sympathize with the thought behind the amendment. I think it is an impractical suggestion at this time to reimpose ceilings on the national housing and insurance rates. I believe it is "ad hocery". I think it would be too little and would not do the job. Therefore, I hope hon. members will join with me in rejecting the amendment.


Mr. Barneii:: Mr. Speaker, would the
minister permit me to ask a question before he resumes his seat? Is the minister offering a proposition to the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert)? Is he suggesting he will bring in legislation providing for allocation of funds to the residential mortgage field if the hon. member for Broadview withdraws his amendment?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I do not see how any such inference could be drawn. I would say, no, that is not the intention I intended to convey.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You
could do it under the rule of "ad hocery".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it the
pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion? All those in favour of the amendment please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.
June 13. 1969

Division
The Acling Speaker (Mr. Bechard): All
those opposed please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. As hon. members no doubt know, amendment No. 2 has been dropped owing to the fact that the hon. member who had moved the second amendment joined forces with the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) who moved the first amendment. We will therefore go to the third motion.


Robert Knight Andras: That Bill C-192, an act to amend the National Housing Act, 1954, be amended as follows:
Strike out clause 15 on page 11 and substitute the following therefor:
"15.	(1) Subsection (1) of section 35c of the
said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
'35c. (1) The Corporation may make a loan to a province, municipality or public housing agency for the purpose of assisting that province, municipality or agency to acquire and service land for public or general housing purposes.'
(2) Section 35e of the said act is further amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
'(3) No loans shall be made under this section for the purpose of assisting in the acquisition or servicing of land for general housing purposes after the 31st day of March, 1972.'
He said: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few brief comments on the matter that has just been raised because I consider it of-


James Aloysius McGrath: Don't go too far, gentlemen.


Robert Knight Andras: -importance to those Canadians awaiting the possibility of owning a home of their own. Opinions have been varied as to the level of federal assistance that should be offered in our efforts to overcome some of the difficulties we face on the residential scene; yet virtually all of us realize that price and the availability of serviced land is one of the major factors in the cost of housing today. Often it spells the difference between a prospective owner's ability to buy rather than rent and, in some centres, it is a leading factor in forcing some families to turn to public housing accommodation which is required for those in even lower income categories. So I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this is an area where an important breakthrough can be achieved through co-operative action by all levels of government.
The new facilities of the National Housing Act, which offer 90 per cent loans to provinces and municipalities for the acquisition and servicing of land for any housing purpose have generated real enthusiasm at the provincial level as indicated during consultations
June 13, 1969

National Housing Act, 1954 that were held regarding this matter. That same reaction was evident on the part of civic representatives when I had an opportunity to meet them and discuss the matter at the annual convention of the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities which took place just a short time ago.
This innovation in federal assistance to provinces and municipalities affords us an opportunity to help many more Canadians to realize their hopes for houses of their own. It is also the means by which our towns and cities can take direct action in molding then-physical growth in the way they wish.
Having spoken these few words on what I believe will prove an important amendment to the National Housing Act, I am happy to have been able to move the amendment which will enable Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to make a loan to a province, municipality or public housing agency for the purpose of assisting in the acquisition and servicing of land for any general housing purpose.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak briefly on the amendment the minister has just proposed. It is a pity to extend the sitting hours of the house and then fritter away 45 minutes of the extra time by having the bells ring so that hon. members may come to the chamber and vote.
The point I wish to make here is, as has been mentioned before, that the corporation will be empowered to make loans which will help our provinces and municipalities to assemble land for housing purposes. Only two words are being added in the first paragraph of the amendment, those words being "or general". The government appears to have accepted something we proposed about one year ago. When we made speeches favouring what the government has now introduced, our ideas were ridiculed and pooh-poohed. Clearly what was anathema yesterday is the legislation of today.
When this matter was being considered in committee, comments were made to the effect that land assembled for housing purposes perhaps could not be used for specific purposes, such as for school buildings. One can see a situation in which large blocks of land are assembled for housing, with the poor children living in the housing development having to go away from that area if they wish to be educated. The minister was good enough to recognize the point and, without a doubt, kept it in mind when meeting his counterparts 
in provincial governments with whom he discussed the matter of housing. I will not press the point further except to note that we need much wider powers than have been conferred here. When the minister presents a further housing measure, and I hope that will be soon, perhaps the point I have mentioned will be dealt with.
The other point I wish to make has to do with the second paragraph of the amendment we are being asked to consider. When the committee of the house was considering the two national housing acts presently before the house, nothing was said about there being a time limit with respect to loans. We were not told that after March 31, 1972, no loans would be made under the section for purposes of land acquisition. Loans to assist in the acquisition or servicing of land for general housing purposes are to be cut off after that date and, as I say, we were not told this provision was to be introduced. The first we knew of it was when we opened Routine Proceedings and Orders of the Day and saw the amendment printed on the back pages. No explanation has been given as to why this amendment is being introduced. As I say, the first we knew of it was when we saw it at the back of the order paper.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, at first blush it would seem that this amendment has resolved the difficulty that has existed between the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer). When the hon. member for Trinity was the minister in charge of housing he wanted to take the shortest route possible in making moneys available to municipalities so that they might acquire land for building purposes. This created problems with the Prime Minister, as a result of which the hon. member for Trinity resigned.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
When this matter came to the committee, I asked the minister if this amendment meant that the municipalities could now obtain moneys for the purpose of acquiring land for public housing and general housing purposes. He pointed out even though municipalities were mentioned, it would still be necessary for the municipalities to obtain the approval of the provincial government or municipal board. Although at first reading one would think the municipalities have a direct route to the federal government with regard to acquiring moneys for land, it just is not so from a municipal standpoint.
June 13, 1989	COMMONS
I would like to emphasize the limitation with regard to time. The time limit imposed with regard to this particular amendment is March 31. If we are to have a program whereby moneys will be made available to municipalities for their institutions, then it has to be with a long term view. This limitation imposes a burden with regard to the provinces and municipalities. I had hoped the minister would have recognized the problem and not imposed the limitation because it is necessary that a municipality or housing corporation have time to go out and find the land. They must have time to get the necessary approvals from the different bodies within the municipality and province. This limitation will make it very difficult and certainly unattractive to the municipalities and other institutions to initiate action.
I thought the minister, with his avant garde thinking on these problems and his compassion and concern with regard to housing, would not have imposed such a limitation. Maybe after the last vote he is in the mood to withdraw the time limitation attached to this amendment.
fTranslation]


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few brief comments on the proposed amendments. First, where the bill reads, and I quote:
The Corporation may make a loan to a province, municipality or public housing agencywith regard to purchasing land, we rejoice. We feel that municipalities certainly need financial aid, and that it is urgent that they should be helped with their plans, which may not always be reasonable, let us admit it frankly, but at times can help some of the citizens who live in municipalities where there are housing problems.
The major problem, in most cases, is a shortage of money. It is always the same thing: a shortage of money.
Whatever field we deal with, we come up against the same problem: a lack of funds.
The same goes for provincial governments, municipalities and the federal government. It is always the same old story for all governments.
The housing problem is most acute in Canada. This amendment, through which municipalities, provinces and low-cost housing projects will be given the required money to enable them to solve the housing problem, can only make us happy.
National Housing Act, 1954
I shall make a further remark. I share the opinion put forward by the previous speaker.
I shall deal with the proposed time limit, that is the deadline to be set with regard to this part of the act, which is March 31, 1972.
This period is not enough since it amounts to a little less than three years. Before all the legal proceedings related to the enactment of this bill are completed, there may be some time before everything is done to put the act into force. There may still be some time and two years or a bit more is certainly not enough to allow any municipality or province to engage in any real planning.
All this to say that this is better than nothing. It is essential that something be done and, in a way, I understand why the former minister responsible for housing did indeed resign.
The present government has no long term policy where housing is concerned. Neither has it any long term policy when it comes to plan housing, to consider, assess and locate the needs and to find an answer. It has to proceed step by step, year after year, depending on the immediate needs prevailing. It has no long term policy to solve, once and for all, the housing problem.
We need not go very far to see that there is, indeed, a problem. In the capital area, the housing problem is a fantastic one. Even though the federal government makes money available to Ottawa, Hull and the surrounding area to meet the housing problem, this problem is so vast that is seems impossible, within two years, to secure land, to build on it and to comply with the request of the government.
Many municipalities and provinces will be unable to comply with the act and take advantage of it, although it is excellent in principle.
That proves the inability of the government to provide for a periodical review of policy, at least every ten years.
We support those interesting amendments. We are surprised that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) became aware of the errors in his bill only after it was drafted, which is surprising, considering his usual insight.
In any event, we support those amendments, although we are not satisfied with the expiry date of March 31, 1972, because we feel this is detrimental to some provinces and certainly to many munipalities, which will be unable to meet the expiry date set by the government.
June 13, 1969

National Housing Act, 1954


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Andras for Mr. Trudeau) agreed to.


Robert Knight Andras: that Bill C-192 to amend the National Housing Act, 1954, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs be concurred in.
Motion (for concurrence) agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


Robert Knight Andras: that the bill be read a third time and do pass.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I am keeping my eye on the countdown towards 6.32.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Six
thirty-one and a half.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)


Robert Jardine McCleave: I will limit myself to what I hope will be a two or three minutes speech in which I wish to make only two points, although many others could be made. The first one concerns the housing of people in very low income categories. We know a terrible problem exists in this field, and with public housing projects now being held up that problem is being compounded.
I hope the minister will be able to get his guidelines for these projects into operation as quickly as possible so that the housing program can be resumed. I also express regret that we have not adopted another formula that might tide us over the interim period until enough public housing units can be built. This other formula would cover rent supplements. There is housing stock in Canada that is beyond the means of people in poor circumstances, yet with some help by federal, provincial and municipal governments the difference between what a person could afford and what properly should be charged could be made up. I believe this is the only quick way we can come to grips with that particular problem until we do get into a proper public housing program. The other point I make-


Robert Knight Andras: Would the hon. member permit a question? Is the hon. member not aware that public housing projects now being submitted to C.M.H.C. are being dealt with in the ordinary course of events and that we are approving them as quickly as possible, with the exception of one or two that seem to violate all the suggestions made by the task force? Secondly, we have offered the provinces the opportunity to acquire, either by purchase or lease, existing accommodation, something which goes far to meet the second suggestion which the hon. member made.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I thank the minister for making those points. I think they are valid ones, but even if we do proceed with all due haste with the program he has mentioned, and I do not say he is not doing that, it will still be cold comfort for people who do not have proper housing. The fact that it may be six months or a year before houses are built is not much help to people whose need is now. That is the point I want to make in putting forward a stop-gap measure.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the second point I wish to make is one that I have made previously. It is a pity the government did not seize this opportunity to set up a department of urban and housing affairs. In my previous speech, and in questions that I asked in committee, I pointed out that all the experts had advised that before the end of the century the area from Sarnia to Quebec City, on the northern side of the two Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River, will be part of the most densely populated megalopolis in the western world. I raised this matter with the President of C.M.H.C., and I had better quote him exactly because I do not wish to be unfair. I asked him if this would happen, and his reply was:
If nothing was done to stop it.
I then said:
I do not think anything can stop it, but something should be done to plan it.
I am simply suggesting that the problems of pollution, urban transportation, orderly planning, and whether we can even keep farm land in this area to make life more liveable for the inhabitants, could better be dealt with if we tackled them by having a department of urban and housing affairs that could treat with other levels of government. The problems are going to be here. They will be immense unless we have the statesmanship to get in there now and start on the remedy, to see that all this development is orderly, and that we do not get ourselves into the
June 13, 1969	COMMONS
mess in which the New York based megalopolis finds itself.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, at this hour of the day there is not too much satisfaction in having the last word, but I am afraid I am going to get it anyway. Our party still has views which we feel should be expressed before this legislation is passed.
My colleague from Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) and the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) have outlined some of the sins of commission in this bill. The hon. member for Broadview said that interest rate increases were the largest single factor preventing people of moderate and low incomes from enjoying the benefit of home ownership.
I think all of us would agree the financing provisions in this bill are not very satisfactory. However, I want to touch on two of the major sins of omission.
In spite of what the minister has said I think all of us feel that the great failure in the bill is that there is no plan, no program to provide housing for low income people. The minister says that public housing projects are being taken out of the freezer one after the other, but we have no means of knowing whether or not there will be additional projects or what the true picture is for people who cannot aspire to home ownership in present circumstances. The minister has outlined no over-all program. This is something that the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) also made perfectly clear. I think it is the major shortcoming in this legislation. Along with the failure to talk about low rental housing, I am afraid there is a tremendous failure even in the projects that are being taken out of the freezer.
The return to a question which I asked the other day about what recreational facilities these public housing projects would have, stated there is no provision for inside recreational facilities in the 130 unit low rental housing projects announced on May 14 for the city of Vancouver. After all we have been through, I am shocked to think that any minister in charge of housing would come before us and admit that in low rental projects now slated for construction there are to be no recreational facilities inside them. This is one of the most horrifying things I have heard for a long time.
People who are well off, who have good incomes, who are able to move around and get a change of scenery and enjoy all kinds of recreation, must have recreational activities
National Housing Act, 1954 within their housing projects in order to be happy and well balanced. They need swimming pools and recreational rooms and other things of that kind. The very idea that low income people will have none of these facilities, no inside recreational facilities in public housing projects, is a terrible thing. They used to say that the Bourbons learned nothing and forgot nothing. I would hate to think that the minister in charge of housing is becoming a Bourbon even before he has had a chance to become a full-fledged minister of housing.


Robert Knight Andras: May I ask the hon. lady a
question?


Winona Grace MacInnis: I would be delighted.


Robert Knight Andras: Is the hon. member suggesting that those projects which are in the final stages, awaiting approval, be frozen and sent back, with the delay that that would involve?


Winona Grace MacInnis: I am suggesting the same thing should be done that I have been urging on C.M.H.C. for a long time. If necessary some of the suites in the project should be cancelled and turned into recreational facilities, if there is no other way of providing these facilities. I suggest that the minister in charge of housing should break some new territory and co-operate with the cities of Vancouver, Hamilton and Toronto in erecting community centres on areas adjacent to public housing projects. In Vancouver the city would co-operate in providing recreational facilities that in this case C.M.H.C. did not have the wit or wisdom to provide in the first place.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
Now, there are two perfectly good suggestions I would make to the minister as a way to try to make up for what was a failure in the first place. Will the minister now make a virtue of that mistake and go to the municipalities to obtain their co-operation in order to provide these recreational facilities in the most modern way-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Winona Grace MacInnis: May I call it 6.32, Mr. Speaker?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I am not finished. I have something more to say.
10138

June 13, 1969
Business of the House


Mr. Speaker:: Obviously, the hon. member is not prepared to agree that the question be put at the present time.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. lady has only a few things more to say, I wonder whether we might give her unanimous consent to continue and then give third reading to the bill.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Donald Stovel Macdonald: In that event, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might indicate that we will not be able to continue this debate on Monday. It would appear that the earliest opportunity would be Tuesday morning. We
will try to finish the remaining three items of business announced for this afternoon, and then continue as next item of business with the second reading and the Committee of the Whole stage of a bill to authorize assistance to transportation in the Atlantic region which was given first reading today. I call attention, Mr. Speaker, to the phrase "Committee of the Whole". I hope the house might give consent to considering this bill in Committee of the Whole and give it quick passage rather than send it to a standing committee.


Mr. Speaker:: It being after six o'clock this house stands adjourned until.two o'clock on Monday afternoon.
At 6.35 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.

Monday, June IS, 1969