1969-03-24

[Stage Direction]
Sixth report of Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social affairs, in French and English-Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull).
[Editor's Note: Text of foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask the house to agree to a motion which I shall read in a moment. Perhaps I might read Standing Order 43, which is as follows:
A motion may, in case of urgent and pressing necessity previously explained by the mover, be made by unanimous consent of the house without notice having been given under Standing Order 42.
The Standing Order provides the opportunity for a short explanation. May I do so briefly, Mr. Speaker?
It is obvious to all that interest rates have been rising continuously, creating an unjust and inequitable burden for the Canadian public, culminating Thursday in a decision by the Canadian chartered banks to charge 7.5 per cent as their prime lending rate. If this trend is permitted to continue housing and public policy at the federal, provincial and municipal levels may be frustrated.
This is the result of the amendments to the Bank Act made in 1967, which removed the interest level ceiling that banks could charge for loans, and which also gave the chartered banks more flexibility to take deposits and lend money. The possibility of this situation arising was recognized by the committee at
that time, and in the committee report they said as follows:
Your committee recognizes-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. My interpretation of Standing Order 43 is that the explanation which the hon. member may give to the house at this time should be brief and succinct. I think we will get ourselves into serious difficulties if every day, under the guise of Standing Order 43, hon. members were to make long speeches and to suggest that there might be unanimous consent and agreement of the house to discuss a grievance of some kind. I believe that for the good and orderly consideration of the house business the statement being made by the hon. member at the present time should be brief.


Max Saltsman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I had concluded my introductory remarks. I was just pointing out that the committee made a recommendation that the Bank Act should be examined in the case of an emergency and I believe that such an emergency has arisen. Therefore under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs be authorized to meet forthwith and proceed as quickly as possible to investigate, analyse, and hear evidence on the Bank Act. the Bank of Canada Act and the Quebec Savings Bank Act.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. house leader of the government that what we should do at this time is ask the consent of the house. If there is no unanimity the motion should not be put. I suggest to hon. members that there should not be a debate on this kind of motion.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Perhaps I could indicate, Mr. Speaker, that there would not be unanimous consent.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There not being unanimous consent the motion cannot be put to the house.

March 24, 1969
Questions



TELESAT CANADA ACT


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-184, to establish a Canadian corporation for telecommunication by satellite.


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


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 

OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION AND CONSERVATION


Donald Stovel Macdonald: for leave to introduce Bill No. S-29 (from the Senate), respecting the production and conservation of oil and gas in the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Coates: 1.	How many officials of the federal government attended the Olympic Games in Mexico, what were the names of the individuals in question, what department of government are they associated with and what was the purpose of their attending the games in each instance?
2.	What was the total cost to the federal government to have these officials attend the games and what is the breakdown for travel, accommodations and meals?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Seven employees of the Department of National Health and Welfare went to Mexico for the purpose of establishing and operating a Canadian coordination centre to: (a) assist the Canadian delegations representing the cities of Montreal and Vancouver in their bids for hosting the 1976 Olympic Summer and Winter Games; (b) assist the news media representatives in providing pregame coverage of Olympic activities as well as of the Canadian Olympic Team in training; (c) facilitate communications between the Press, the Canadian delegations, the Canadian Olympic Team, the International Olympic Committee, representatives of International Sports Federations and generally assist the Canadian Embassy in these tasks; (d) assist the Canadian Olympic Association in providing services to the Canadian Olympic Team, and provide a comprehensive photographic coverage of the team's activities; (e) attend congresses of International Sports Federations and lend support to Canadian delegations bidding for the hosting of World Championships in Canada. Mr. L. E. Lefaive, Director, Fitness and Amateur Sport Directorate; Mr. T. Bedecki, Assistant Director, Fitness and Amateur Sport Directorate; Mr. G. A. Lahaie, Chief, Program Admin., Fitness and Amateur Sport Directorate; Mr. T. Peterson, Sports Consultant, Fitness and Amateur Sport Directorate; Mr. G. L. Lomer, Information Officer, National Health and Welfare; Mr. H. J. Leclair, Photographic Coordinator, National Health and Welfare; Mr. H. W. Adams, Director, Information Division, National Health and Welfare.
2.	$12,203. Travel expenses (air travel and taxis), $2,875; accommodation and meals, $2,095; tickets to Olympic events, $623; other costs associated with establishing and operating Press, Information and Co-ordination Headquarters, $6,610.



Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	How many people were sent by the government, to attend the Canadian Olympic Teams, in Mexico, other than Canadian Broadcasting Corporation personnel?
2.	What are the names of these people?
3.	What was the duration of their stay in Mexico, individually?
4.	What was paid to each person for travelling allowances, per diem expenses, etc.?
5.	What was the total cost of this delegation to Mexico?
March 24, 1969

6.	What department was charged with this [DOT]expense?


John Carr Munro: 1. The Minister of National Health and Welfare, accompanied by seven employees of the Department, went to Mexico for the purpose of establishing and operating a Canadian co-ordination centre.
2.	The Hon. John Munro, Minister, National Health and Welfare; Mr. L. E. Lefaive, Director, Fitness and Amateur Sport Directorate; Mr. T. Bedecki, Assistant Director, Fitness and Amateur Sport Directorate; Mr. G. A. Lahaie, Chief, Program Admin., Fitness and Amateur Sport Directorate; Mr. T. Peterson, Sports Consultant, Fitness and Amateur Sport Directorate; Mr. G. L. Lomer, Information Officer, National Health and Welfare; Mr. H. J. Leclair, Photographic Co-ordinator, National Health and Welfare; Mr. H. W. Adams, Director, Information Division, National Health and Welfare.
3.	The Hon. John Munro: 4 days, October 10-14 inch; Mr. L. E. Lefaive: 25 days, October 2-26 inch; Mr. T. Bedecki: 12 days, October 5-17 inch; Mr. G. A. Lahaie: 19 days, October 2-20 inch; Mr. T. Peterson: 11 days, October 6-17 inch; Mr. G. L. Lomer: 22 days, October 2-23 inch; Mr. H. J. Leclair: 24 days, October 2-26 inch; Mr. H. W. Adams: 6 days, October 19-25 inch
4.	The Hon. John Munro: $400; Mr. L. E. Lefaive: $1,006; Mr. T. Bedecki: $377; Mr. G. A. Lahaie: $671; Mr. E. T. Peterson: $566; Mr. G. L. Lomer: $776; Mr. H. J. Leclair: $984; Mr. H. W. Adams: $590.
5.	$12,203.
6.	The Department of National Health and Welfare.


REGIONAL, DESKS-EMPLOYEES, SALARIES AND MAINTENANCE OP OFFICES
Mr. Alkenbrack: 1.	How many regional information offices are being set up across Canada for the reported purpose of keeping the Prime Minister and his ministry informed as to regional opinions and conditions?
2.	What is the location of each of these offices?
3.	How many people are employed at each office?
4.	What are the names and the amount of the salary of each employee in these offices?
5.	What is the total cost per year of the maintenance of these offices?


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to starred question No. 1,099 is as follows: 1. No regional informational offices are being
Questions
set up for the purpose of keeping the Prime Minister and his ministry informed as to regional opinions and conditions. The Prime Minister has, however, created a regional desk section in his own office. The role of the desk officers was defined in the answer to question No. 1,008, at page 6,507 of Hansard of March 12, 1969.
2.	The regional desks are located in Ottawa.
3.	A desk unit usually comprises a desk officer and his secretary.
4.	Regional Adviser to the Prime Minister: Pierre Levasseur, $20,000 per annum. Special Assistant; Philip Elder, $11,000 per annum.
Desk officer for Western Canada: David Thomson, $15,000 per annum.
Desk officer for Quebec:	Jean Prieur,
$12,000 per annum.
Desk officer for the Atlantic Provinces: Jean-Eudes Hache, $9,500 per annum.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Some hon. Members:: Discrimination.


James Edgar Walker: Secretaries:	Miss Ann
Jamieson-ST-8, $6,851 per annum; Miss Celine Arsenault-ST-6, $5,383 per annum.
5.	As the offices are located in the East Block, Ottawa, there is no discernible cost.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


VOLUME OF MAIL-STAMP SALES
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	How many items were mailed in Canada in the following periods (a) December 1 to December 31, 1966, (b) December 1 to December 31, 1967 (c) December 1 to December 31, 1968?
2.	What was the total of receipts from the sale of stamps for each of the following periods (a) December 1 to December 31, 1966 (b) December 1 to December 31, 1967 (c) December 1 to December 31, 1968?


Eric William Kierans: In so far as the Post Office Department is concerned: 1. The following are the volumes of first class short and long items mailed in 18 of the largest Post Offices during the month of December 1966, 1967 and 1968: (a) 1966, 184,063,415; (b) 1967, 195,335,831; (c) 1968, 193,754,505. Volume figures for first class mail are not maintained on a continuous basis in other post offices. Volume figures with respect to other classes of mail are not

March 24, 1969
Questions
maintained in such a way as to permit a reply being given for any specific month.
2.	(a) 1966, $18,743,777; (b) 1967, $19,791,644; (c) 1968, Not available until end of March 1969.


OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER PRESS RELEASES
Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1.	Does the Office of the Prime Minister issue documents which are of the nature of press releases, press communiques, news releases or the like and, if so, how many such documents have been issued since July 1, 1968?
2.	What has been the cost of (a) printing headings or cover sheets (b) typing the stencils (c) mimeographing or other form of duplicating (d) collating and stapling (e) addressing and mailing the said documents?
3.	With respect to the paper used for the said documents, what is (a) its quality (b) the quantity used and the cost thereof?
4.	What is the estimate of the number of manhours consumed in the preparation, production and distribution of such documents?


James Edgar Walker: 1. Yes; 82.
2.	(a) $2.04; (b), (c) and (d) This work is done by members of the Prime Minister's staff and/or in a combined messenger, mail and duplicating section of the PMO/PCO. Therefore, there is no additional discernible cost; (e) $230, being the cost of envelopes.
3.	(a) No. 7, white bond 40M; (b) 460,000 sheets at a cost of $2.58M.
4.	Approximately seven man-hours per release.


UNCOLLECTIBLE STUDENT LOANS
Mr. MacRae: What is the total amount that has been written off as uncollectable under the Canada Student Loans Plan from its inception to December 31, 1968?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Under Section 8 of the Canada Student Loans Act, a borrower's obligation is extinguished in the event of his death whereupon it becomes payable by the government on the borrower's behalf. Since the inception of the Plan to December 31, 1968, $137,000 was paid under Section 8. This amount is not recoverable from the estates of deceased borrowers.

Under Section 9 of the Canada Student Loans Act, the government is required to reimburse a bank against loss incurred in connection with loans in default. Once a claim is paid by the government to a bank under this guarantee, the borrower's obligation is then owed to the Crown, but continues to exist. Collection action is continued to retire the debt then owing to the Crown, including certain costs chargeable to the borrower. Since the inception of the Plan to December 31, 1968, $507,090 were paid in respect of defaulted loans. This amount remains recoverable from the borrowers, and none of it has been written off. An additional $22,000 was paid during the same period for costs not recoverable from borrowers.


CHARGES LAID BY R.C.M.P.
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many charges were laid by the R.C.M.P. for each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?
2.	How much revenue was received as a result of fines, penalties and costs?
3.	What was the total cost of all prosecutions?
4.	How many charges for driving offenses were laid for each of the years 1960-68 inclusive by RCMP constables?
5.	How many convictions were registered for driving offenses during each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?
6.	How much revenue was obtained from the driving offense convictions?
7.	What was the total cost of prosecutions for driving offenses in each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraifh (Solicitor General):: 1. 1960/61, 223,295; 1961/62, 236,960; 1962/63, 356,157;	1963/64;	483,177;	1964/65,	493,844;1965/66,	532,338;	1966/67,	569,072;	1967/68,
635,732; 1968 (Apr. 1-Dec. 31 only), 558,834.
2. $8,701,875.72.
4. 1960/61, 124,573; 1961/62, 137,741; 1962/ 63, 145,247; 1963/64, 200,953; 1964/65, 204,761; 1965/66,	246,615;	1966/67,	278,181;	1967/68,
325,448; 1968 (Apr. 1-Dec. 31 only), 297,239.
Parts 3, 5, 6 and 7 are within provincial and municipal jurisdiction and statistics are only available through these sources.


ART GALLERY EXHIBITIONS
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	What was the total cost to the National Art Gallery of (a) the Jordaens Exhibition (b) the Tutankhamon Exhibition (c) the Dead Sea Scrolls Exhibition?
March 24, 1969

2.	What was the total attendance at each of these exhibits and how much was realized in admission receipts?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of Stale):: I am informed by the National Museums of Canada as follows:
1.	(a) Final costs are not yet available; (b) $7,705.00; (c) $6,222.00.
2.
Attendance	Admission Receipts
(a)	18,000	$13,000(b)	106,056	Free(c)	56,000	Free


CANCELLATION OF MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
Mr. Mather: Were motor vehicle safety standards formerly issued by the Canadian Government Specifications Board cancelled for: height and extension of bumpers, rear-window vision aid, ash trays and lighters, head-rests for front seas, roll bars, outside ornamentation, accessories and profusions, rear luggage compartment carrier and, if so, for what reason?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Defence Production):: In so far as the Department of Defence Production is concerned: Yes. Due to the Canada-U.S. Automotive Agreement, the Canadian automotive industry became committed to adjusting their total production to conform to U.S. mandatory standards and it was not desirable to continue the Canadian Government Specifications Board motor vehicle standards for features that could not then be made available without undue delay and expense. Since that time the cancelled standard for Head Rests for front seats has been replaced by an improved standard. The development of replacement Canadian Government Specification Board standards for height and extension of bumpers, rear-window vision aids, ash trays and lighters, roll bars, outside ornamentation, accessories and protrusions and rear luggage compartment barrier is underway in line with parallel action in the United States.


TRANSPORTATION SUBSIDIES ON FEED GRAIN
Mr. Dumont: 1.	What were the subsidies, per ton, paid by the federal government during the 1966-67 crop year for the transportation (a) by ship (b) by rail, of feed grains, from the Lakehead to the various ports on the St. Lawrence?
Questions
2.	What was the cost of the subsidies paid for the transportation of such grain (a) by ship, and (b) by rail?
3.	Will the government make a study of the difference between the subsidies paid for transportation by ship and the subsidies paid for transportation by rail in order to determine whether such difference would offset the cost of building warehouses on the St. Lawrence?
4.	What is the role of the Board of Grain Commissioners with regard to the storage, transportation and resale of feed grains to the farmers of Eastern Canada?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: In so far as the Department of Agriculture is concerned: 1. The average subsidy per ton paid by the federal government on shipments of feed grains during the crop year 1966-67 to destinations in the Province of Ontario was $5.28, to destinations in the Province of Quebec was $7.68, and to destinations in the Atlantic Provinces was $13.17. The rates of freight assistance on feed grains under the Feed Grain Assistance Regulations of the Livestock Feed Assistance Act are the same whether the grain has been transported by rail or by ship.
2.	Since the rate of assistance does not differ between water and rail movement, data on freight assistance paid on each separately are not available. During the crop year 1966-67, 2,472,524 tons of feed grains were shipped into Eastern Canada under the program, at a total cost of $18,394,712.
3.	No difference exists in rates of assistance applicable to rail and ship movement.
4.	The Board of Grain Commissioners is responsible for the general supervision of storage and movement of grain through the Eastern Elevators that are licensed under the Canada Grain Act. The Board's principal responsibility relates to the licensing of the elevators, the inspection and weighing of the grain, the rates permitted to be charged for storing and handling grain at the licensed elevators, the registration of documents covering the grain, and the reporting of details of stock and handlings. Official sampling and inspection service is available on request at eastern elevators.
Under the Inland Water Freight Rates Act the Board of Grain Commissioners has authority to set maximum rates that apply on Canadian lake grain cargoes.
The Board of Grain Commissioners is not involved in the actual merchandising of grain.

March 24. 1969
Questions


&quot;BLACK BAY&quot; CORN CARGO
Mr. Dumont: 1.	In 1968, did the Black Bay anchor at Quebec for several days and, if so, was it able to unload at that port and, if not, for what reasons?
2.	Was the Black Bay ordered to proceed to Montreal with its cargo and, if so, for what reasons?
3.	At what price did a co-operative in the constituency of Bellechasse obtain at that time, corn unloaded from the Black Bay in Montreal?
4.	What was the established price, transportation costs included for such corn at Quebec City?
5.	By whom was the difference in transportation costs paid?
6.	What was the specific role played by the Canadian Livestock Feed Board in this connection and what are the names of its members?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: 1. The M/V Black Bay arrived at Quebec City on the evening of October 29, 1968. It was not accepted for unload at the elevator at that port on the basis of limitation of space in the elevator.
2. The M/V Black Bay was ordered by the shipper of the cargo to proceed to Montreal for unload due to the inability to discharge the cargo at Quebec City.
3 and 4. Information on price and cost of such transactions are known only to the buyer and seller concerned.
5.	The Canadian Livestock Feed Board will pay the cost of transporting this grain from Montreal to destinations, less the cost of transport from Quebec City to destination.
6.	Answered by 5. The members of the Board are: R. Perreault; C. Huffman; W. Dernier; J. McDonough.


PENSION PAYMENTS TO JAMES COYNE
Mr. Coates: What has been the total amount received by James Coyne as of January 31, 1969 In pension funds since his retirement as Governor of the Bank of Canada?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Coyne has received the pension, already described by the Minister of Finance on November 18, 1963 in reply to a question by the Member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Hansard page 4856), since his retirement on July 13th, 1961.


STATUS OF REGIONAL DESKS
Mr. Nesbitt: 1.	Are the recently established "Regional Desks" directly attached to the Office of the Prime Min-

ister or are they a part of the operation of the Privy Council Office?
2.	Who are the personnel involved in the "Regional Desk" operation, where in Canada are they located and what are their individual functions?


James Edgar Walker: Mr. Speaker, the answer to starred question No. 1608 is as follows: 1. The regional desks are attached directly to the office of the Prime Minister.
2. The personnel involved in the regional desk section, and their functions, are as follows:
Regional Adviser to the Prime Minister: Pierre Levasseur. Special assistant; Philip Elder.
Desk officer for western Canada: David Thomson.
Desk officer for Quebec: Jean Prieur.
Desk officer for the Atlantic provinces: Jean-Eudes Hache.
Secretaries:	Miss Ann Jamieson; Miss
Celine Arsenault.
All these persons are located in Ottawa.


STARTING TIME OF LETTER CARRIERS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Has the Post Office Department changed the starting time for letter carriers?
2.	Does the Department intend to establish a nine and one-half hour work day for letter carriers on Monday of each week?
3.	Were these proposals discussed with the employees?


Eric William Kierans: In so far as the Post Office is concerned: 1. No.
2.	No.
3.	There were no proposals and consequently no discussion.


SAULT STE. MARIE, MICHIGAN-OPENING OF POE LOCK
Mr. Foster: Has the Prime Minister received an invitation to take part, with the President of the United States, early in June, 1969, in the official opening of the $40,000.00 Poe Lock at Sault Ste. Marie Michigan, built by a Canadian construction firm and, if so, does he plan to attend and participate in the official ceremonies?


James Edgar Walker: No such invitation has been received by the Prime Minister's office.
March 24, 1969


EXPENDITURES TO REHABILITATE ALCOHOLICS
Mr. Caouette: For the last three years, what was the total amount of the federal government's expenditures in each of the provinces for (a) rehabilitating alcoholics, and (b) educating the public about alcoholism, drug-addiction and drugs?


John Carr Munro: (a) and (b): Not available. Under the national health grants program the Department of National Health and Welfare provides funds to assist provinces to improve and extend services including treatment for alcoholism. A direct grant of $15,000 is made yearly to the Canadian Foundation for Alcoholism to encourage research.


TAX PAYMENTS
Mr. Caouette: For each of the past five years, by province, what was the amount of tax paid to the federal government by Canadian citizens and by corporations?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister of National Revenue):: The information is not available in the form requested.


MAGDALEN ISLANDS-C.B.C. TRANSMITTING TOWER
Mr. Cyr: Does the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation own a television relay transmitting tower on the Magdalen Islands and, if so (a) in what year was it erected (b) what was its cost (e) what is its annual maintenance cost (d) how many Canadian Broadcasting Corporation employees are engaged in its maintenance (e) which television network is the source of the signal relayed by this tower?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the C.B.C. as follows: 1. Yes. a) 1964; b) Capital cost of the complete installation-tower, transmitter, land and building, etc. was approximately $180,000; c) Annual operating cost is approximately $10,000; d) Two C.B.C. maintenance technicians based at C.B.C. Moncton alternate in making monthly visits to the station for maintenance purposes. A local service man, not a C.B.C. employee, is available on call as required; e) The C.B.C. French Television Network.
Orders for Returns


C.B.C. NEWS, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Was the commentary following the news at eight a.m. Wednesday, March 12, on the CBC delivered live or had it been prerecorded?
2.	If the latter, at what time and on what date?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the C.B.C. as follows: The "Preview Commentary" program of March 12 was prerecorded on March 11 at 10:30 p.m.


TAX ON $50,000 GROSS INCOME
Mr. Saltsman: 1.	For the most recent year that statistics are available, were any tax returns filed with a gross income from all sources in excess of $50,000 on which, legally, no income tax was paid?
2.	If so, how many?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: 1. Yes.
2. The income classes into which the tax returns of individuals are distributed are based on total income from all sources before exemptions and deductions, that is, gross income less expenses of operating a business, farm, etc. For the taxation year 1966, these statistics indicate that five tax returns filed with "total income" in excess of $50,000 on which no tax was payable because business losses of other years were applied to offset the current year's income.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Coates: 1.	What was the volume of first and second class mail in Canada for the month of December, 1968, and what was the volume of first and second class mail in December for the years 1965, 1966 and 1967?
2.	What was the gross revenue available to the Post Office Department from first and second class mail in the month of December for the years
1965,	1966, 1967 and 1968?
3.	How many seasonal and part-time employees were taken on staff by the Post Office Department in the month of December in the years 1965,
1966,	1967 and 1968?
4.	Of the seasonal and part-time employees taken on staff in the years 1965 to 1968 inclusive, what was the estimated period in each of those years that such employment was necessary on a per man basis and if the time period was less in 1968, what was the reason for the shortened period of employment?

March 24, 1969
Orders for Returns
5.	What method was used in 1968 for the selection of seasonal or part-time employees for the Post Office Department and did this method vary in any manner from previous year and, if so, in what manner?
6.	What was the estimated cost to the Post Office Department for seasonal or part-time employees for the month of December in each of the years 1965 to 1968 inclusive?
Return tabled.


DEFENCE PRODUCTION SUPPORT PROGRAMS
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of Defence Production provide subsidies and/or support programs for any segment of the economy, groups or individuals inside Canada and, if so, to what extent, in what amounts, and to whom are the amounts paid?
2.	What amounts have been paid for subsidies and/or support programs during each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?
Return tabled.


FRENCH SPEAKING INMATES IN B.C. PENITENTIARY
Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1.	For the 1st day of each month since January 1, 1963, how many inmates of the British Columbia Penitentiary were of French-Speaking origin?
2.	What category of offences were committed by such inmates and what number of inmates were in each such category?
Return tabled.


'SUB-POST OFFICES OPEN ON SATURDAY
Mr. Rynard: 1.	Are all cities of Canada being provided with sub-post offices which will remain open on Saturday?
2.	What is the basis for the location of a subpost office and what is the per capita basis?
3.	What is the rental charge for (a) individual postal lock boxes, and (b) commercial postal lock boxes?
Return tabled.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I make an appeal to you to assure the house that something will be done toward affording early answers to starred questions. That was the purpose and objective of starred questions. One of my questions is No. 1683. Seventeen days have now gone by and an answer to it has not yet been provided. The matter affects the Indian population of this country to a degree that few of us in this house realize, there having

been no consultation with the Indians on the course that is being followed.
Another of my questions concerns the drying of wheat. The farmers of western Canada are very anxious to know the situation with respect to the drying of wheat. On March 7 I asked the following question:
1.	How many bushels of wheat are estimated to have been dried since the 7th day of February in each of the Prairie Provinces?
2.	What is the estimate of damp wheat dried in the terminals (a) Pacific Coast (b) elsewhere, during the said period?
I point this out, Mr. Speaker, because starred questions were not supposed to be an excuse for the government to refuse to give answers.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak on the point of order to clarify the situation with regard to starred questions. As I understand it, in considering the questions the Table makes no effort to determine whether or not they can reasonably be answered within a period of three days. On that basis there can be no assurance that they can be answered in that period of time. In a particular case there may be a lack of precision or a breadth of scope such as to warrant it not being reasonably answered in three days. So the record should stand corrected, that there is no stipulation under the Standing Orders that starred questions must be answered in the period of three days or in any other period of time.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I say in answer that the excuse of the minister cannot apply to starred question No. 1683, part of which is as follows:
1.	Does the government propose to take over the complete management of all'Indian residences and hostels across Canada outside of the Northwest Territories?
2.	If so, were the Indian tribes or bands affected thereby consulted on this drastic move?
3.	Will the result be that henceforth Indian children in residence, whether Anglican or Roman Catholic, will be denied being in hostels of their parents' religious faith?
Those are the questions, and no excuse or evasion on the part of the hon. gentleman can be successful. If the Department of Indian Affairs does not know where it is going and is not able to furnish full information, parliament might as well close down.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In reply to starred question No. 1608 the parliamentary secretary
March 24, 1969

did not answer the second part of part 2 of the question which is as follows:
-where in Canada are they located and what are their individual functions?
The question refers to regional desks, and in his reply the parliamentary secretary did not specify the functions of these regional desks. I wonder whether it can be drawn to his attention that he might avail himself of the next opportunity to give the house this information. There have been many nasty stories to the effect that the regional desks have a political purpose.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, and ask him whether he will clarify the situation with regard to the negotiations between the government and the Public Service Alliance in the light of the charges made by the president of the alliance that the government is stalling, and in view of the threat by the unions to break off contract talks.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: I think I will take the question as notice and see what information I can have tomorrow.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister a question arising out of the statement made by Mr. Melvin Laird, the United States Defence Secretary, before the foreign relations committee of the United States Senate when he said the United States had an agreement with Canada regarding the deployment of the anti-ballistic missile system. I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister if such an agreement does exist between the United States and Canada and, if so, whether a copy of such an agreement or an outline of its main features will be tabled in the house.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister is now in Washington and will be talking with
Inquiries of the Ministry the President today I think it might be desirable to leave this question until he returns, on the understanding that subsequent to his return either he or the Secretary of State for External Affairs would be willing to make a statement which would clear up the several questions which have arisen and which, I believe, revolve largely around the use of words rather than substantive matters.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The Acting Prime Minister is a
member of the cabinet. Surely the Prime Minister is not the sole repository of all knowledge of what goes on in cabinet. I am asking whether there has been, as Mr. Laird said, any consultation regarding the deployment of the anti-ballistic missile system and, if such discussions have taken place, how the government reconciles this fact with the statements which were made in the house last Wednesday.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not think there is any conflict, really. There was discussion of the earlier system which had been planned by the United States; those discussions had gone back over a very long period of time. But to the best of my knowledge-and I should like to have this fully documented before a statement is made-there have been no discussions regarding the most recent change in the United States system, because it would not mean any substantive change as far as the effects on Canada are concerned. I think the hon. gentleman will appreciate that it would be better to make a full statement setting out all the relevant information he would like to have.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: While we will be glad to have a statement from the Prime Minister on his return, does the minister not agree that this whole question raised by Mr. Laird is an extremely important one? I want to ask the hon. gentleman whether he accepts Mr. Laird's position, namely that Canada has no power of veto over the location of these missile bases, or, as Senator Fulbright put it, that Canada can either like it or lump it. Does the Canadian	government	accept	this
position?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have some doubt as to whether the question as asked is in order. At the same time I recognize the importance of the matter, and will leave it at that.


John George Diefenbaker: In order to clarify this situation, if it

March 24, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry is at all possible, will the minister say whether the plan which was enunciated in advance by President Johnson was accepted by the Canadian government? If so, what is the difference between that plan and the present one put before Congress by President Nixon?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is for that very reason that I think it would be better, rather than deal with the question piecemeal, to have a statement prepared which will give the background of the discussions-those which took place at ministerial level and those which took place at the official level-with a definition of the words used, in such a way that they would satisfy the right hon. gentleman who, I know, is very concerned about the proper use of the English language.


John George Diefenbaker: It is not precision I am concerned with, Mr. Speaker; it is truth.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In this case precision is necessary in order that the truth may be known. Some words are used in different contexts by different people.


John George Diefenbaker: Give us the facts.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister prefers to wait before answering the question concerning the latest proposal by President Nixon, but can he say there was any agreement or any discussion between the United States government and the Canadian government concerning the earlier system proposed by President Johnson, specifically in connection with the location of A.B.M. sites to protect United States cities?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, there were indeed discussions, as indicated. I think the extent of those discussions and any inferences which can be drawn from them will become apparent in a statement that should be made in the house.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breion-Easi Richmond):: A supplementary question to the Minister of Public Works. Since he is making an attempt to get on the record, possibly he could make the statement regarding what Secretary Laird has to say.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: I would like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.

Could he tell the house whether a site has been chosen for the international airport?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, no final decision has been made, but I hope it will be soon and that an announcement will be made very shortly.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Transport replied in the negative to a question on the order paper asking whether a decision had been made. Since the decision was supposed to be announced by the end of January and we are almost at the end of March, could the minister tell us the reason for the delay?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I regret the delay very much. However, the reason for it is to make sure there is no possible chance that any information that should be considered in regard to the final decision is overlooked. I think anybody would agree that in a matter of this importance to the people of Montreal and the people of the province of Quebec, indeed to all the people of Canada, a matter involving, as it does, hundreds of millions of dollars, the decision should not be taken until all the considerations concerning air traffic safety, the effects on the people using the airport, the effects of noise and the effects on industrial development in the area, and so on, have been fully taken into account. It was for this reason that there was a few weeks delay.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
I thank the minister for the information he gave us. Does he know when approximately that decision will be made public; all Quebecers are most anxious to know that. Could he tell us when approximately the studies will be completed and when he will be able to make that decision public?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister indicated in the house a few days ago that he hoped the decision could be announced within a week or two. I share that hope, and up to this moment at least there is no reason to believe that the announcement will not be as indicated.
March 24. 1969



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairwealher@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs, or for the acting minister in charge, whoever it may be. Has the minister attempted to identify the anonymous diplomatic sources in Washington who have been busy over the past weekend, through the medium of the New York Times, spreading reports that China has ignored for some six weeks Canada's request to open talks on recognition?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge as to who these anonymous people might be.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General in order to follow up an answer on Thursday regarding the situation in Montreal and the difficulty of moving parcels. Is the minister able to report as a result of his discussions any improvement in this situation?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, at the present time another private contractor is pursuing discussions with the union in question and I am extremely hopeful that they will reach an agreement so that the services will continue in the hands of a private group. Because as hon. members know, the government will have to take a firm decision by the end of this week if these other arrangements are not reached.


MONTREAL-ABSORPTION OF ROD SERVICE EMPLOYEES
Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. On Thursday last the minister said the department were ready to absorb immediately Rod Service employees into the post office, including all but a maximum of 69 of the 110 to whom lay-off notices have been given. He went on to say that of the 424 employees, 27 are already on the staff and that another 254 have applied to join.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member please ask his question.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Louis-Roland Comeau: Will the minister say directly how many positions, in addition to the 27 now filled, are being made available to the 254 people who have applied to join the department?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, we have not made any additional positions available pending the outcome of negotiations with a new contractor and the union.


FINANCE
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the importance of protecting Canada's good name abroad what action is the minister considering to investigate the financial situation in British Columbia of Commonwealth Trust Company and its associated companies?


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, since the minister has to be away on important public business I will take that question as notice.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the parliamentary secretary to take as notice also a related question. Has this matter been discussed with the Premier of British Columbia?


L.S.D.-REQUEST THAT DISTRIBUTION BE PROHIBITED
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. He is not here but perhaps his parliamentary secretary might take it as notice. In view of reported suicide attempts in Edmonton and Calgary resulting from use of l.s.d. and in view of the fear that Edmonton is being used as a dumping ground for international illicit drug syndicates, will the minister place l.s.d. under an absolute restriction so far as the use of that drug by the general public is concerned?


Mr. Rosaire Gendron (Parliameniary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice and will bring it to the minister's attention.

March 24, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry


Steve Eugene Paproski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. What action is being taken to control this extremely dangerous substance in order to prevent further personality destruction among young Canadians?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the second question seems to be more general than the first one. In his supplementary question the hon. member really is asking for a general statement. Perhaps the minister may make this when he takes note of the hon. member's question.


NATIONAL PARKS
[Stage Direction]
GASPfi-PROJECT AT POINTE FORILLON
André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, I wish to ask his Parliamentary Secretary a question concerning the disagreement which apparently exists regarding the establishment of a federal park at Pointe Forillon in the Gaspe peninsula.
In view of the fact that the federal government and that of the province of Quebec seem to be at odds, would the Parliamentary secretary ask the minister to make a statement on the offers the federal government has made to the province of Quebec regarding the establishment of this park and the answers it received from the authorities of the province of Quebec?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the associate minister will be in the house tomorrow. Perhaps the hon. member could ask his question then.


AVAILABILITY OF BOX CARS
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is either for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce or the Minister of Agriculture. In their absence perhaps the Acting Prime Minister could take it as notice, because it is extremely urgent. Considering the fact that many delivery points on the prairies have still not received any shipping orders for grain, and that many points which have received shipping orders cannot obtain box cars for delivery, what plans has the government to deal with the resulting critical cash situation as farmers face another crop year?
[Mr. Gendron.l


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to refer this matter to the appropriate minister.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister of Transport do. something-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: My sentence does not
finish there, although there seems to be general approval. Would the minister do something to bring to the attention of the C.P.R. the serious lack of available cars, particularly in northern Saskatchewan. I believe this shortage applies also to other northern portions of Alberta and Manitoba served by C.P.R. lines. Nothing effective is being done. In a spirit of unification, could he bring about something approaching unity between the C.P.R. and the C.N.R. with respect to these box cars?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I have made representations once or twice already, and I know the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has made representations also. I will be glad to bring this latest advice to the attention of C.P.R. management and to encourage them to provide the best service possible. We are all concerned about the shortage of box cars for many purposes, and there will be discussions between all interested parties in order to see what can be done to alleviate the situation, not on a temporary basis only, but on a long term basis as well.


John George Diefenbaker: Bring back the box cars from the United States, to begin with.


Mr. Rod Thomson (Ballleford-Kindersley):: A supplementary question to the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister authorize his department to bring back some of our box cars from the United States? Generally they have more of our cars than we have of theirs.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, this seems to be part of the problem and it will be considered in the context of the total shortage.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Solicitor General. Since the R.C.M.P. attended recently at the trial in California of Mrs. Sicotte, and
March 24, 1969

since security considerations may have been involved, will the minister make a statement about the matter of security?


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker; we have not contemplated making any such statement. If there is any desire for it we could look at the matter and consider it.


POSSIBILITY OF STUDY BY SENATE COMMITTEE
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether, as has been reported publicly, the government is giving consideration to the appointment, following the Prime Minister's return from Washington, of a Senate committee to conduct a high level study of the problems and possible policies of the Canadian oil industry?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have not heard that particular suggestion, Mr. Speaker, but I know that, once the Prime Minister returns, there will be discussions on this important subject because it is of increasing concern to Canadian exporters.


TRANSPORT
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. What steps are being taken by his department or the transport commission to ascertain the possible effects on the people of Prince Edward Island of the possible 50 per cent increase in ferry rates for that province.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that the question as asked is of very wide scope and should be answered by way of a statement.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the importance of this matter to one of our ten provinces, is the minister prepared shortly to make a statement on the subject in the house?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I know of no such proposed increase for the people living on the island.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I refer, Mr. Speaker, to an earlier question I asked
Inquiries of the Ministry the Minister of Transport. In view of the recent misunderstanding that developed with the government of Prince Edward Island, which indicated that such a rate increase was being contemplated, could the minister take the appropriate steps to clear up this confusion with the government of Prince Edward Island?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I will be glad to take that suggestion into consideration.


HARBOURS
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Since there has been criticism of the National Harbours Board in the ports of Montreal and Saint John, has the minister early plans to implement the study on harbour administration which he laboriously read to us before Christmas?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I hope the parliamentary committee will soon be in a position to consider this very important subject. I hope that can be done before the end of the present session, so that any policy considerations which might follow from the committee's recommendations could be in hand during the course of this year.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. A short time ago C.B.C. television carried an interview with three young Indian people at Seehelt, British Columbia, all of whom claimed they had been beaten by R.C.M. Police during interrogation, even though no charges were laid against them. The senior officer of the R.C.M.P. in British Columbia promised that there would be a full investigation. Has that investigation been completed? Has the minister received a report and can he give the house any information about it?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I ought to explain that these criticisms were made by an hon. member in the provincial legislature in British Columbia. The Attorney General of that province ordered an investigation, because this has to do with the functions of the Royal Canadian

March 24, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry Mounted Police as the police force policing the province, under the direction of the Attorney General. That investigation is not yet completed, so perhaps I should not make further reference to it. I have been following the matter quite closely.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the Canadian government is responsible for the Indian people who are affected in that particular area, is it asking for any report from the R.C.M. Police? Will the minister be able to tell us what actually took place, when he receives this report?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The
minister could tell what he thinks has taken place in this whole matter. He thinks it would be improper, while the present investigation is being carried on by the Attorney General of the province, for him to superimpose another investigation on matters that may be cleared up by the first one. Therefore there will be no further action taken until the provincial Attorney General's investigation is completed.
At the time it will be analysed and a decision taken as to what further action, if any, should be taken.


HOUSING
Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compion):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
In order to give the priority to his development plan in the field of housing construction, could the minister tell the house if he anticipates the abolition of the 11 per cent tax on building materials and also an appropriate reduction of interest rates to give the necessary impetus to housing construction?


Mr. Speaker:: I submit to the hon. member that his question is of too general a nature and that it could easily be put on the order paper.


IMPLEMENTATION OF TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS
John Gilbert: My question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Would he inform the house whether prior to the Easter recess he will be bringing forward

legislation concerning the recommendations of the task force?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It will not be prior to the Easter recess, Mr. Speaker. I hope it will not be too long a period after the Easter recess.


HOUSING
André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago I asked the Minister of Transport after he had organized in this building a showing of slides with running comments in English only about the housing problem, if he intended to do the same thing in French. His reply at the time was that this was possible and that he would make the necessary arrangements. We have had no news since then, Mr. Speaker, and the French-speaking members would appreciate having this showing with running comments in their mother tongue.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, I suggest to the hon. member that he could perhaps obtain the information in a different way. I doubt that the question as asked is of national urgency, but if the minister wishes to answer, I have no objection.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This question is still under consideration. The presentation has been so well received in the places that it has been shown that serious consideration is being given to the possibility of preparing a French version.


ATTENDANCE OF MINISTERS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingaie):: I wish to ask the President of the Privy Council a question relating to the roster system. Will he give consideration to reviewing the system due to the fact that for today there are only 16 of 28 ministers on the roster, and only 7 are present? It is making it very very difficult for members to pursue business of an urgent nature.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: For the benefit of the hon. member and1 other hon. members, I would point out that in addition to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) and the
March 24, 1969

Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) are in Washington. I regret to say that my colleague, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen), is ill, as is the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro). As the hon. member probably knows, the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) is representing Canada in Paris and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) is participating in the first day of the agricultural conference.


John Howard Lundrigan: I hope my question has not been misinterpreted. I did not ask for an explanation of absenteeism. Rather, I asked for a revision in the roster system to clean up this mess.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I keep receiving letters from anxious veterans inquiring when the Woods Commission report will be implemented. Is the minister in a position to inform us as to when this legislation will be brought in?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: As I said before, Mr. Speaker, the government at the present time is preparing a white paper on this matter. Both the white paper and the Woods Committee report will be referred to the proper House committee later in this session.


AIRPORTS
John Howard Lundrigan: I have a question for the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister give consideration to reviewing restaurant facilities in a number of airports in Canada, due to the fact that curtailment of certain services has resulted in unfavourable publicity through international airline offices?


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


WINNIPEG-DESIGNATION AS INTERNATIONAL GATEWAY
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Transport. A few moments ago he indicated that within a couple of
2918C-444
Statute Law Amendment Act weeks there might be a statement regarding the new airport at Toronto. I wonder if he would indicate when there might be a statement designating Winnipeg as an international gateway for airline flight fares?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It was the Montreal international airport to which I referred a few minutes ago. I hope I will be able to say something further about Winnipeg, perhaps as soon as I can about the future airport for Toronto.


GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Stage Direction]
The house proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-178, to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Defence Services Pension Continuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Continuation Act and the Public Service Superannuation Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Stanley Howard Knowles: That Bill C-178, to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Defence Services Pension Continuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Continuation Act and the Public Service Superannuation Act, be amended by deleting therefrom clauses 19, 34 and 48.
He said: Mr. Speaker, we are now at the report stage of Bill C-178 which seeks to amend a number of statutes under which pensions are provided for various categories of employees of the federal government.
As I indicated when we were at second reading of this bill, the bill for the most part is good legislation. Most of the changes are improvements that will be for the benefit of persons covered by the various statutes. I also made it clear that there was a serious deficiency in the bill because it includes no provision for increasing the pensions of civil servants already retired and it also makes no provision for escalating after retirement the pensions of persons covered under the act.
March 24, 1969

Statute Law Amendment Act
Do you think- those dollars come out of a trust account, a bank account, or the Bank of Canada? No. They came off the figures on the book, but the dollars themselves come out of current revenues, the current funds of the government of Canada which come out of current production.
I contend that to the extent that we try to play up, dress up and fool around with these funds we are simply fooling the people of Canada. I quite agree that when I ask for higher pensions for those who are now retired, and when I ask for a provision for those now working that their pensions shall be escalated after their retirement, I am not relying on a fund. I am not arguing that this should be done because there are so many dollars in the fund because I know there is nothing there. But what I am doing is calling for a deliberate decision. I am calling for our society to say that just as people who are working deserve decent rates of wages and salaries, so people who are retired are entitled to a pension that will enable them to live in the circumstances that obtain during their years of retirement.
When- I ask that the pensions of those now retired be increased it is because I think we owe it to them as a matter of good faith, we owe it in recognition of what they have done in the past, we owe it because some of us believe that retired people have just as much right to keep up with rising standards as those who are working, and we believe that pensions should escalate in the same manner as wages and salaries escalate. But, Mr. Speaker, let us get to the reality of the situation, and let us not try to fool ourselves by a fund of this kind.
We do the same kind of thing with regard to old age security. We say to our people that they get their old age security payments out of a fund, and that so much money is put into a fund. Again it is an account, and there are taxes for it, 4 per cent, 3 per cent and 3 per cent. But if I were to get up in the House of Commons, as I have been tempted to do in the last few days, and point out that there is a credit balance in the old age security fund of $642 million, and since that money has been collected for old age security purposes it ought to be paid out in old age pensions, I would be told that the money is not in a special fund; it is just a bookkeeping proposition.
The reason that the people of Canada get old age security payments is that the government of Canada, the people of Canada and the economy of the nation are all behind the


guarantee to pay these pensions. That is what pensions payments are. They are guarantees that out of current production these payments will be made. I contend that what is going on here, this attempt to fiddle around with the accounting procedures, is a case of getting away from the realities of the pension situation. Indeed, it is a case of trying to fool our retired civil servants, just as we try to fool the people on old age security generally by telling them there is a fund when no fund exists at all.
I know that there are people on the other side of the house, even people in the cabinet, who share this view that the business of funding government pensions is unreal. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), when he was minister of finance, admitted to me at one time when we were d.scussing the old age security question that the fund itself was only so many figures in a book, that it might as well be done away with, and that we might as well recognize the fact that we are agreeing, as a society, what pensions we will pay to our retired people out of current production. That is what the Public Service Superannuation act is all about. It is an act under which in good faith the government of Canada says to its employees, "If you work for us for 10, 20, 30 or 35 years, and if you will take less than the full amount of your pay we will undertake in the name of Canada, in the name of our people, in the name of the resources we have, that after your retirement you will have a decent standard of living."
In the past we thought we were giving effect to that promise by providing a certain formula related to salaries and wages during a certain period of time. It was a ten year period, then five years, and now it is six years. But times have changed. We are in the age of explosions. Things are moving a lot faster than they used to, and people are living a lot longer. The rates of pensions applicable at age 60 or 65 are not good enough at 75, 80 or 85. Nowadays a good many people are living in retirement for periods of 15 years, 20 years or 25 years. In such a long period of time our economy changes. It changes so much that it is not good enough to have a formula that ties pensions to a rate fixed at the time of retirement. If we go along with this type of legislation, the kind of provision in these three clauses I am speaking against, tied to a particular fund or particular account, and say, "You cannot get more no matter how high a rate of interest we pay on the fund," we are just not keeping faith with
March 24, 1969	COMMONS
the people to whom we have said, "Work tor us and we will see to it that you will have a decent retirement."
That is why I think that these three clauses, 19, 34 and 48, should not be passed. Instead of fooling the people this way with these funds and this kind of accounting, we should put this thing on a realistic basis. We should say to our people, "There is no fund. No dollars have been set aside."
Today, just to refresh myself and to make sure of what I am saying, I picked up a copy of the public accounts for last year. I found that last year the amount of money that public service employees had deducted from their pay was greater than the amount that was paid out in the same year in pensions. There are some things to add on both sides. The payments out also included transfers to other funds and things of that sort. Payments in included government contributions, matching contributions, transfers from other pensions, funds and so on. But the fact is that in the total the government does not pay in any year 100 per cent of its wage bill, even when you add the pensions to the salaries being paid. This is the reality.
I want to convert this reality into a just system, even if I have to call for a just society. I want to convert this into a society where we say to the people who work for the federal government, "If you work for us in your working years we will see to it that in retirement you will have a pension that will enable you to live in those years of retirement in a manner commensurate with the standard of living in that period of time."
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
I want this, and I am sure the house knows it now, not just for our retired civil servants and those who come under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, and so on, but for those who work for Canadian National Railways, Canadian Pacific Railway and all our people. I want it for the old age security pensioner as well, that is, the provision for pensions in the period of retirement to escalate not just according to the cost of living but according to rising wages and salaries, in other words, according to the increase in productivity and the increase in the affluence of our society.
But we will not get it with this kind of dead-hand bookkeeping. We will not get it with this kind of fooling around with the books that seems to add interest in which
DEBATES	7011
Statute Law Amendment Act people think they have some rights because it is interest on their money. Then the government turns around and says that despite the additional interest these people should not look for any more money because it is going to pay less by way of special payments year by year. In the end the total will be precisely the same, and there is nothing in it for our retired people.
This is not the kind of legislation that we should be passing. I say again, as I said at the start and on second reading, that most of Bill C-178 is good. It provides improvements that will be for the benefit of employees of the federal government-those now working, at any rate. It does not provide anything for those already retired. It does not provide anything for those now working, because at the time of retirement they will be in the same box as those already retired.
To me this is an extremely important issue in our society and our economy, namely, what we do for our older people. We have not finished the job because we have an old age security pension, a guaranteed income supplement, a Public Service Superannuation Act and a whole host of pension schemes both public and private. We will not, in my view, finish the job until we have these pension schemes on a basis where after retirement people are able to keep up with the standard of living that improves during that period of time. Pensions have to escalate, not just according to the cost of living but according to increased productivity. This will not happen so long as you have the dead-hand kind of bookkeeping proposed in these three clauses. That is why I think the house should reject these three clauses and let the rest of the bill pass without them.
The only other comment I wish to make is that I hope this is the last time the government will bring before us a bill to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act and the acts related thereto without having in it something to provide for increased pensions for those already retired, and something to provide that those who are now working will when they retire be awarded pensions that will escalate during their period of retirement in keeping with increased wages and salaries, in keeping with the increased productivity and affluence of our society.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the house and apologize to the minister and hon. members for not being here when the debate started, but an urgent personal matter had taken me out of
March 24, 1969
7012	COMMONS
Statute Law Amendment Act the house just after two o'clock. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has used the term "dead-hand bookkeeping". He says this is at the source of the problem with the superannuation fund for public civil servants and the scale of their pensions. I do not think it is dead-hand bookkeeping that is causing the problem; I think it is a dead-hand principle behind the handling of the pension fund. It is not in the matter of bookkeeping; that is mere mechanics.
Over the years we have seen more and more of Canada's population come into the public service of this country. We have seen more and more people enter the armed services and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. If those people were out in what one could call non-public service, working for a corporation or individuals, they would have funded pension plans. The moneys available from the pension fund would be invested in economic productivity, in productive investment-in equities, preferred shares, any type of corporate financing plus, of course, government bonds in order to get the appropriate mix. There would also be money available for housing. Instead of that, all the money goes into the consolidated revenue fund and merely remains there for general government purposes. There is an appropriation, I suppose, to the superannuation fund but the money is not invested as such; it merely remains as a charge on the consolidated revenue fund.
That is why the hon. member is able to say there is this sort of dead-hand bookkeeping, because all it is is bookkeeping. I put it to the government that it would be far better if it introduced into the Public Service Superannuation Act orthodox funding principles whereby the money taken from people working in Canada, plus the contribution of the employer, would be invested in an appropriate plan of securities, provincial and federal, corporate equities and other debt instruments,
I suggest to the government this would eliminate the need for the theory put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that pension funds should be tied into some sort of formula that goes along with productivity. The hon. member's party would like it tied to the cost of living index. This is self-defeating. Tying pensions to the cost of living index on this basis is merely self-defeating; it generates more inflation and the net result is that every year we get up over the 2 per cent and add more to pensions. I suggest that is merely generating more inflationary pressure.


On the other hand, I would put forward the suggestion, and I think it is sound economics, that government pension plans, not only that of the federal but those of the provincial governments, should be invested in the productivity of Canada. Thereby these pension funds would reflect the increase in the value of equities, debt instruments and increasing profits due to increases in productivity. This is precisely what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has been asking for. Then pensions could be adjusted if need be. In other words, our pensioners would have part of the action.
This is what we now get from mortgage companies who want "a piece of the action" because they want to share in the increase in productivity, in the increase in value. Why should our pensioners not have the same advantage? They have made their pension fund contributions, which is a forced method of saving, the employer has matched them, and the money should then be put to work. Why should not the employee, the pensioner, get the benefit of the profits that have been earned through the pension fund? I am sure that in this way we would have a much greater source of funds and the government would have a much better pension scheme. The government should set an example in this regard. We would do away with calls for Canada development corporations and all sorts of dubious proposals because we would have a very large pension fund administered properly by trustees on behalf of employees who have a real interest in the fund. At the present time they have no say with regard to the fund. Whether or not they shall be paid an increase is entirely up to the government.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
I agree with my friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), in the same way as I agreed with my former colleague from Carleton, the Hon. Richard Bell, who times without number advanced the proposal that something must be done to reduce the disparity between the level of pensions of former public servants and that of those who are now entering their pension life. The gap in pension levels is far too wide, as there are great disparities in salary levels. One has only to go through the whole scale of salaries in the public service as against those in industry to see that there are horrible gaps and disparities. But the most glaring one is the result of a comparison between a public servant who retired 10 or 12 years ago and one who retires now.
March 24, 1969

If I recall correctly, the last time any change was made was in 1958 or 1959 when the then minister of finance upgraded minimum pensions of those who had retired prior to 1953. The formula was complicated but the measure was only a palliative and did not go far enough. In 1958 and 1959, however, there were other problems of financing, and this was something that came out of the consolidated revenue fund. Hon. members must remember that a pension that is once effected must remain that way; it can never be downgraded.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But
those pensioners are dying off.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, but the present administration has taken on almost 75,000 new employees since 1963. I admit there was an increase in the years prior to that, but not to the same extent. The public service has grown fantastically large. It is my belief that the functions of the government have expanded too much; it always seems that we have to build on another layer as we go along. It seems to me that far more could be gained for the country by concentrating more persons in productive occupations rather than removing thousands upon thousands more persons from the working force and concentrating them in the public service. This applies not only to the federal government but to the provincial and municipal levels. The funds are being removed, with minor exceptions, because I believe many of the municipal pension funds will be invested in corporate securities and so forth. But certainly I would like to see the superannuation fund invested in the way I outlined earlier.
I cannot agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that these clauses should be deleted, and it is with great reluctance that I have come to this conclusion, because I believe that it is only by increasing the pension fund through this additional interest-


Stanley Howard Knowles: It
does not increase it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It provides a camouflage for an increase.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
total will be the same after the operation is over-more of "x" and less of "y".


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That may be. I suggest there is more of an appearance of an increase, and therefore this may give us
Statute Law Amendment Act the possibility of arguing that the government will have to take some action with regard to retired public servants. I do not know how we are going to dynamite or galvanize them into action. Certainly this government cannot be galvanized, but it may be dynamited or blasted into action on this problem. It is a national scandal, for instance, in the case of the pensions of former N.C.O.'s in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. In this day and age, if one can use a current term, they do not even get beer money, not that they want money for beer. Gracious me, in the last few years I have spoken to corporals who gave good service, men whom I knew when I was much younger, who today draw a mere $68 a month in superannuation pension. It is almost cruel to give them such a pension. It would be kinder if we told them we would not give them anything because in my opinion $68 a month under present circumstances is contemptuous of them as well.
I will limit myself to those few brief remarks at this point. At third reading I will want to say something about the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, but since there is no amendment with regard to that act I will limit myself to the remarks I have made at this stage.


Mr. Drury:: There is an amendment.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But no
amendment at this stage, which is the report stage. I will have something to say about it on third reading.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, in introducing this amendment the mover said that he thought he was bringing the argument one step further toward reality. I regret I cannot subscribe to this point of view after listening to the debate. As nearly as I can understand it, the mover of the amendment believes that this fund is a publicly supported one and he does not distinguish it from the old age security fund or the type of fund which we set up for the Canada Pension Plan.
The second speaker took a totally different point of view. He suggested a totally funded approach in line with conventional methods and with all the requirements of the actuaries. He even went as far as to say that a similar approach should be taken with municipal and provincial funds and that out of the earnings of a fully developed type of plan additional pensions could be paid.
I think it is most unfortunate that this debate has taken place because I believe it is
March 24, 1969

Statute Law Amendment Act
totally beside the point. As far as I can determine the purpose of the amendment is to strike out the provisions by which the government is attempting to bring the interest rates that are to be paid, in line with current interest rates. At the same time the government is calling attention to the fact that, as the result of the revisions of pay that have taken place, around $200 million a year in respect of arrears to compensate for these pay adjustments is being paid in the current fiscal year. If one were to increase the fund's interest yield by something like 3 per cent, no more than $100 million would be gained by way of additional interest. In my opinion the government is trying to do certain things to introduce a measure of reality into what has become a most unfortunate discussion.
I have supported the principle of increasing the pensions of superannuated civil servants as consistently and as forcibly as any member in the period that I have been in this house. But I do take violent exception to a debate which leads to a grave misconception on the part of pensioners. A debate took place in the house on second reading on March 14. Subsequent to that debate I have received a substantial volume of mail because I took part in it and I said I was in favour of increasing pensions, as did a number of other hon. members. The kind of letters we are getting will increase in frequency as a result of this debate. Many old age pensioners, after listening to what I consider to be arguments that are completely beside the point, have come to the conclusion that the government has stolen the fund and that there is something grossly irregular about it. They suspect irregular management and they think the Auditor General should be called in. They are giving a totally erroneous interpretation to what has taken place.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I said before and I repeat that the case for the adjustment of pensions is a moral case. I believe the government of Canada should set an example in respect of those who have worked for it and are now in retirement, and do the things we would like other good employers to do. But I have to adopt some consistency about this approach. A private employer who sets up a pension plan in this country is required by law in most of the provinces, certainly in the larger ones-in some provinces the jurisdiction is not as tight as it should be, nor is the supervision as effective as it should be-to make certain provisions to guarantee the solvency of the

fund. He must protect as far as possible those who have claims on it.
In my opinion the government, in its capacity as employer, should set a model, and I expect that role to apply not only in connection with pensions but in connection with general levels of remuneration, the standards applied to collective bargaining and a broad range of legislative policy. What we do in respect of those who work for us should be a model upon the basis of which we are able to say to other employers in Canada: Please follow this example.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I deplore this debate. I
deplore the very fact it has had to take place, because I know I shall get another wave of letters. I shall put one or two of them on record in Hansard if I may-those portions which are printable; some parts of them may not be written in parliamentary language and, if so, I might be called to account. I quote from a letter dated March 18 which I received signed by E. P. Gray:
Lloyd Francis:
On an Open Line show over CKOY a lady civil servant superannuate read tor the benefit of listeners correspondence between the lady and you concerning the cold-blooded manner in which the Liberal government is handling the requests for an increase in their pensions from their own money.
And, Mr. Speaker, "their own" is underlined.
I knew you were a revolting, thieving, shifty-bastard, Francis, and am pleased that now a great many more are aware of your sickening character.
After that, Mr. Speaker, it really gets abusive.
That is not the only letter to which I shall refer, Mr. Speaker. Another one, dated March 16, said: "This money belongs to us superannuates; what has the government done with it?" The kind of thing which is being said is somehow being spread from sources which should know better. Someone is deliberately giving misinformation to a broad range of retired superannuates concerning the management of the fund.
I fail to see what anyone could gain by prolonging a debate of this nature. I fail to see what the mover of the motion hopes to gain by striking out this provision to bring interest rates up to current standards of interest rates. We are saying to the employers of this country: this is what we want you to do as employers, but it is totally different for us because we have a public fund and we can
March 24, 1969	COMMONS
do things as we wish; it does not matter whether or not we pay the current interest rate, though you, as private employers, must do all these things. For this reason I cannot support the amendment. I do not see what useful purpose is being served.
I personally believe that the government has a moral obligation, one to which I hope it will respond at the earliest possible date, to raise the pensions of its retired employees. This argument is lost if one tries to become an amateur actuary, if one tries to say: this year the fund paid out so much and took in so much. No person can pass judgment on the state of such a fund by looking at income and expenditure in a one-year period or a two-year period or a three-year period. The fund can only be appraised by those who know the extent of the claims made upon it, or likely to be made upon it, and of the resources available to meet them. We should not try to set ourselves up as experts of that kind, because we are not. We are not actuaries. We are not competent to pass judgment on the extent of the solvency of the fund. In my opinion it serves no useful purpose for us to say: this is what a private employer must do, but the government can violate all the rules and everything is O.K. This, I cannot accept, and for this reason I shall vote against the amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Gladly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In
view of the hon. member's desire that we keep things as straight as we can, may I ask him this question? Does he think it is fair to describe clauses 19, 34 and 48, as I believe he does, as providing for an increased rate of interest to be paid to the fund without at the same time pointing out that the same clauses provide for a reduction in the other amounts added to the fund, so that in the end there is no difference, no extra money at all?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I pointed out that in the present year $200 million had been contributed by the government of Canada in respect of arrears because of salary increases. I also pointed out that an increase of 3 per cent on current interest payments to the fund, which is approximately of the order of magnitude required to take account of current rates, would yield only half that sum-about $100 million. I further pointed out-and I certainly have no desire to conceal it-that all the government was trying to do was to tidy up its 29180-445
DEBATES	7015
Statute Law Amendment Act operation a little. But this is simply making it clear for all to see that even if interest is brought up to full current rates the government of Canada would still have to contribute a substantial amount to keep the fund within the kind of rules we expect every good employer to follow.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it
not a case of more "x" and less "y" but the same total in the end?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: If the hon. member feels he is serving any useful purpose by pursuing this kind of argument, leading to a long debate on funding, that is on his conscience. I know that some people are misinterpreting this kind of approach.


Mr.   J.-T. Richard@Ottawa East: I spoke on the second reading stage of this bill, Mr. Speaker. Now we are on the report stage and I wish to add a few words.
I do not think the situation in which we find ourselves is very fortunate. Today, while we are talking about superannuation, we are still working on old principles. The contents of this bill are good, as was mentioned a few minutes ago, for civil servants who are still working, but they mean nothing to those who have retired and little to those who will retire in the future because they will ultimately be in the same position as public servants whc retired some years ago.
I must differ from my hon. friend, the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis), in at least one respect. He says the obligation we have to retired public servants is a moral one. In my opinion it is not a moral one; it is a matter of justice and equity. It is up to the government to decide that what was done in the past was not necessarily best.
I can speak clearly and openly on this issue. I was chairman of the committee which recommended amendments to the superannuation legislation and considered the plight of retired public servants. We thoroughly considered the questions of funding, the payment of higher interest credits to the fund, and so on. I am not an accountant nor an economist and perhaps this is why I am more interested in the welfare and well-being of the people who are actually involved in this question today.
I am still bothered by the thought that far too many former civil servants have no way of getting an income that is in any way reasonable except through an increase in their pensions. In my opinion the means employed to bring this about are secondary. I am not
7016	COMMONS
Statute Law Amendment Act interested in whether this fund is being operated in a manner similar to that in which other funds are legally operating at the present time. I am interested, rather, in what the government intends to do to make it possible for those who have retired on pensions now shown to be inadequate to receive suitable increases. We have been talking about a guaranteed income in the future to provide people with enough to live on properly. Surely if we start by doing something for our retired public servants we will at least have closed the gap to some extent and we will not have to look after these people under some other scheme.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Surely this fund should be credited with a rate of interest that is more up to date. The old rate of 4 per cent is certainly an antique. It reminds that other money is being lent at a low rate of interest to the provinces through the Canada Pension Plan. Perhaps this money should also have been invested in some other way. There is no reason why money which will later be credited to pensions for the people of Canada should receive a lower rate of interest than the current rate simply because it is used to finance the municipalities and provinces of this country. However, that is another matter.
I just wanted to say that I have nothing particularly against the provisions of this bill because I do not think anyone will be harmed. I should have liked to see some provision made for higher interest rates for funds that are used for a definite purpose at the present time. In the same way that many funds of corporations are now making provision for raising the pensions of their retired employees, in a very few years we shall have to change the method we use to provide for pensions of public servants. I am sure this will be done fairly soon when some of the people who have been blocking progress in this regard have retired.


Mr. Ray Perrauli (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few brief comments on this bill. There is no doubt whatever that many retired members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, retired civil servants and former members of our armed forces are among the main victims of inflation. Many of these people live in my constituency and elsewhere in British Columbia. We are supposed to enjoy a fairly good measure of affluence in the province of British Columbia, yet 25 per cent of the people of that prosperous province

DEBATES	March 24. 1969
live on less than $3,000 a year. These include famihes. Among the people living under difficult circumstances are many in the category to which this amendment is addressed.
Together with other members of the house I support increases for the superannuates in the categories referred to. However, apart from the consideration of amendments of this kind, I think provision should be made for an escalation device as a hedge against the future erosion of superannuates' purchasing power. Surely we should be working toward achieving price stability in this country for all people, superannuates and others.
At the same time, we should have special regard for former employees of the public service. We should be the first in this country to make sure that they are indemnified in terms of their purchasing power and not merely in terms of the face value of the dollar bills they receive by way of pension. When former members of the R.C.M.P. and the public service retire, surely they have earned the right to live with dignity.
I have in my hand a copy of a letter I received from a former R.C.M.P. sergeant who is living in my constituency of Burnaby-Seymour. He says in part:
We have made a canvas among a good number of our senior members who served full time in the service of their country and who are receiving pensions that hardly look after their rent. Some of them are in destitute circumstances. The last increase in R.C.M.P. pensions was in 1959. There are a number of us who are gainfully employed and who do not have to fully depend on a pension (thank God). I had 24 years of service, being pensioned in 1956 as a sergeant. My pension is approximately $2,700 per annum. My salary when pensioned was $4,980 per annum, whereas a sergeant today receives $9,074 and if leaving on pension at 24 years under Part Three of the R.C.M.P. Act, would receive approximately $425 per month in comparison to my pension of approximately $225, so you can see that in 12 years the pension has been almost doubled, and this has been brought on by the cost of living index rising every year with the resultant raises in salaries. The pensioners' income should rise along with the raises in pay and cost of living index, but they remain stagnant.
I agree with what this retired R.C.M.P. sergeant has to say. We have to set an example in this country by proving that those who establish a career with the government, whether they be members of the R.C.M.P., civil servants or members of the armed forces, enjoy fair treatment on the part of the federal government and are given the right to live with dignity. We owe it to these people to make sure that they are able to enjoy a reasonable degree of security in today's inflationary environment. We have to think not
March 24, 1969

only in terms of helping those who are former members of the R.C.M.P. and the civil service but also those who have fought the good fight in the past, have served loyally and faithfully and today are among the chief victims of inflation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That Bill C-178, to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Defence Services Pension Continuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Continuation Act and the Public Service Superannuation Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs on Wednesday, March 19, 1969, be concurred in.
Motion (for concurrence) agreed to.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a few words) to say about the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act. I
March 24, 1969

Statute Law Amendment Act should like to draw the attention of the house to some things which have been happening in respect of the Canadian forces. This matter has been raised on a number of occasions by members on this side of the house and I know that a great number of members on the government side have also become aware of it. The Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the interpretation thereof is, frankly, being used as a blackjack to keep men in the armed services. It is also being used to exercise discriminatory ways of handling men who decide they wish to withdraw from the services for different reasons. I am aware of many cases concerning particularly men in the non-officer category. What happens sometimes is that the serviceman applies to get out of the service because he does not like it. Frankly, this may still be the result of unification. They have very much in mind the words of the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) when he was minister of national defence, that no man would be penalized as a result of his written request to get out.
I say that never was anything so false said or words so turned around, because scores and scores of cases have now come to my attention, and I know my colleagues have many other cases, in respect of which the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act has been used deliberately to keep men within the services. We know now that the morale among the members of the armed services has admittedly been bad and is worse. There are great gaps at the various levels within the services.
I have a particular case which I drew to the attention of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) who is looking into it. There are cases involving two men who worked alongside one another. One man states that he wants to get out; he does not want to re-engage. He is a long-service man who has had 22 years and 132 days' service. He was subjected to a penalty of 10 per cent. He had to pay back a portion of his re-enlistment bonus of $600. Since he left the service he met his former pal who had worked at the same place. This man had refused a transfer to another base. He was near the end of his engagement. It was decided to release him under some other provision. He was not penalized the 10 per cent nor did he have to repay his enlistment bonus or a portion thereof. Why the different treatment? There are numerous cases of this kind.
I have spoken to the Minister of National Defence, and all the while he exhibits the

best of good will in cases of this kind and I know he is embarrassed by the situation. I wish to point out clearly to his senior military advisers that what they have been doing in these cases represents a breach of faith with the men and officers of the armed services as a result of unification. There have been far too many complaints and, shall we say, far too many instances of discrimination. Sometimes a man commits a minor offence which is just short of serious trouble and he is discharged for the good of the service. Often the person involved does not want to re-engage; he wants out. This man is simply told that he is being discharged. These men are happy to get out in any event regardless of the nature of the discharge.
It seems also that there have been some very friendly arrangements in respect of some discharges concerning whether or not the re-enlistment bonus should be returned. It is like the case of the old golden bowler. There was dishonesty with regard to some men who applied for this retirement bonus. Yet everything was done on an alleged up and up basis.
That is all I intend to say on this matter, but I wish it clearly understood that I know of scores and scores of cases of discrimination in discharges. The minister himself cannot look into all of these individual cases, but I suggest he should really step down hard on a number of types of cases. I do not know how he will manage this-I am not in the armed services-but this situation must be remedied. In many cases those who are affected are corporals and sergeants, the men who have considerable service. These are the persons who have been the experienced backbone of the services and have from 10 to 20 years service. Sometimes these people find that a person serving with them is given preferential treatment. If anything will hurt morale in the services this is it.
I say with all seriousness that I have a great admiration for the Canadian Armed Forces and a great love for them. What has been done is a matter of record. I grieve for these people. Finally, on the basis of an ex gratia payment an error is admitted and things are corrected. This is all I have to say on this occasion but I hope we will see some amelioration in the handling of superannuation.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I did not take part in the debate on second reading and my remarks
March 24, 1989	COMMONS
now will be short but I hope they will be to the point. I am concerned about this legislation in so far as it affects retired public servants, retired members of the R.C.M..P and retired members of the armed forces, but I particularly wish to deal with the question of the superannuated public servants.
I cannot forget the fact that in reply to questions placed on the order paper by my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre last December, information was received to the effect that 7,201 public servants were receiving pensions of less than $60 a month. That means that one-fifth of all the retired public servants are being asked to exist on less than $60 a month. In addition, some 8,000 widows of retired public servants receive less than $60 a month. That means that half of the widows of deceased public servants receive less than $60 a month.
We are dealing here with human beings and not just figures in a book. With today's prices no one can live on $60 a month. These people are not retired, they are rejected, they are neglected, they are thrown on the scrap heap, they are despised by the government that deals with them.
In May, 1967, a joint committee of the House and Senate made a unanimous recommendation that the pensions of these three groups of people should be raised. Whenever the question has been raised in the house since that time we have been given the runaround. We have been told that the matter is under consideration. We have been told it is being looked at. We have been told to wait until this report or that finding is brought in. And all the time these people are expected to exist on $60 a month; all the time the cost of living has been escalating. Last year alone it went up by 4 per cent.
In my view this is a gross betrayal of people who have given the best years of their service to their country. I do not think this betrayal should be obscured by the kind of talk we have had this afternoon. These are not just bookkeeping entries. The cost of living has gone up and these pensions should contain an escalator clause.
It is all very well for members on the government side to applaud these retired public servants. I noted one member from my own province whose heart fairly dripped blood and whose eyes were washed with tears at the plight of our retired public servants. Yet he got up and voted for this legislation under which the government will pay a higher rate of interest on superannuation fund accounts,
DEBATES	7019
Statute Law Amendment Act but none of this extra money is to be used to pay higher pensions. What kind of honesty and integrity can people expect with that sort of thing?
This legislation provides for the payment by the government of higher rates of interest on superannuation funds for retired public servants, retired members of the R.C.M.P. and of the armed forces, but it also provides that no extra money will be paid in pensions. This is simply showing contempt for the people in these three categories who have worked for this country. I feel it is a great tragedy that the amendment moved by my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre has been defeated.
Once again we shall have letters flowing on to our desks from people who desperately watch the cost of living rise and try to live on pensions of $60 a month or less. A great many of these pensions are only $20 a month. This is an impossible injustice. I feel sure the people of this country will not remain quiescent when they realize what the government has done today. Its action is definitely giving the no to the unanimous recommendation two years ago of the Senate and House of Commons joint committee. It is giving a definite no to the people who had hoped that recognition would be given to the principle that retirement allowances should keep up with the cost of living. These people have asked for bread; they have been given the stone of neglect and complete rejection.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, once more I want to share in the battle on behalf of those superannuates in the three categories mentioned in this legislation. I was a member of the joint committee of the House and Senate referred to by the previous speaker. We presented a unanimous recommendation, and we have been waiting for a long time for action upon it.
Every weekend without fail I have had a call from at least one person, and sometimes more than one, asking when we are going to do something for these older people who retired some years ago. For some six months or so I have answered that I thought the government had many problems to wrestle with, but I was sure its instincts lay in the direction of doing something for these people. I can no longer justify the government's abysmal neglect, and if I get more such calls I will give the most political of answers, that the only possible solution is to throw out the present gang on the treasury benches and
March 24, 1969


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few words to say before we give third reading to this bill. First, may I say that all the pleas by government members that they are just as sympathetic to the cause of retired civil servants as we on this side are, all the arguments about people not understanding the intricacies of pension funding versus non-funding, and all the complaints about a debate of this kind producing too many letters for some hon. members to deal with, do not set aside the fundamental fact that it is almost two years since a joint committee of both houses recommended action on behalf of retired civil servants, and nothing has been done. This is to the discredit of parliament and of the government for not providing an opportunity for dealing with this important measure.
I fully understand how the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Richard) feels about this matter for he was the Commons chairman of the joint committee. He did a good job and all of us who were on that committee feel that faith was not kept. We feel that we had a right to believe that the recommendations we made would be acted upon, and for the government, now nearly two years later, to be amending these various superannuation acts without providing the increases that were
7022	COMMONS DEBATES	March 24, 1969
Statute Law Amendment Act
recommended and in fact promised, is a crying shame.
So far as this bill is concerned, as has been said on several occasions, we believe there are a number of good things in it. I think particularly of provisions for widows who will have their pensions reinstated if a second marriage results in a divorce. I think of the provisions for children who stay in school or at university to have their pensions continued until age 25. I also think of certain adjustments that have been made between these plans and the Canada Pension Plan or the Quebec Pension Plan. All these things are good, and that is why we are prepared to vote for this legislation.
I still regret that by virtue of a vote taken earlier this afternoon the bill contains clauses which provide for the government to pay a higher rate of interest on the money in the funds but on the strict understanding that none of that additional money is to be used to pay higher pensions to those who are now retired. I think that is a trick that is unworthy of the government. However, even with that in it the bill has other measures that are good, and therefore we feel it should receive the support of the house. But I plead as earnestly as I can that the next time the government brings in a bill to amend these various superannuation acts it deal with the matters that we have been talking about.
I give the government three things to do. First, I propose that the government provide for an increase in the pensions of those who are now retired. Second, I propose that it build into the act an automatic clause that will escalate after retirement-and here I am referring to those who are now working-the pensions of retired civil servants and I propose that that escalation be in line with increases in wages and salaries. Third, I propose that the government change the rate of the widow's pension. Leaving it at only 50 per cent of the late husband's pension is quite unfair, particularly when in our own Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act the rate for a widow's pension is 60 per cent. As a matter of fact, I think the rate for widows of civil servants should be higher than that; I would say 75 per cent.
I hope there will be another bill amending the Public Service Superannuation Act soon- I hope it wiR come this session. Let it do the three things I mentioned: raise the pensions of those now retired, build in an automatic escalation clause, and increase the rate of pensions paid to widows.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could announce a change in the order of business which has been agreed to by all sides. The maritime freight rates bill be not proceeded with now. I believe there is agreement to proceeding with government order No. 56, the report stage of Bill C-172, to amend the Financial Administration Act, and also a further understanding that this evening we will deal with government order No. 57, the government reorganization bill, in the hope of finishing it this evening.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-172, to amend the Financial Administration Act, as reported (with an amendment) from the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That Bill C-172, an act to amend the Financial Administration Act, be amended by deleting from clause 7 at line 4, page 5, the words "five thousand" and substituting therefor the words "one thousand".
He said: Mr. Speaker, at the present time section 23 of the Financial Administration Act reads as follows, and I think I should put the whole section on record:
23 (1) The Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Treasury Board, may, if he considers it in the public interest, delete from the accounts, in whole or in part, any obligation or debt due to Her Majesty or any claim by Her Majesty that does not exceed one thousand dollars.
(la) The Treasury Board may make regulations authorizing the deletion from the accounts of any obligation or debt due to Her Majesty or any claim by Her Majesty that does not exceed one hundred dollars.
(2) The obligations, debts and claims deleted from the public accounts under this section during any year shall be reported in the public accounts for that year.
March 24, 1969

The proposed amendment in Bill C-172 raises the regulatory right of the Treasury Board up to $5,000. It is my impression that at the present time-the minister may correct me if I am wrong-anything over $1,000 must be handled in a different way. In which way I am not sure at the moment except that it must be covered by an item in the estimates, particularly if it deals with taxes for which an assessment has been made or with a customs entry which has been made and has been incorporated into the revenue and there are figures on one side of the consolidated revenue accounts ledger which must be taken care of if it is then written off.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
My hon. friend from Wellington has proposed that notwithstanding the effects of inflation, and some so-called desire for administrative convenience, the ceiling remains at $1,000. The government wants to make it $5,000, and that is the difference between us.
Nothing is said about claims which do not exceed $100. The bill is lumping the two classes together, and frankly I do not see the purpose of doing so. Publication will, of course, continue to be made in the public accounts but I suggest parliament should have still greater control. I do not like this idea that the Treasury Board itself should have power to act. This is why we are proposing the amendment. If hon. members would like to refer to the evidence given before the committee I would draw their attention to the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence Nos. 10 and 11 and 12 where they may find a record of the discussion which took place. Having said this, I move that the amendment be accepted by the house. It does not involve a question of principle; it is a question of the amount. We would like to maintain the status quo as to the ceiling of the amount that can be written off under the act.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the amendment, please say aye.


Some hon. Members:: Aye.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those against the amendment, please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On division.

Financial Administration Act


Cyril Lloyd Francis: ;
That Bill C-172, an act to amend the Financial Administration Act be amended by deleting from clause 13 thereof, section 35, as amended in the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates and substituting therefor the following section:
"35. The balance of an appropriation granted for a fiscal year that remains unexpended at the end of the fiscal year shall lapse, except that during the thirty days immediately following the end of the fiscal year a payment may be made under the appropriation for the purpose of discharging a debt payable for work performed, goods received or services rendered prior to the end of the fiscal year or payable under any other contractual arrangement prior to the end of that year, and such payment may be charged in the accounts for the fiscal year."


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might say a word about this amendment. The current language of the act, which is set forth on page 9 of the bill, does not, unfortunately, provide for payments contracted for prior to the end of the fiscal year in respect of which there may have been no work performed, goods received or services rendered. The case cited before the committee was that of an author commissioned to write a book or an artist commissioned to paint or reproduce a work of art. It is the practice of the trade, if I may call it so, for a payment to be made on the signing of such a contract even though no work may have been done or no service rendered.
In order to cover this kind of eventuality it was proposed to amend the section so that it would read "for the purpose of discharging a debt that became due prior to the end of the fiscal year". In committee there was some opinion that the relationship of the debt to services should be made a little more explicit, as a consequence of which the amendment now proposed by my hon. friend was introduced. It has the effect of elaborating on the words "a debt that became due".
The section now refers to a debt "payable for work performed, goods received or services rendered prior to the end of the fiscal year", to which the following words are now added: "or payable under any other contractual arrangement prior to the end of that year". This covers the additional circumstances I have mentioned, to reflect current methods of doing business. I commend the amendment to the house.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the minister has correctly stated
March 24, 1969
7024	COMMONS DEBATES
Proceedings on Adjournment Motions that the government has accepted a restoration of all the words which existed in the previous section together with an addition. I think the minister made a case for the addition; the wording of the act did not cover the situation he described adequately.
I wish the minister had answered my question in the context of the proposals I put forward earlier and had explained why the government insisted on retaining the ceiling of $5,000, instead of putting the matter immediately to a vote. But we may be able to discuss this matter further on third reading. We on this side are in agreement with the amendment now put forward.
Amendment (Mr. Francis, for Mr. Leblanc, Laurier) agreed to.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That Bill C-172, An Act to amend the Financial Administration Act as reported (with an amendment) from the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates on Monday, March 17, 1969, be concurred in.
Motion (for concurrence) agreed to.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: that the bill be read the third time and passed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
fTranslation]



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Pursuant to standing order 40, it is my duty to inform the house that the following question will be raised tonight at the time of adjournment: the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Le-Blanc)-National Parks-Gaspe-Project at Pointe Forillon.

It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills.



NOTICES OF MOTIONS


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darlmouih-Halifax Easi) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of taking immediate steps in consultation with the proper provincial authorities to bring to a conclusion within the next twelve months, the feasibility study of Minas Basin tidal power and on the basis of the study make a decision to proceed, or otherwise, within six months of receiving the study.
He said: Mr. Speaker, my remarks on this subject could be very extensive or they could be brief. I intend to make them brief and to content myself with some four or five observations in connection with the study which is currently going on. I intend to relate my remarks to the development of the study which has taken place since the placing of this notice of motion on the order paper some six months ago, but before doing so I express the hope that the decision to provide more money for the study is a good omen for the province, bearing in mind the economic advantage which would flow from the development referred to in the motion.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
The background to this on-going study which will culminate in June with a report to the government can very briefly be summed up in this way. In August, 1966, the federal authority and the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick agreed to launch what became known as feasibility studies by the Atlantic tidal power programming board. The programming board was made responsible for studying not only the physical but also the economic potential of the development of electric power from the massive tides in the Bay of Fundy and adjoining areas. Implicit also in the terms of reference of the committee was the very difficult and continuing task of studying and determining whether or not it would be feasible, assuming from an engineering point of view that it was, to transmit massive amounts of power to a ready and willing market.
These studies and their economic and physical or mechanical aspects have preoccupied the committee for some three years now. Indeed, so intensive did its work become that last year the board had to come back to its joint authority and seek additional
March 24, 1969

funds. At that time about $1 million was requested, and it is in the fact it was granted that I find the first glimmer of hope. There was no hesitation whatever on the part of the federal government or the provinces willingly to underwrite the additional amount of money required to complete the studies.
When these studies are completed-I think this must be understood by hon. members-it will be recommended to the three governments concerned that detailed studies should either be made or not made with a view to proceeding or not proceeding with such development. Indeed, in the terms of reference set down for the board was a very explicit and clear direction that the board should in its report include not only the details but the cost of additional studies. I assume those studies would relate to preliminary engineering work-ups, information about where the massive amounts of money required to finance this development could be found and at what cost. Perhaps because I am an optimist and believe that the report will be a positive one in all aspects, with the possible exception of that part of the report that deals with the cost of the money required, I hope that the three governments involved, but principally the senior government in Ottawa, will not in any way hesitate to extend these studies so that the question may be gone into in more depth, if only to determine at what stage this development could be proceeded with.
As I say, I believe the report will be a positive one. I do not think anybody questions the massive amount of electrical energy potentially contained in the tides of the Minas Basin, the Annapolis Basin and St. Mary's Basin, which were also included in these studies, as was Chignecto Bay. I think the report will indicate that it is possible from an engineering point of view to proceed, that the tidal regime itself is compatible with harnessing, that sedimentation-control over deposits on the floor of these basins

will not pose any real problem, that the massive amount of potential energy in the tides can be harnessed and transmitted economically, that there will be no detrimental effect on the fisheries or on transportation, for example, in these three specific areas and that the chief concern will be with regard to the cost of the capital required. If the report that is brought down is favourable in the directions I have indicated, I hope the government will not hesitate to authorize on-going studies to determine where the money required can be borrowed, at what cost, and to what extent the federal authority
Suggested Study of Minas Basin Tidal Power may, if the cost of the money is too expensive, subsidize such cost.
The benefits of this development to the Atlantic provinces are sufficient to excite the hearts and souls of anyone who has had to live, work and struggle industrially in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick. At last year's federal-provincial constitutional conference the premier of Nova Scotia, the Hon. G. I. Smith, among other points made a very real and continuing one. It was he who sounded the call to arms, so to speak, for all Canadians to act in the national sense in order to reduce the incidence and magnitude of regional disparity. Indeed, so clear was the premier's plea in this regard that the government responded positively. I am not giving all the credit to our premier but it was he who first spoke out publicly and most forcefully. As I say, the government responded in a positive sense, and as a result the house is now considering the proposal to establish a regional desk, the department of regional affairs.
One premise to which the premier is dedicated is implicit in his urgent call, and I suppose it is a key segment of any plan to reorganize our economy with federal help. It is that Canada is only as strong as its provinces. You cannot have national unity as long as you have disparity of the magnitude that exists in Canada today. It exists most notably, of course, in the rural parts of Quebec and in the Atlantic provinces. One way, indeed the only real way, to overcome it within a reasonable period of time and without massive subsidies for programs fulfilling varied requirements would be by reacting positively to the report of the tidal programming board and for the government to become involved in the capital expenditures required for the building of dams and hydroelectric generating systems.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
If the cost of money will make the carrying out of this program prohibitive I suggest we could subsidize the cost. There is nothing inconsistent about that. If that is not done the people of Canada for a long time will pour money on a massive scale into various programs for the Atlantic region until, accidentally, one is found that works. That is not good enough. The hydroelectric power potential of the Minas Basin and the Bay of Fundy in general is unmatched. If we could tap it the electrical power produced would exceed by an almost immeasurable margin all the electric power produced in Canada in 1969.
March 24, 1969'
7026	COMMONS
Suggested Study of Minas Basin Tidal Power The project would produce more power than is generated in all of North America.
So fantastic and so encouraging are preliminary reports that that statement stands, I think, without contradiction. In practical terms it means that with such power available reduction industries which need massive amounts of power could be set up in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to employ our people, not in groups of five or ten but in thousands. That is what we require. We have hundreds of industries in the Atlantic provinces but each employs only a handful of people. We need large industries employing thousands of people so that we can build up our markets and so that the port of Halifax will have a viable reason to continue as a port. The port is on deep water, and a spinoff effect of these huge new industries would be the revitalization of one of our most viable industries at present, the port of Halifax.
I reiterate that it is necessary for the government to react favourably to the report which, to judge from what I know, will be a favourable one. I therefore suggest that the government ought to react positively by making clear at an early date that if the cost of money is the only serious impediment to carrying out the program it will consider subsidizing that cost and will involve itself in this development.
The final part of my notice of motion calls on the government to make a decision to proceed or otherwise with this project within six months of receiving the study. I have included that wording because the passage of time concerns us. We do not want to wait 15 or 20 years for someone to say that the money market is favourable and if the program is begun then it will be finished within seven or eight years. If the study is positive the project should not be shelved but proceeded with as soon as the government has had an opportunity to look into all its implications. I make this suggestion because I know it will take a certain amount of time before a final decision can be taken. In any event, I hope that by January 1, 1970, the government will be deeply involved in the on-going studies that will result if the terms of reference of the feasibility study have been met. I invite hon. members to support this notice of motion.


Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) for bringing this matter to the attention of the house during private members' hour. It is an important subject and has been debated at


least twice during the time I have been in the house. I was happy to speak on it on previous occasions.
As was pointed out, in August, 1966, the government of Canada entered into an agreement with the governments of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia to study the feasibility of power development in the Minas Basin area and Shepody Basin. The present notice of motion asks the government to consider the advisability of taking immediate steps in consultation with the proper provincial authorities to bring to a conclusion within the next 12 months the feasibility study regarding tidal power development which has been mentioned previously and to make a decision on that project.
The agreement signed in August, 1966, indicated that the feasibility study probably would be finished by June 30. Perhaps it will not be possible for that to be done. Nevertheless, up to now it has been understood that the study will be completed by June 30. Once it has been completed the government of Canada, in conjunction with the provinces involved, will have to decide if the report is positive and favourable. The government of Canada will then have to decide how it will help the provinces to finance the project. Should the report be positive it will mean that the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia will have a great potential opportunity to sell power to the United States. It will also show how important the Bay of Fundy area is to the development of tidal power.
If the report is positive and favourable we should consider not only the development of electric power but also the opportunities for employment that will be opened up in the Atlantic region. Employment opportunities will be created in the building of these power installations as well as after they have been finished.
The government has committed itself to the idea of reducing regional disparities in this country. Before the present house there is a bill setting up the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. The minister who will be in charge of this department has already said that economic expansion by itself does not mean much without the co-operation and co-ordination of all government programs. This fact has been brought before the house many times during the debate on the reorganization bill. It has also been brought to the attention of the Standing Committee on Regional Development. As mentioned by the
March 24, 1969	COMMONS
hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East, the employment created by such a project would be as good and possibly better than subsidizing 10 or 15 industries in New Brunswick or Nova Scotia.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
This is an area where the government by its planning and co-ordination of programs can assist the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. The decision to finance this project and to assist the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia will have to take into account the good these projects can do to the economy. The rate for power will be reduced enormously and it will help our balance of payments. The government will have to be consistent because this is one way to help the economy of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. We had a example in New Brunswick in the last three or four years in the Mac-taquac power project which assisted the payroll of New Brunswick enormously. The fact that many people were employed on that project for three or four years will have to be taken into consideration.
I would like to say a few words with regard to the power aspect. The Bay of Fundy is one of the few places in the world where tides range up to 52 feet. The bay is about 50 miles wide at its mouth and is about 180 miles long ending in two arms, Minas Basin and Chignecto Bay. It is because of these enormous tides that the subject of power development was raised. The question has been raised as to how important tidal waves are in power development.
An enormous amount of energy is contained in the daily movement of tides throughout the world. Tidal power dissipated by friction and eddies alone has been estimated as being roughly comparable to all of the economically exploitable power potential of the rivers of the world. A power development project seems to be feasible in the Bay of Fundy.
I hope that in presenting this motion the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East was not suggesting that the study should be stopped within 12 months. The Atlantic Tidal Power Development Board may require more time than that. I think the hon. member's point is that the project should not be forgotten with the conclusion of the study. If the report is positive, I will support the building of this project as soon as possible. However, it would be subject to priorities. As I stated, the government will have to study it from an
DEBATES	7027
Suggested Study of Minas Basin Tidal Power economic expansion point of view. If the report is positive I will ask the government to help the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia to finance the project.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) for having again brought this matter to the attention of the house. The hon. member has implied that the study begun several years ago is progressing well. The motion asks that the study be brought to a conclusion within 12 months and a decision made on whether the project will be proceeded with.
I have always been impressed with the amount of power estimated to be contained in the tides of the Bay of Fundy. It has been the source of engineering inspiration for many years. I am surprised that the study has now reached a cost of $1 million without any indication to the people of this country of what is being achieved. If $1J million is to be spent on a study of this great natural resource, it is time for the people involved in the study to put forth some information as to their findings and the findings of other countries in this regard. I understand that considerable work has been done in this field in at least two other countries, in Holland where power was generated from a similar source and in Madagascar where a large experiment was sponsored by the French government. The French have also experimented in their own country.
I was interested to hear of the potential that this project has for this area. I disagree with the hon. member on the government side who suggested that this project should be proceeded with soon in order that the power may be sold elsewhere. This is a typical solution to power development in the normal sense. At Hamilton Falls, where there really is no industry, we talk about establishing and expanding our national grid by permitting the sale of that power. Surely that is not what we want in the maritimes. In the maritimes the development of this natural resource should provide a source of inspiration for the development of industry.
Unless the study reaches a decision with regard to developing secondary industry in that area, the quantity of power produced will only mean cheaper power for cities such as Toronto, Montreal, Boston and New York. It really will not assist in the development of the maritimes. I hope the study will take into consideration the aspiration of the people of
March 24, 1969
7028	COMMONS
Suggested Study of Minas Basin Tidal Power the maritime provinces not to sell power but to develop industry.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I believe it will be found that we are much too late in developing just another cheap power resource. I think of a number of statements that were made when the Saskatchewan River project was being developed. I sat in on a meeting when the former premier of that province had a discussion with his finance minister about the cost of developing power on the Saskatchewan River. He pointed out at that time that power could be developed from a thermal plant probably two mills cheaper than by the hydro plants on the Saskatchewan River. The decision to go ahead with the Saskatchewan River project did not hinge on the power development but on the total change in the economy of the whole area this project would bring about. That again raises the point of whether or not this project was 50 years too late. The irrigation part of the project was a dream of the people on the prairies in the dust bowl days because it would have perhaps alleviated the depression in that area which was probably worse than in any other part of Canada.
For many years the people of the maritimes have been working very hard to develop the economy of their area. I hope that this power development, if it takes place and when it takes place, will not be a power development for the sake of power but that it will be for the sake of the natural resource around which a totally new and vibrant economy could be created. If we are only to become involved in establishing grids, I feel quite strongly the people of the maritimes will get absolutely nothing out of the expenditure except the labour force that is involved in producing it. My area has probably the only .large power developments that are taking place in Ontario or which will take place in the future. We are putting that power into the major cities, thereby defeating the problem we are trying to solve which is to bring industry into the area. We are doing this because the project which is worth $40 million will employ 2,000 or 3,000 people on a temporary basis,. When the plant is in operation it will employ 30 or 40 people. It will be a cheap source of electricity for the industrial area of Ontario and the United States.
I hope the house will agree to accept the motion of the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), and in doing so will be cognizant of the particular value this


development could have in relation to the total economy of the maritime provinces. I strongly urge hon. members who are interested to remember that if the only purpose of the project is the production of cheap power, that probably could be produced in a much better way in other areas. If the purpose of the federal government and provincial governments, in co-operation with the minister of regional development, is the development of a secondary industry which would rely on the hydro-electric resource being developed by this project, then the project will be worthy of the support of every member in this house. If it is to be only a cheap source of power for export purposes, I for one think we should only consider the engineering feasibility of the project and not the practicality of developing electricity. If this project will produce a resource which will be able to solve many of the problems of the maritimes, it will be of benefit to this area. However, if it is only for the purpose of providing cheap electric power, it will provide very little revenue for that area.
At the same time the power produced will be of value to the areas which will be in competition with this area.


Mr. G. A. Percy Smith (Norihumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome an opportunity to say something on this very important subject. I congratulate the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) for bringing forward this notice of motion. The question is of interest to me and the residents of my riding of Northumberland-Miramichi. Although we live about 150 miles distant from Minas Basin and in another province, it is important to everyone living in the maritime provinces. Any measure or any project which tends to increase the supply of electric power or to lessen the cost of the same should be supported by all maritimers. The province of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are linked in a power grid and projects of this nature would be mutually beneficial. The importance of an adequate supply of power at reasonable rates to the growth of our economy cannot be over-emphasized.
I feel sure the minister who will head the new Department of Regional Economic Expansion is aware of this. It must not be forgotten, however, that two of the main factors to be considered by any industry which might be interested in establishing in the maritimes are first, the one I have just mentioned, and second, transportation. I should like to speak a little about an adjoining
March 24, 1969

power project which involves the harnessing of the tremendous tides of the Bay of Fundy. This is a project which has been studied in greater detail, and I believe is more feasible than the Minas Basin project. I am referring to the harnessing of the tides of Shepody Bay and Cumberland Basin. This latter project is usually associated with the Chignecto Canal in one giant package. The canal would open up shipping on the East Coast and the Northeast Coast of New Brunswick and make even more necessary and urgent the dredging of Miramichi Bay to a depth of 26 feet, a project that we have been seeking for many years.
As to the amount of power that could be produced, the so-called Robichaud Report of January, 1962 stated-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but 1 would invite him to deal specifically with the notice of motion. The notice of motion deals with the Minas Basin Tidal Power Project and I would invite him to direct his remarks specifically to that subject.


G.A. Percy Smith: We do not have as detailed figures in respect of the Minas Basin project as we do in respect of the adjoining project which as I say, would utilize the same tremendous tides. Incidentally, I would concede to the hon, member who brought forward the motion that the project in respect of which we have some figures is insignificant in comparison to the tremendous power that could be produced by harnessing the tides in the Minas Basin.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
However, the report to which I referred, of January 1962, stated that the tides in Shepody offered a minimum potential of 5J billion kilowatts per year. From a later estimate, arising out of studies made by the Foundation of Canada Engineering Corporation, the figure of 10 billions has been suggested as the bare minimum. At that time, in 1962, the cost was estimated to be in the vicinity of $325 million for 100 units, 50 on each bay, Shepody and Cumberland. This would be exclusive of the cost of interest during construction. At the same time the cost of the canal itself was estimated at $142 million.
It should be noted that at that time New 10 billion cubic feet of merchantable timber. Brunswick industrialist K. C. Irving unilaterally promised to establish new industry in the vicinity of the canal and power project to a capital cost of $100 million. In 1961, when Mr. Walker, the then minister of public works, spoke unfavourably about this canal project
DEBATES	7029
Suggested Study of Minas Basin Tidal Power that offer was withdrawn, but I understand it has lately been renewed.
I would like to quote from an editorial by Michael Wardell, in the Atlantic Advocate, on this subject. He has been secretary of the Chignecto Canal Committee and has studied this project from its very beginning. He wrote:
The tidal power of Chignecto Bay is likely to be for all time the cheapest power, inexhaustible, and once established becoming ever cheaper in terms of real values that rise in relation to money.
It should be used for providing the peaks of power integrated by means of a grid with Arm power supplied from thermal, hydro or atomic generators.
While I do not wish to take anything away from the importance of the Minas Basin tidal project, and while I do support the hon. member in his appeal for a study, I would point out that it is a much larger undertaking than the one nearby that has been studied in great detail.
Writing in an editorial in the Atlantic Advocate of December, 1964, Brigadier Wardell said as follows:
Alongside is Minas Basin, another tidal project so huge that it daunts the hearts of our planners even to think of it. It has the attractive by-product of a road which might be laid across the dam to connect the area of Cumberland county to the Annapolis valley.
It is known that it is feasible to produce electric power by harnessing these tremendous tides of the Bay of Fundy. A joint United States-Canada study was made of the Quoddy project near the border of Maine and New Brunswick on the same Bay of Fundy. In the report of the International Joint Commission dated April, 1961, a similar project there was declared to be fully feasible.
There is no doubt that the impact of the development of one of these projects on the economy of the Maritime provinces would be immense. Much additional employment would be created during the period of construction. But it is the permanent prosperity following the completion of the plan that would raise the standards of the region for all time. There is a general belief that it would contribute tremendously to the development of the Maritime provinces.
The provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have vast wealth in natural resources. Nova Scotia has rich deposits of gypsum and coal in great quantity. It also has more than 10 million acres of forest land and New Brunswick has over 15 million acres of forest land and 17 billion cubic feet of merchantable timber. A recent report of the government of New Brunswick stated that annual
March 24, 1969
7030	COMMONS
Suggested Study of Minas Basin Tidal Power utilization of forest products could and should be doubled. In addition, New Brunswick has large mineral deposits to be developed.
These regional resources, wood, minerals, chemicals and salt deposits which Nova Scotia has in abundance, are all dependent upon an ample supply of cheap power for processing. The Maritimes should be the resource base for Britain and Europe, and with cheap power could develop in processed products an important export trade served by its winter ports.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I see there are only a few minutes left and I know the house would want to bring this matter to a vote. I merely want to indicate my support for the motion of the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), and I certainly was pleased to hear my colleagues from New Brunswick, the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) and the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Smith) speak in favour of it, although they did have some reservations.
This project has an interesting history and I want to take just a moment to go back to 1962 when action was taken which brought about this1 report. It was, I think in all fairness, the result of a committee that was formed under Premier Robichaud of New Brunswick with respect to the Chignecto canal and most of us on both sides of the house from the Maritime provinces were on that committee. We held many meetings. They were very constructive. We urgently recommended that consulting firms, three very highly qualified firms, H. G. Acres and Company, Foundation of Canada Engineering Corporation, and LaSalle Hydraulic Laboratory Limited, be commissioned to conduct a survey into the Chignecto canal project, and from information in that study we made our decisions.
We decided that there were large quantities of low cost electric power that could be generated by using the tremendous tides of the Bay of Fundy, and that a new approach should be made to the federal government for the construction of the Chignecto canal. The report, and I quote, covered:
-the possible effects which the development of tidal power at the head of the Bay of Fundy might have on the Chignecto canal.
There was an assessment of the kilowatt power available, and I might say at that time


it compared quite favourably with the development in Labrador which is now in existence. However, this is the main recommendation that came out of that committee:
For a number of years we have been interested in the improved transportation facilities for the Maritime provinces which would result from the construction of the Chignecto canal. The joint preliminary report from the three consulting firms states that the construction of a dam across the entrance of the Cumberland Basin, required for the development of tidal power and for keeping the water in this basin at a higher level, would have a beneficial effect on the cost and operation of the approach to the Chignecto canal by reducing the initial cost of dredging, as well as its future maintenance costs. It would also reduce tidal currents now prevailing in the Cumberland Basin, thus improving the navigation.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
This is one of the main reasons' I rose at this late hour to support the development. I think the Minas Basin tidal power project has a tremendous future. I hope the feasibility report will come forward and we will undertake any later studies that are necessary. We, in the house, have been talking in a very derogatory way about the various reports and studies made for many years regarding the Atlantic provinces. I agree that there have been too many. But this is one future project, with all its ancillary benefits, that I think every member would like to see considered in detail and afforded the fullest study which will result in recommendations and definite action.
The project has been likened, as I say, to the one in Labrador of the magnitude of nine kilowatts. In this day and age the project stands on its own two feet as far as costs are concerned. But let us not lose sight of the great benefits that would accrue to the Bay of Fundy area if we saw our way clear to move in this regard. The problem of regional disparity is a current one. I think this project would fit very well into our plans in dealing with that problem. It would bring to the port of Saint John, in which I am interested, a vibrant and healthy future. We would have the benefits of the cheap transportation that the Chignecto Canal would bring. This would, of course, be made possible by the development of tidal power in the Minas Basin-Shepody Bay-Chignecto area.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would remind the house of the support this project has received through the years. I have quoted from Premier Robichaud's statement of 1962, when he was more interested in this matter than he is now. I know that his province now
March 24, 1969	COMMONS
has horrible financial troubles. I know that New Brunswick is on the verge of bankruptcy, and we hope something can be done to assist the province. At the same time, we must recognize that while the support of Premier Robichaud has waned a bit lately because of all his other troubles, his support is indelibly written into this report of May 31, 1962. I commend it to the house, together with the support of those who have already spoken about this project. I hope we shall not talk this measure out but will take a vote on it before six o'clock.


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Saint John-Laneaster (Mr. Bell) for providing a few minutes in which I may speak on this motion. I agree generally with speakers on both sides of the house who have supported the objects of the study and have indicated the necessity and importance of getting ahead with it as quickly as possible.
It seems to me that if any useful purpose would be served it would, indeed, be a good thing to let the matter come to a vote tonight.
I gather from what has been said in the debate in the 57 minutes or so up to now that there will be general support for the motion. However, in the two minutes left to me I should like to consider with the house the motion we are debating, which was put on the order paper by the hon. member for Dart-mouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall).
As he indicated in his remarks when introducing the motion, it was filed on September 18 and at that time the hon. member did not anticipate-I think he indicated his delight that this action had been taken-that subsequently in December of 1968 an amending agreement would be made among the two provinces concerned and the government of Canada. As a result, changes were made to the original agreement. My hon. friend of course had no way of knowing at the time he put his motion on the order paper that this would be done.
Dealing with the first part of the motion, Mr. Speaker, asking that the study be brought to a conclusion within the next 12 months, this of course is provided for in the amending agreement. I have here a copy of the agreement among the two provinces and the government of Canada. It is dated December, 1968. Paragraph 2 of the amending agreement, under a subsection called Phase
DEBATES	7031
Suggested Study of Minas Basin Tidal Power II, which amends section 4 of the original agreement, provides as follows:
The preliminary engineering design of one or more tidal schemes including preliminary marketing and transmission studies. The objective is to complete these studies by June 30, 1969.
That is in fact the objective, and hopefully it will be completed before the timetable set out by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East. I should like to read the second part of the hon. member's motion, which is as follows:
-the feasibility study of Minas Basin tidal power and on the basis of the study make a decision to proceed, or otherwise, within six months of receiving the study.
It seems to me it would not be in the best interests of this house, or indeed of parliament, if we were to recommend to the government anything that would tie its hands in considering the study. Of course, this would be only a recommendation, but I believe that in view of the amount of time, money, the very great importance of this matter and the ramifications which flow from it

these have been very ably described by all speakers this afternoon-we would not want to tie the hands of the government as a result of this motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. I do now leave the chair and will resume the same at 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, March 21, consideration in committee of Bill C-173, respecting the organization of the government of Canada and matters relating or incidental thereto-Mr. Trudeau-Mr. Bechard in the chair.
The Deputy Chairman:: House again in committee of the whole on Bill C-173. When

March 24, 1969
Government Organization the committee rose on Friday clause 20 had been allowed to stand, and clause 25 was under consideration together with an amendment proposed thereto by the hon. member for Egmont.
On clause 25-Plans for Economic Expansion.


Mr. Marchand (Langelier):: Mr. Chairman, with the unanimous consent of the committee I should like to revert to clause 24 because I found a technical mistake in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Egmont. According to the way in which the amendment was drafted, the government of Canada would consult a province on the designation of any area in Canada. In fact, this would mean that I may be consulting Nova Scotia on the designation of an area in Alberta. So, the amended clause should be corrected to read that the consultation is in relation to the designation of an area in the province with which consultations' are held, not anywhere in Canada.
Therefore, if the committee has no objection, I should like to make this correction.


Albert Béchard: Is the committee agreed to reverting to clause 24?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On clause 24-Designation of Special Areas.


Jean Marchand: I will circulate copies of the amended clause which reads as follows:
The Governor in Council, after consultation with the government of any province, may by order designate as a special area, for the period set out in the order, any area in that province that is determined to require, by reason of the exceptional inadequacy of opportunities for productive employment of the people of that area or of the region of which that area is a part, special measures to facilitate economic expansion and social adjustment.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: That amendment is agreeable to us because it makes clear the intent of the original amendment made on Friday.


Albert Béchard: Is there agreement to the clause as amended?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I suggest there might be general agreement to progress being reported, following which we can arrive at an order to deal with the bill for the balance of the evening. If we had the
[The Deputy Chairman.]
order made now, we may be in a better position to plan our work through the course of the evening.


Mr. Baldwin:: This would be agreeable to us.


Albert Béchard: Shall I rise, report progress, and request leave to sit later today?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, following certain discussions I think there might be a disposition to continue the sitting of the house beyond the normal time of adjournment, that is until eleven o'clock this evening, for the purpose of putting all the remaining questions necessary to dispose of the bill. If there is such a general disposition, an order could be made to extend the sitting of the house and also another order that if the bill has not been passed sooner all questions may be put at eleven o'clock for the purpose of disposing of the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We agree to that, Mr. Speaker, but we would like it understood that if we finish with the bill before ten o'clock we will call ft a day.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I agree to that.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-173, respecting the organization of the government of Canada and matters relating and incidental thereto-Mr. Trudeau-Mr. Bechard in the chair.
On clause 25-Plans for Economic Expansion.
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Now that the minister and members of the government
March 24, 1969

have had the week end to consider the problem I posed with this amendment, may I remind the minister what he said to me. Although he was not happy with the way in which the amendment was drawn up, he said he could assure us that this obviously was the intent of the government in reorganizing the department and appointing him as minister. However, I think it would be necessary, in view of what I and the minister in fact have termed the failures of the government in the past to grapple adequately with problems of regional disparity in this country, to set up some cleanout machinery in the statute. This was obviously felt to be one of the important needs in the establishment of the FRED program, which was the last phase in an attempt to deal with problems of regional disparity. Although the FRED board might have been inadequate, at least it was an attempt to put into the statute some form of machinery which would in effect get beyond the separate empires or the kind of ghetto mentality that often operates in various government departments as opposed to a co-ordinated monetary and fiscal policy. If the minister is not prepared to accept this amendment, as seemed to be the case on Friday, I hope he has arrived in the chamber with some concrete alternative proposal. If he has such a proposal, I would be happy to withdraw this amendment in its favour.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


Jean Marchand: It is clear in clause 25 of the bill that there has to be co-operation between the departments of government and the agencies involved. If we read the clause, we find it says this:
In exercising his powers and carrying out his duties and functions under section 23, the minister shall, in co-operation with other departments, branches and agencies of the Government of Canada, formulate plans for the economic expansion and social adjustment of special areas.
This means I have no choice. If I carry out this provision I shall be bound to co-operate with all these other departments and agencies. As to the means by which I shall do so,
I believe it is impossible to say at this stage. What the house appears to want-and I think it is quite right to do so-is to ensure the existence of some kind of mechanism to facilitate this kind of co-operation.
I do not know how I can carry out this provision in1 the absence of a structure of some kind. The only thing which embarrasses me is that the method suggested by the hon. member for Egmont does not appear to be a good one. After a week, or after a month or

Government Organization two, it would become evident that it would not work, and this bill would have to be amended. Some kind of structure to ensure co-operation will have to be set up, but it is not likely we shall ever be in a position to write into the law the structure to ensure that this co-operation will take place. If we fail to create this structure, it means we are not carrying out the purpose of the law and, of course, we intend to do so. It would not be wise to make compulsory the setting up of any particular structure at this moment.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I find it surprising to hear the minister suggest that some formula cannot be devised at this point to ensure that co-operation is achieved. After all, this deals with one of the most long standing difficulties in the field of government administration. The problem was admitted when the FRED board was set up two years ago. So, the department has been aware of its existence for a long time.
When the minister told us that under the terms of clause 25 he was obliged to co-operate with other departments, he missed one of the points inherent in this amendment. What we are really concerned about is not that he will fail to co-operate with other ministers, but that other ministers will fail to co-operate with his department.
The hon. gentleman found it difficult to make a clear cut statement this evening. If this amendment is' defeated, I wonder if he would agree to report to the house later on the nature of the mechanism which will eventually be set up to deal with this problem. It is important to the effective working of this whole program that the house be appraised in the not too distant future as to the exact nature of the machinery which the department, or the government, or the Governor in Council have devised to ensure that this' basic issue of co-operation is dealt with.


Jean Marchand: I would have no objection, Mr. Chairman, except that if we were to set up a cabinet committee I do not believe I could give the house a list of the ministers appointed to it. This is not done in the case of existing committees.
Under the FRED plan, membership of committees and so on, and the functions of those appointed, can be made known. To this, I would have no objection.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I assume that if a committee is to be effective it will have to comprise more than cabinet ministers. We are all realistic enough to know that if policy

March 24, 1969
Government Organization decisions are to be carried out, the structure to be set up must include people at the senior level of government service. For this reason, I think it ought to be easy for the minister to give an assurance that he will outline the system which the government will use.


Jean Marchand: I should like to call attention to a statement which the hon. member made a few moments ago. He said that he and his hion. friends were afraid not so much that the minister of the new department might fail to co-operate, but that ministers representing other departments might fail to do so. The hon. member ought not to forget that the duty set out in the legislation is the duty of the government as a whole. This is a law which binds the government, so the government as a whole, the Prime Minister and the cabinet, will have to implement it.
In these circumstances, I do not think the individual departments will have a choice. As far as the organization of these matters is concerned, I see no reason why the house should not know how we are arranging for the implementation of this section, provided nothing of a confidential nature is involved.
Amendment (Mr. MacDonald (Egmont)) negatived; yeas, 12; nays, 33.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 26-General agreements with the provinces.
Jean Marchand: I indicated in my preliminary remarks, Mr. Chairman, that I intended to present an amendment to clause 26. It will be moved by my colleague the Postmaster General.


Eric William Kierans: I move:
That Bill C-173 be amended by striking out lines 24 to 30 on page 9 and substituting the following:
26(1) The Minister may, in co-operation with any province formulate a plan of economic expansion and social adjustment in a special area and, with the approval of the Governor in Council and subject to the regulations, enter into an agreement with that province for the joint carrying out of such plan.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I am very glad to see the minister introduce this amendment; I think it is a step in the right direction. Again, it emphasizes one of the points we have been concerned with in this legislation, which is that a province or provinces shall be involved at all stages in the devising of policies and programs for regional development.
[Mr. MacDonald (Egmont) .1
The original clause 26(1), as may be noticed, omitted at the very important stage of formulating plans, the involvement of the province. I am very glad to see the minister and the government introduce this amendment, and I hope they may have another amendment or two in this regard as we go along.
Amendment (Mr. Kierans) agreed to.


Albert Béchard: Shall clause 26 as amended carry?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, with regard to clause 26 (2) it seems to us that here we are faced with an even more important part of this particular clause. It struck the committee that the failure to include some provision for negotiation with the provinces prior to the ratification of an agreement by the two governments in question is quite a sizeable omission. I refer in particular to the second line of subclause (2), the subclause reading as follows;
Noth withstanding subsection (1), detailed negotiation of any draft agreement under this section shall not be undertaken by or on behalf of the minister unless the plan to which the draft agreement relates has first been approved by the Governor in Council.
It seems to me that if sufficient discussion and conversations could not be held with the provinces before the agreement of the Governor in Council is obtained, then we are in fact greatly limiting the participation of the provinces in the devising of the actual plans that will go into effect and which have implications for the provinces.
Therefore, I am going to propose an amendment. While it may not be quite the answer that it was prior to the moving of the minister's own amendment to clause 26 (1) does close what I consider to be a very dangerous gap in this particular clause. Therefore, I move that clause 26 (2) be amended by inserting after the words "Governor in Council" the following;
-provided such agreement has been generally accepted by the participating province.


Albert Béchard: The hon. member for Egmont moves that clause 26 (2) be amended by adding after the words "Governor in Council" the following;
"-provided such agreement has been generally accepted by the participating province or other responsible authority."


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: No, Mr. Chairman, I have deleted those last four words.
March 24. 1969

Government Organization The Deputy Chairman: Shall the amend- I will be happy to withdraw this particular ment carry?	amendment.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I do not think this amendment would serve any purpose at all. Clause 26 (1) provides that in the formulation or elaboration of any plan the government must negotiate with the province concerned; that is the substance of the clause. We have to negotiate with the provinces. The second paragraph does not relate at all to the provinces but merely provides the conditions upon which the minister himself, representing the federal government, shall negotiate an agreement which has to be authorized first of all by the Governor in Council.
I see no reason for providing that any such agreement must be accepted by the province concerned. Unless an agreement is accepted by the province, the province will not sign it. Indeed, the province itself may well have this regulation. It may well say to the responsible minister that he is not to sign any agreement with the federal government unless it is first approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. That would be up to the province to decide and is an internal procedure. Therefore, I do not know why the hon. member puts forward this amendment.
Provision is made for reaching an agreement in subclause (1). If an agreement is reached with a province, we would not need such an amendment. We do not want to compel a province to accept what has been negotiated. As I say, I do not see the purpose of this amendment.
Subclause (2) deals with the powers of the minister. I cannot sign an agreement unless it is first approved by the Governor in Council. That is all the subclause provides. It does not impose anything upon the provinces. Some provinces may decide that three of its ministers have to sign an agreement; it is a matter for them, not for us. That is why I think the amendment would be useless and serve no purpose.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I should just like to ask one question here, one that initially raised this whole subject in my mind. The opening words of clause 26 (2) are; "Notwithstanding subsection (1)". Then, the subclause goes on to talk about detailed negotiation. The inference I draw from that, though I may be misreading this particular clause, is that it puts the province in the unhappy position really of having to buy something sight unseen. If that is not what the clause implies,


Jean Marchand: Since provision is made for consultation with the provinces, I see no point in the amendment because it does not add anything. I think it would only confuse.


Albert Béchard: Is it agreed that the hon. member has leave to withdraw his amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. MacDonald, Egmont) withdrawn.


Albert Béchard: Shall clause 26 as amended carry?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I have one other question on clause 26 (3) (c) which refers to Canada and a province procuring the incorporation of one or more agencies. I am wondering whether there is provision in this particular clause for the establishment by the government of Canada and one or more province of an incorporated body. In other words, if I may use this as an example, is it possible for an incorporated body to be set up by the government of Canada and, say, three or four provinces in the Atlantic area?


Jean Marchand: Yes. Well, not under 26.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Where then?


Jean Marchand: Does the hon. member have in mind the setting up of a corporation like Devco, for example, in Nova Scotia?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: No, I am thinking of an incorporated body that might be set up in conjunction with government of Prince Edward Island to administer the comprehensive development plan in that area. Is it possible that as the department moves in and devises plans, there may be plans that relate to more than one province and some kind of incorporated agency may be required in which both the federal government and the provincial governments must participate.
o (8:30 p.m.)


Jean Marchand: I think there is provision in the bill, Mr. Chairman, for the setting up in any province a corporation similar to the Devco Corporation of Nova Scotia.

March 24, 1969'
Government Organization As far as other councils or bodies are concerned, the province and the federal government may set up such bodies under an agreement, as was the case with the Prince Edward Island agency. We can already do that. We do not need any addition to the law to permit us to set up that type of agency. As I say, we did that with the Prince Edward Island plan. We have comparable structures in the lower St. Lawrence agreement where we have, de facto, recognized the local council as the regional economic council. I think we have sufficient powers and we do not need anything else in the law.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I do not think the minister is getting my point. It is not difficult to comtemplate that under the kinds of structures which have been devised to date affecting the government of Canada and one province specifically, other provinces may wish to participate in some form of incorporated body set up under clause 26(3)(e). At present it seems that participation with respect to such incorporated body is limited to one province, but I submit it would be more desirable if two or three provinces participated with the federal government.


Jean Marchand: No.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As the minister knows, I am prepared1 to move an amendment adding the words in the fourth line from the end of the subclause "or provinces". I think that such an amendment would give greater flexibility.


Jean Marchand: I have seen the amendment, Mr. Chairman. The law officers of the Crown inform us that when we use the word "province" in the singular, that also includes provinces in the plural.


Albert Béchard: Shall clause 26 as amended carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 26 as amended carried.
Clause 27 and 28 carried.
On clause 29-Council established.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, this clause attempts to deal with the scant remaining bones of the Atlantic Development Board. One wonders why the government

introduced this clause, because the Atlantic Development Board seems to have been stripped of a great deal of authority. Under this clause, a group of men is to meet once or twice a year, in Ottawa presumably; they may offer advice to the minister which he may accept if it is worth his while to, and that about sums up their activities. Introducing this clause will, in retrospect I think, turn out to be a mistake. Since the early 1960's we-have attempted, in trying to deal with regions suffering from economic disparity, to develop some kind of instrument to bring about effective co-operation between the provinces,, the federal authority, local bodies and municipal bodies. Hon. members in all parties of this house applauded the idea of the Atlantic Development Board dealing with these problems. It is therefore ironic that the party that was in power in 1963-that is the party in power today-and which decided the Atlantic Development Board needed more power, more independence, and more opportunity to take the kinds of action it has been taking since 1962, has decided in 1969 it was wrong. Today we have a complete about face. Actually, the government is saying, "We do not need the Board anymore. We will not kill the child completely but keep its ghost alive." That is tragic and the minister will discover, when he is dealing with some of the problems in which the Board was involved, that a major mistake has been made in downgrading the Atlantic Development Board.
In that connection, may I suggest an amendment to clause 29. I feel there must be some consistency in this bill. All regions ought to have an equal opportunity to become involved in regional economic expansion and to participate in expansion programs. If the concept of the kind of council represented by an Atlantic development council is valid, I suggest there is equal validity for establishing similar councils to deal with the problems, say, of parts of Quebec, northern Ontario or parts of the west. Considering where the minister's home is, I am surprised that he has denied other regions the opportunity of being served by the kind of council we envisage here. I therefore suggest, Mr. Chairman, the addition of subclause 2 to clause 29, which would read as follows:
The Minister shall, in consultation with the province or provinces concerned and such other persons or organizations as the Minister or the province or provinces consider appropriate, establish similar development councils for other regions.
March 24, 1969


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I have to oppose this amendment because I question the reasons behind it.
It may seem odd indeed, Mr. Chairman, that the law should provide a special board for the Maritimes while we provide none for the rest of Canada. The reason is that this area is a special problem. Besides, the Atlantic Development Board we had before was of great help. Since the structures were there and the four provinces had problems in common, we felt it was not in the interest of the Maritimes to dispense entirely with this Board.
Now, since the four provinces involved have accepted the Atlantic Development Board, we take it for granted that it should be included as a council in the new legislation.
But we cannot predict, Mr. Chairman, what kind of council will be acceptable to the other provinces and what will be the structure of these councils which we do not know yet.
For example, will it be sufficient to have a council like the others to meet the needs of the lower St. Lawrence, of the Interlake area of Manitoba? Nobody can tell. However, in the case of the Atlantic provinces we know exactly how the agency did function. We know its structures and certain voluntary organizations have supported the Atlantic Development Board. This is why its establishment is provided in the legislation but nothing prevents us from acknowledging a council that would be formed especially for the lower St. Lawrence and nothing will prevent us, later on, to adopt a special legislation purporting to give legal status to a council whose structure and jurisdiction cannot be predicted to-day.
Now, when we say that we have downgraded the Atlantic Development Board, its particular role should obviously be emphasized, not because of the Atlantic Board but because of the new department of Regional economic expansion whose aim is precisely to coordinate all these activities.
I think that it is the honourable leader of the opposition (Mr. Stanfield) who said, in his brief: there is not enough coordination in all the efforts towards an adequate regional expansion, but I would answer that it is the very rationale of this new department. So, it is certain that if we aim at coordination we cannot have, within the department, Mr. Government Organization Chairman, three, four or five semi-independent bodies which will ensure regional planning outside the Department. It would be running counter to our very intentions.
It is not that we are dissatisfied with the Atlantic Development Board. On the contrary, we will be happy to use the work it has accomplished because we wish precisely to ensure not the centralization, but the co-ordination of all the department's activities related to regional development.
Now this new Atlantic Development Council will not have a greater executive power than the former one, because we are taking away from it a great part of that power. On the other hand, it will be able to advise the minister and his department on all matters under its jurisdiction. Indeed, it will be able to give advice not only on basic policies in the Maritime provinces but also on ARDA, FRED and all other programs related to the industrial incentive agency. This will give the new Council an overall view of the problems in the Maritime provinces as well as a certain responsibility.
However, as regards the executive power that Board had, we cannot maintain it, Mr. Chairman, unless we accept not to ensure real co-ordination.
That is why, that Atlantic Board is a council of a special type with a history. It was an extremely valuable experience, and we wish people who participated in that Board's activities to take part as much as possible in the activities of the new council. That is why we can sanction its creation through a provision in the legislation even if we are not able at the present time to provide exactly for the type of agencies other provinces will want to establish, in order to implement our programs.
It must be remembered that, we consulted the premiers of the four provinces concerned. They agreed not only on the appointment of Mr. Smith but also on the maintenance of a body for the Maritime provinces.
As regards the other provinces, Mr. Chairman, we are not sure. Some of them may say: we will have nothing to do with such councils or, if we want one, it should not be similar to the Atlantic Development Council.
Mr. Chairman, that is why, on the one hand, we created this council that will succeed the Atlantic Development Board, but on the other hand, we are not going further now, not before we have had the opportunity of discussing the matter with the provinces and of making certain experiments.



March 24, 1969
Government Organization [DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to prolong the discussion because it is clear the government has made up its mind what to do with the Atlantic Development Board. It has the troops to do what it wants. I hope that in four or five years' time the government of that day is not going to decide the government of this day was as wrong in several respects as the government this day is saying the government was in 1963. The government is now rejecting, pulling out root and branch almost, the very basis of the concept of regional development in the Atlantic provinces which the government launched with great fanfare in 1963 when it established the Atlantic Development Board as an administrative agency. The government of the present day is saying that was a mistake.
The government of that day was also against the concept of growth centres. Indeed, it adopted policies which did not encourage growth centres to grow, but directly worked against growth centres in the Atlantic provinces. I am not sure of the basis of confidence of the minister that he is so right now. I agree with him with regard to the growth centres, but I disagree with regard to the emasculation of the Atlantic Development Board. I find it a little difficult to understand why the government is so confident when the minister concedes that his department has not really worked out its policies. It will take some time to work out these policies. In other words, Mr. Chairman, we are being asked to take this on faith.
I do not want to take up the time of the house because the government has obviously made up its mind. Anything I say or have said obviously is not going to have any effect. At least, my words as to how the Atlantic Development Council should be established have not had any effect.
I hope, Mr. Chairman, it will not be necessary for a government five years hence to decide that the government today was just as wrong as they are saying the government was five years ago. I hope we do not lose four or five years more time in eliminating regional disparity as we apparently have during the past four or five years, not just on the basis of statistics, but on the basis of the judgment of the present government as to the policy decisions made by the government in 1963 and 1964.


Mr. Skoberg:: Mr. Chairman, it appears to me that the amendment being proposed is certainly in order at this particular time. It seems strange indeed that the minister would object to changing the wording of the clause to include this amendment. It is very apparent the Atlantic Development Council will continue to serve a useful purpose, as it has in the past.
I can assure the minister, Mr. Chairman, if the wheat economy of the west remains as it is today, there could well be a need for a prairie development council. There could also be a Pacific development council if the situation warranted it in that particular area.
I do not understand why the minister objects to the adding of this particular amendment to this clause. It is permissive to the extent that the provinces would have to consult with the federal government and the minister. It does not say "that they will establish". It states, "they shall in consultation with the provinces if they so desire". I certainly believe that at this time specific words should be put into this bill which would be of benefit to all concerned.
If the amendment demanded that the government establish other development councils at this time, I would not support it. The amendment does not make any demands upon the government whatsoever. I see no reason why this amendment cannot be approved at this time.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, as for us, we support the amendment proposed to clause 29, the object of which is to guarantee to the house, by including it in the statute, that there is close co-operation between the federal government and the provinces concerned with regard to the various programs or particular plans which might be implemented to promote the expansion or development of an area.
Our reason for supporting this amendment, which we find most acceptable and logical, is very simple. We already have a constitution, the British North America Act which delineates, very evasively, very vaguely, the powers of the provinces and the federal government. We are aware of the problems the evasiveness in the constitution leads to between the provinces and the federal government; in many cases, the powers are not defined.
The same could be said about many other fields where provincial and federal jurisdictions overlap.
March 24, 1969
I noticed that during the debate on several occasions the minister repeated that it was of the utmost importance that there be close cooperation between the federal government and the province or provinces concerned in the preparation of such programs as might meet their needs, instead of always imposing plans or rataplans upon them. As for us, that is what we fear.
For instance, we recently had an example when a federal park was created in the Gaspe area. Quite a few things are going on which lead us to believe that conflicts of jurisdiction will crop up between the provinces and federal government. What results shall we get if the programs cannot be implemented. Indeed, if the provinces cannot participate in the drawing of those programs, millions of dollars will have been spent which will bring nothing in return to the Canadian people.
It might therefore be most advisable to add a provision to the act ensuring that before planning, before drumming up our plans the provinces will consulted and everything will be done hand in hand, jointly, by the two levels of government.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask a few questions on this clause before it passes. In doing so, however, I should like to re-echo the sentiments of my leader and, in fact, lament the passing of the Atlantic Development Board. In my view, the board did an excellent job in the development of the Atlantic provinces. I know there are a number of very important projects indeed in the Atlantic provinces which probably would not have materialized today had it not been for the good work of the Atlantic Development Board. I can think of a number of very important projects which were undertaken because of the initiative of the board in my own province of Newfoundland.
I am particularly concerned about some of the urgent matters the board had under consideration, because experience has proven that when these councils are set up under legislative authority there seems to be quite a period of time when the new department is getting established. I am wondering what will become of the really urgent problems in which the Atlantic Development Board was heavily involved and with which it was trying to cope. I think now particularly of a very pressing situation in my own constituency with regard to the former mining town of 29180-446
Government Organization Bell Island. I know this matter has been dealt with rather thoroughly in the committee and that questions were put to the minister the other day in the course of the introduction of his estimates. The committee on regional development as well heard a delegation from Bell Island which was here to plead with the government for some immediate action to solve the problems that existed on this island and in this community as a result of the rather abrupt phasing out in 1966 of the iron ore mines on the island. These mines were operated for a number of years by Dosco and prior to that by the predecessors of Dosco for a period in excess of 65 to 70 years.
The problem is an urgent one in that today in this community there are almost 7,000 people without employment opportunities. I regret to say that the majority of them depend on relief measures of one kind or another. Of course, the consequences of continued relief to the people in this community are morally crippling. Very often this means there will be a serious problem involved in rehabilitating the people and getting them to be self-sufficient again. The Atlantic Development Board was very heavily involved in this matter. In consultation with the government of Newfoundland, the board devised a plan whereby people would be encouraged to leave because the government would pay for the homes of those people who were prepared to leave. Each resident was entitled to sell his home for $1500. The idea of course was to get the working force to leave the island.
The Atlantic Development Board and its well-qualified general director, Dr. Weeks, who I am pleased to see has an important role in the new department, would be the first to admit this plan did not succeed. The objective was to get the working force to move elsewhere. Today there are almost 7,000 people living there. My worry is, during the interim period while this new department is undergoing its growing pains, while the Atlantic Development Board is going out of existence and while the government is considering new appointments to the Atlantic Development Council, what will become of the urgent situation which exists on Bell Island. I hope the minister will be able to assure the house that these matters will not be swept under the administrative table and will be given the urgent consideration they deserve. I hope also he will assure us! that the department, in the interim period, will continue to treat these urgent matters with the same



March 24, 1969
Government Organization amount of concern with which they were treated by the Atlantic Development Board.
That is my main worry. There are other areas as well which perhaps have pressing problems, but certainly no more important than those which exist on Bell Island. The minister knows this. He knows the matter has been mentioned before on a number of occasions. As I have already stated the matter has been studied by the committee. I hope before this session ends, the minister will give us an assurance that these urgent problems will continue to receive consideration during the interim period while the new department is being set up.


Jean Marchand: I think I can give that assurance to the hon. member for St. John's East right away. We have already in the department all the recommendations of the Atlantic Development Board. That does not mean we will necessarily agree to them all. However, this is not new. In the past they had to be approved by treasury board and the department. We will consider all of them, however, and there will be no delay between the passing of this bill and the disappearance of the old Atlantic Development Board.
We will have more power under this bill than the Atlantic Development Board had or even the department had, because we can spend on the infra-structure after agreement with the province. We will take into consideration immediately all the plans that were in existence and with which the Atlantic Development Board was dealing. So, I can give the assurance to the hon. gentleman that we do not intend to wait until an agreement is signed before dealing with the problem that has been transmitted by the board.
Now, the hon. member for Egmont said the law provides that this council will sit only two times a year. Under the old law it was provided that the Atlantic Development Board must sit at least once. The fact that the new council must sit at least twice does not mean that it must sit only twice. It has to sit at least two times, but it can sit more than that. It may sit twice a month or as many times as it desires.
I am sure the council will sit much more often than two times. The hon. Leader of the Opposition mentioned that a mistake was made in 1963. I do not know whether it was a mistake. I was not a part of that decision and therefore would not attempt to make an assessment in respect of the responsibility for that decision. Knowing what I know now, I do not believe it was necessarily a mistake

because at that time there was no department with responsibility for economic expansion. No department was responsible for regional development. We are creating a new set-up and it is quite normal that we revise the old structures which were in existence.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Maybe the government was justified in doing it that way at that time. I will not make a fight on that. I am not ready, either, to say that what we are doing now will be good forever; that it is the eternal truth and that we will never need to change it. It may be that in a few years we will agree to change what we are doing today if it does not work out the way we think it should.

Mr. Chairman, I am rather surprised at the stand taken by the hon. member for Lot-biniere (Mr. Fortin) because the amendment is quite the opposite of what he wishes.
If you read the amendment carefully, you see that the federal government must-I only have here the English version-"that the minister shall"-in consultation with the provinces and so on, establish or set up a council. This is an infringement upon the freedom of the provinces which are not mentioned in the legislation.
What we are saying under the legislation to the province of Quebec or the province of Manitoba or Saskatchewan, is this: you have to accept a council. This is precisely because we respect that freedom, that provincial autonomy that we do not want to do what was done with the Atlantic Council. In that case it is a fact, it has been accepted and we can put it in the statutes. But for the other provinces, it is precisely the opposite that would happen, if the amendment were passed.
We want to remain perfectly free to negotiate with the provinces.
For instance the province of Quebec can consider the matter, then state that it is not interested in a council similar to that of the Atlantic areas. If we accepted the amendment, then we would have to tell the Quebec authorities: this is the council, and the law says that you have to accept it as it is. Besides, the council should be similar as provided in the legislation, and I quote:

It must establish similar development councils for other regions.
March 24, 1969



The hon. member was anxious lest we should threaten the freedom or the autonomy of the provinces, but that is1 precisely what he is doing by supporting the amendment of the opposition.
As for me, I want us to be able to discuss with each and every province, to try and And the best way of co-operating. If a new council has to be set up, after we had experienced it for some time, here in the house maybe we would agree, to give it a legal status or to indicate in the law which councils should be set up so as to achieve the purposes of the law.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the hon. minister and all the trouble he took to express his views. I think it is already something to be thankful for when ministers take the trouble of explaining the situation to us.
However, we are afraid that the proposed amendment will not achieve very much. In any case the Conservatives have never achieved much in the past, and I do not think that their amendment will work marvels either.
It is persistently being said that this legislation is a minor one, but the fact remains that we want the best possible guarantee that there will not be any overlapping of jurisdictions between the provinces and the federal government with respect to regional development, for this legislation does not seem to be too promising if both sides start being stubborn once again, as the minister said last week.
Actually, if the federal government were to act one way and the provinces another and then a council is established and an agreement is reached, or if the federal government were to establish a council and the provinces were to establish another one in turn, with discussions taking place for three days and then each side going its own way, I think the minister himself would be the first to be disappointed, because he would not have attained his goal.
All we wish, Mr. Chairman, and I remind the minister of it-is to get the best possible guarantee that the needs of Canadians will be taken care of and that regional development will not be just empty words, but a reality.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, if one were trying to sum up the first and second messages of the minister with regard 29180-446J

Government Organization to this clause one could do so in three words, "Ottawa knows best." The impact of such a statement must be felt in areas that have greatly suffered at the hands of the federal government which in times past has devised policies in direct contradiction to the condition of those areas. It is queer that on the one hand the minister should say that this is being put in the legislation because in the past we had the Atlantic Development Board, which contributed something. Now, we are going to have less than we had before, and on the other hand, the minister justifies this by saying we are going to have a whole department charged with this responsibility.
However, there is something dangerous behind the argument that Ottawa knows best. Somebody suggests, "Uncle Ottawa knows best." That is not the kind of uncle with whom I would want to be associated. I find it really incredible that the minister and the government would urge this idea in view of the recent conference in the Confederation Room in the West Block, at which one of the main issues discussed was the need for some kind of meaningful consultation and co-operation with the provinces. If there were certain weaknesses in the Atlantic Development Board it may have been that it was not an agency which formed a bridge between what the provinces were devising and the initiatives that were open to the federal government. But now that bridge is being eliminated to the point where it will carry no meaningful traffic.
It is also passing queer that the minister would want to engage in the kind of discussion he has had with the hon. member for Lotbiniere. I know that they are both from the same province, and perhaps they are working the same side of the street. I am surprised that the minister has not received a number of communications from the provinces resenting the fact that nothing but a council will be established under the terms of this legislation.


Jean Marchand: You are
surprised?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, I am. Our communications system cannot be as good as it should be, because it strikes me that a number of the provinces should be disturbed about the fact that once the Atlantic Development Board goes there will be a transfer of decision making to Ottawa, away from the Atlantic region. There will be an elimination of a similar kind of participation for other areas very much in need of participating

March 24, 1969
Government Organization effectively in programs of economic expansion. I would think that people in those parts of Quebec that are going to be affected by this program would resent the fact that no provision is made in this legislation for that kind of participation. I think the same will apply to areas in Northern Ontario.
The minister has referred to programs that will be devised and planned for the Indian and Metis people of western Canada, but again under the terms of this legislation there is no provision for an equitable kind of participation by those people. I do not think the legislation is at all restrictive or even mandatory. It is permissive legislation, and that should certainly suit the government. I am really quite surprised that the minister finds this suggested amendment unacceptable in terms of achieving the aims which the government is trying to spell out in the establishment of this department. I am not going to say anything further on this at the moment, but I think this suggestion would offer the minister more flexibility and not less.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 30-Constitution of membership.
James Aloysius McGrath: Can the minister say what is meant by, "after consultation with-such other persons or organizations as the minister considers appropriate"? Can he give the chamber an assurance that political partisan considerations are not what are meant by this phrase, and that the only consideration will be the people who can do the best job for the region? I see no reason for having these words in there. Why not just confine it to the governments of the provinces?
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. gentleman for raising that point. I thought he would congratulate the government for having introduced this obligation to consult with the provinces. This obligation did not exist before in the law; it is new. But I think it is normal that we consult with the provinces.
What does the other sentence mean exactly? It means that in certain regions, and maybe in the Atlantic region, you have some very important organizations that are not governmental organizations but which are probably organizations that deserve to be consulted. I am thinking of APEC, for example, in the maritimes. This is a private organization, and I think it would be worth while to consult with it. This is the reason the

provision was included in the bill. It was not included in order to consult with the Liberal association of the riding.


James Aloysius McGrath: That will happen.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the hon. member who had asked him what he meant by such other person or organization, the minister explained what he meant by organization. May I ask him the same question with regard to "such other person"?


Jean Marchand: It is simply, Mr. Chairman, that organizations are not the whole answer. Consultations may sometimes take place with some very important persons who play an important part in a particular region, and not necessarily at the political level. We want consultations to be as broad as possible.
In certain regions of the province of Quebec, some people, as the house knows, play a very important part, and we want to be free to consult them before creating the board.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, does this mean that, as far as Quebec and more particularly the Eastern Townships are concerned, the minister would consult with hon. members of the Ralliement Creditiste?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I do not need any provisions in the act to force me to do so. If some hon. members of the Ralliement Creditiste truly represent the opinion of the population as a whole, I shall be glad to ask for their advice.


Albert Béchard: Shall clause 30 carry?
Clause 30 agreed to.
On clause 31-Function of Council.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, it would be useful, but I will not take the time to do so, to compare the functions of the Atlantic Development Council with the soon to be lamented Atlantic Development Board. The interpretation of the responsibilities of this Council is extremely narrow and is, in fact, limited only to suggestions in certain circumstances, which it might offer to the minister for the carrying out of his responsibilities. I will not repeat all the arguments that have been put forward about how this
March 24, 1969

really waters down the functions of the council almost to the point of non-existence.
However, Mr. Chairman, I would like to put forward a couple of amendments. In order to have both of them before us before completing our consideration of clause 31, I will put them both at the same time. In this way the committee may get the sense of what I feel is important here in respect of some of the responsibilities, at least, to be exercised by the Atlantic Development Council. To clause 31 we propose the addition of new clause (c), to read as follows:
(c) appropriate opportunities for the co-ordination of policies and programs of the government of Canada, the provinces and other responsible bodies.
Subclause (c) would now become subclause (d) and would have the following words added:
or as in the opinion of the Council should be considered by it.
The sense of these two amendments is this. In the original subclauses (a), (b) and (c) the council is asked to make reports and recommendations to the minister on plans, programs and proposals, and the feasibility of particular programs. I think this is all well and good, and I do not think anyone can disagree with the sense of what this clause sets out in terms of what the responsibilities of the council should be. But I think we are getting into an area not covered by this legislation, that is, providing some opportunity for effective co-ordination of the various programs being attempted by the federal government, the provinces, major regions or municipalities.
It seems rather strange that this principle should be omitted, because in fact a great deal of energy has been wasted because contradictory programs have been operated by the federal government. This practice should now be eliminated, because the minister has told us so, with regard to programs operated by the federal government or the provinces. It would, therefore, seem very necessary that there be in the legislation some direct commission to this Council so that it will at all times consider how the various policies and programs being devised by one or other of the respective parties will mesh; and where they are not going to mesh, to say so. Unfortunately, the Council will be limited to saying this to the minister in the hope that he or his officials will communicate with other federal
Government Organization departments, perhaps other provinces or responsible bodies, in order to arrive at the best possible program.
Without some responsibility for considering the question of co-ordination, a great deal of useful effort and initiative that might be taken by the council will surely be lost. The sense of the last amendment is merely to give the council some flexibility in its operations. If it were limited to the terms spelled out in this clause, we would restrict very largely, in its setting up and operations, the relationship of the council to the government of Canada, when surely it should not be restricted from considering very many items on its agenda which it considers important.
If the minister is as busy as I know he will be, and should be, in his function as minister responsible for this department, he will not always have time to refer matters to the council for consideration. If the council is given an opportunity to meet with regularity and to have support staff, it will be vitally important that there be provision in this bill that the council be enabled even occasionally to discuss questions or look into matters that under normal circumstances would be covered by their interest but would not be covered by the way in which the criteria are elaborated in this clause as it stands.
For these reasons, I think the amendments are important. If they are adopted, even if the Atlantic Development Council is to be much less a creature than the Atlantic Development Board, it will not be limited in its basic terms of reference in the kind of questions it must pursue if it is to carry out the kind of job necessary to any re-tailored structure.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I agree entirely in principle with all the hon. member has said, but I think it is all there in the bill as it is. What are the responsibilities and duties of the minister? They are to elaborate plans, to ensure that there is coordination with the departments, to negotiate with the provinces, to approve projects, to consult with the provinces with regard to the functions of the Council, and so forth. These are the duties of the minister. The responsibility of the council is to give advice to the minister on all the matters within his jurisdiction. What do you want to add to that? I think it is all in clause 31, which reads:
-and make reports and recommendations to the minister on,
(a)	plans, programs and proposals for fostering the economic expansion and social adjustment of the Atlantic region;

March 24, 1969
Government Organization [DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
(b)	the feasibility of particular programs and projects and the contribution those programs and projects will make to the economic expansion and social adjustment of the Atlantic region; and
(c)	such other matters, relating to the duties and functions of the Minister under this Part in respect of the Atlantic region, as the Minister may refer to the Council for its consideration.
This means that the council will advise the minister on all those subjects. His duty will be to ensure that there is collaboration and co-operation, while the council will provide him with advice.
My next comment is on the amendment proposed by the hon. member tor Egmont which reads:
-or as in the opinion of the council should be considered by it.
That would give the council wider jurisdiction than that of the minister, and this is not acceptable. I do not think the council can give advice on such things as permits to be granted to Canadian Pacific Airlines between Vancouver and Tokyo, for instance. This is not within its jurisdiction. I think the responsibility of the council must be more limited than that of the minister. So, even though I agree with all that the hon. gentleman said, I do not think his amendment is necessary. If we implement the law as it should be implemented, I do not think the hon. gentleman will have any grievance.


Mr. Marshall:: I should like to ask the minister a fundamental question having to do with the municipal or community councils. In submitting a project, through what channels would they have to go to have the project considered? Would they have to go to the Atlantic Economic Council or to the province?


Jean Marchand: Of course, their project could be studied by the council. However, we would have to have an agreement with the provinces if they were to consult what we call the infra-structure of the municipalities. We would have to have some agreement with the provinces and negotiate with them what course should be taken by the councils. I do not think there is anything in the law which would prevent them from doing it one way or another.


Thomas Miller Bell: How about regional desks?


James Aloysius McGrath: Would the minister advise the committee on whether a budget will be
IMr. Marchand (Langelier).]
appropriated to the council under the departmental estimates to provide for staff to perform the administrative functions of the council, and if not, will somebody within the department be assigned to carry on the executive functions of the people who now form the executive staff of the Atlantic Development Board?


Jean Marchand: The law makes provision for a small staff which would be at the service of the council. The council will not have a research staff such as the old Atlantic Development Board had. All the executive functions will be assumed by the department. However, I think the council will need a staff to carry on their work, to help them at their meetings and with their recommendations to the department.


James Aloysius McGrath: I have a question for
clarification, Mr. Chairman. Will the staff be separate from the department and will it function under the authority of the chairman of the council, or will it be staffed from within the department?


Jean Marchand: They will be de facto under the authority of the council but they will be integrated in the civil service and will be under the general jurisdiction of the department. However, let me point out that we are referring here to a stenographer and one or two secretaries. I think it would be preferable for this staff to be in the civil service.


James Aloysius McGrath: I referred to senior personnel, the executive staff. We realize the council would have to have stenographic and secretarial staff, but I meant personnel who would be considered to be at the executive level.


Jean Marchand: I think it should be made perfectly clear that it, is no longer necessary for the board to have this type of staff. The department will be happy to provide them with the executive staff they need for a short period of time. However, this staff would be under the jurisdiction of the department. Otherwise, we would be rebuilding the old Atlantic Development Board, which is not the intention of this legislation.


Robert Jardine McCleave: May I ask the minister how much time the chairman and the vice-chairman of the council have indicated they will make available for the performance of their duties?
March 24, 1969	COMMONS


Jean Marchand: I cannot answer this question. We have not communicated with the chairman. The vice-chairman has not yet been nominated, so it is difficult to say how much time he will devote to his duties. So far as Mr. Smith is concerned, we have not put the question to him but he accepted the duties which are outlined in the legislation. I do not know how much time he is prepared to devote to this work.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I understand Mr. Smith is leaving his position at the University of New Brunswick, probably in anticipation of spending a great deal of time on work for the council.


Jean Marchand: I cannot give the hon. member an answer to his question. If Mr. Smith resigned for the purpose of giving much of his time to the council, I will be very satisfied, but I was not made aware of this fact.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I hope he will be paid accordingly.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am glad to learn that the minister agrees with at least the intent of the amendment, even though he does not agree with its necessity or substance. One of the things that has disturbed me that has not been referred to in the discussion, and which I might raise as a result of questions put by the hon. member for St. John's East, relates to the important studies that are being prepared and printed by the Atlantic Development Board. The third one has just been printed, or will be very shortly. I understand there were a dozen of them at one time or another and the board has been working on them for some years.
I think that one of the great losses, together with other things on the demise of the Atlantic Development Board, would be the failure to complete these particular studies. Would the minister indicate what procedure has been devised or what machinery has been brought into effect to make sure that these studies are completed within a reasonable period of time?


Jean Marchand: I do not think anything will be lost. So far as the completed studies are concerned, we will look into them, and we will be happy to implement all those recommendations that we think should be implemented. If there are any studies which have not been completed and we think should be completed, we will be happy to do it directly through the department. We certainly
DEBATES	7045
Government Organization do not intend to lose any of the work done by the Atlantic Development Board.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: You have
already done that.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 32 to 35 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 36-Meetings.
Mr. Isabelle:: Mr. Chairman, I find clause 36 reads as follows:
The Council shall meet at least twice a year at such place in the Atlantic region as the Council considers appropriate or in the City of Ottawa,-
Since during the study of the bill, several departments accepted, in the framework of the reorganization, to replace the word "Ottawa" by "national capital area", and since the expression is defined in the schedule to the National Capital Act, I ask whether the hon. minister is willing to take this into consideration or whether we shall be obliged one of these days, to amend the legislation once again?


Jean Marchand: The hon. member is quite right in his remark. However, a great number of statutes would have to be amended, if we consider the national capital area as that of Hull-Ottawa. When federal buildings are built in Hull, it could be legal to meet in Hull as well as in Ottawa. At that time, perhaps it would be advisable to amend all statutes which mention the city of Ottawa, but I do not think it is necessary right now.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, could the
minister give us at least the guarantee, when he says it is not necessary to do so now and that it could and will be done later, that it will not be put off indefinitely?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, it will not be put off indefinitely, because everyone knows that we are now considering the problems of the national capital.
When we consider the estimates, there will undoubtedly be a discussion on what constitutes the national capital area and then, we shall all have the opportunity to state our views. It will be the best opportunity to correct what we want to correct.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 37 agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
March 24, 1969
Government Organization
On clause 38-Staff
James Aloysius McGrath: Before this clause carries, would the minister tell the committee what salary the government has in mind for the official who is to be designated as secretary to the council?


Jean Marchand: Unfortunately, I cannot. Perhaps tomorrow or some other day, I can indicate the salary range. I referred a few minutes ago to a secretary, but I believe the council will have the services of a senior executive officer. I do not know what the salary will be, but I shall be happy to give the information to the hon. member as soon as I am able to do so.


James Aloysius McGrath: This brings up an interesting question. I understand the Director General of the Atlantic Development Board is now the assistant deputy minister of the department. Will Dr. Weeks have any particular responsibilities with regard to the operations of the council?


Jean Marchand: He will surely have a general responsibility as assistant deputy minister. In fact, I think Dr. Weeks will always have a special responsibility as far as the maritimes are concerned because he knows the region very well. I know he is well regarded in the region, and rightly so, and I think it is our intention to use his services as much as we can.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Will the minister indicate whether the position of secretary will be full time or whether it is to be considered only a part time responsibility?


Jean Marchand: I see it as a full time position.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 39-Regulations
Mr. Horner:: I have remained silent
throughout the most controversial parts of this piece of legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I have remained silent for a number of reasons. First, I wanted to learn the exact intent of the legislation. Second, I wanted to hear evidence which would prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that my fears with regard to this bill were groundless. I can only say that having sat through a good deal of this debate, and having read those

parts of it which took place during my absence, many of those fears have still to be set at rest.
Clause 39, which we are now considering, says the Governor in Council may make regulations defining the expression "work or facility for the economic expansion of a special area." Mr. Chairman, I live in the province of Alberta where there are two special areas. They have existed ever since 1935. Since that time parliament has passed legislation dealing with designated areas, specific areas in need of development, yet the areas of which I speak, singled out as special areas as far back as 1935, have not been able to qualify for one reason or another for the benefits provided under the legislation. There has been a great deal of discussion about FRED, ARDA and APEC. ARDA was held out to the special areas of Alberta as being the answer to the whole problem. Now, we find ARDA and the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, which has been of tremendous benefit to the region concerned, gobbled up by this powerful minister who is to be in charge of everything to do with special areas.
I want the hon. gentleman to take a special look at the areas designated in the Province of Alberta since 1935. These are areas where there is a high birthrate and long life expectancy, areas which satisfy many of the criteria outlined under the ARDA scheme, but where there is a slow rate of growth and few opportunities for productive employment. These areas might well be described as the desert of Alberta. Many hon. members will be (surprised to learn this. Special area No. 2 was designated because of the arid1 conditions which exist there. As long ago as the early 'twenties, the federal government paid the fares of settlers moving out because there was no opportunity to find employment there. Settlers were moved out from 1921 to 1939; the area of which I speak is roughly rectangular in shape, about 100 miles by 180 miles in the east central part of Alberta between Calgary and the Saskatchewan border, well within the Palliser triangle. P.F.R.A. has played a prominent part in helping people to live in this region.
Development in these two special areas has fallen behind. Now, we are giving this benevolent god, one might say, who is going to bring about great regional development, extensive powers under the proposed legislation. I have grave doubts about even his great capacity for promoting such development. In fact, I have grave doubts about the ability of
March 24, 1969

the government to do anything which benefits individuals. Having been around here for 11 years, I suspect that government only does those things which benefit government. Here is a huge land mass in the province of Alberta, a wealthy province in the eyes of the federal government, one which does not receive equalization payments. Here is a large area which fully qualifies to be a special area under the terms of clause 39. Indeed, it is already named as a special area. There is not a municipal government in the whole region of which I speak. The ratepayers cannot vote for a reeve or for councillors. Since it has been designated1 as a special area, the government of Alberta appoints an administrator with special powers to encourage economic development.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
Let me tell the minister that economic development has not taken place in special area No. 2 or special area No. 3. Adequate opportunities for employment have not been forthcoming. People who remain in those areas have provided for themselves and their families because they have had the initiative and the will to do so. But the areas have not grown or participated to any degree in the general growth of the province of Alberta or the country as a whole.
In administering the act, the minister should pay particular attention to special areas No. 2 and No. 3. The minister might ask me how he does this. I could cite a number of industries that attempted to set up operation in those very areas. For example, I was enticed into joining a manufacturing company which my financial knowledge and all the rest told me was a bad venture. Since I was a representative and must show some faith in the area, I invested some money, though not a great deal. This particular manufacturing plant has existed for four years now in the town of Hanna and has not received one red cent of assistance from the federal government, though it could have done with some. Even a request for a loan from the Industrial Development Bank was turned down.
Huge grants have been given to United States subsidiaries in the province of Ontario, subsidiaries that no more needed those grants than the minister needs to fly to the moon, though there may well be good cause for him to fly to the moon. U.S. subsidiaries have also received grants in the province of Quebec as well as U.S. oil refineries that were built in Newfoundland. Contrast that with the situation in Alberta which has to contribute dearly 29180-447
Government Organization by way of equalization grants to the provinces of Newfoundland and Quebec.
In view of this, why has not this whole area to which I refer in what you might call the central or east central part of Alberta received some attention from the federal government in the form of loans, let alone grants? These special areas have received no assistance because the people in the area have fairly good incomes and either own or lease from the provincial government huge tracts of land.
This clause provides for the making of regulations respecting factors relating to the inadequacy of opportunities for productive employment. I emphasize the words "opportunities for productive employment". Opportunities for productive employment have not been provided in special area No. 2 or special area No. 3. Since the federal government feels it should subsidize U.S. subsidiaries in Ontario, a wealthy province, and in Quebec, another wealthy province, as well as in the maritimes to enable them to compete with the very industry that allows Alberta to contribute money to equalization grants, surely the minister should pay some attention to areas in western Canada that are in need of opportunities for productive employment.
Hundreds of people have left this area of which I speak during the last 20 to 30 years. Between 1940, when times in Canada were considered' relatively good owing to the second world war, and 1969, a period of 29 years, special areas No. 2 and No. 3 in the province of Alberta have seen large numbers of people leave because of the lack of employment opportunities. The province decreed these districts designated areas some 34 years ago. Yet, under the designated area legislation this parliament passed some four years ago no attention was paid to them.
Under this legislation the minister is given huge powers to allow him to develop areas in any part of Canada. Surely, he can pay some attention to a part of western Canada that has not kept pace with the economic growth of Canada as a whole. I urge the minister to correct this situation after this bill is passed. Let him not set up nine criteria as was done under ARDA. ARDA was first of all set up to develop resources in order to enable people to provide for themselves. Actually, all Albertans want is an opportunity to provide for themselves. That is all that the people in special areas No. 2 and No. 3 want. They do not want handouts.

March 24. 1S69
Government Organization
According to Time magazine for February 28, if the money required to build' a causeway were distributed among the population of Prince Edward Island each person would receive something like $6,700. This reminds me of an Indian reservation on the prairies which was given to a once proud race of people about 100 years ago. They were told there would not be any causeway that would take them off the reservation; they were to be fenced in and the federal government would1 provide for them. But what happened? Subsequent governments in the late 1800's debased that once proud race of people to the point that today they really do not want to participate in our society. Let the minister not do this under this legislation. Let him not create an Indian reservation out of the province of Prince Edward Island. Build a causeway there and let the people provide for themselves.
Let not special areas No. 2 and No. 3 in the province of Alberta become a desert in a proud and wealthy province such as Alberta. Let the minister contribute to the development of the area and create the employment opportunities referred to in clause 39. Let the minister be prepared to participate. Let him give a grant, if necessary, to local Canadians to develop industry in those areas, instead of giving R.C.A. Victor $5 million to establish a subsidiary in a wealthy town in Ontario.
I urge the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, to pay particular regard to the responsibility that is placed on his shoulders of allowing people to provide for themselves. Let him not create Indian reservations on Prince Edward Island. Let him not establish Indian reservations anywhere in Canada; we have had enough of them. If the minister is to shoulder his heavy responsibilities adequately he must examine every nook and cranny of Canada and develop opportunities for Canadians in all parts of Canada.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
About three weeks ago I returned from a trip to the maritimes. We had been studying Maritime transportation problems. As a westerner, I could not help being impressed with the opportunity that exists for the people down there. That struck me as odd. Ever since the Gordon report came out saying we must move people from the Maritimes, the federal government has moved them out. I say to the minister, stand back and look at the forest because if you are too close you will not see the trees. There is lots of opportunity in the Maritimes. A little initiative on

the part of our people is needed if those opportunities are to be realized, but they do exist. If only one quarter of the people who left the Maritimes as a result of the Gordon report would return, I am sure the area would flourish. The federal government moved the people out of special areas No. 2 and 3; that took place between 1921 and 1939. If a quarter of those who left that area were to return, the area in question would receive a tremendous boost. If the government created employment opportunities in those areas those people would return to the affected regions of Alberta and other prairie provinces.
I say to the minister, take your job seriously and shoulder your heavy responsibilities. Look into every nook and cranny of Canada to see where employment opportunities might be created. If you do not, you will not have fulfilled the obligations you took on under this legislation and you will not be worthy of the ministry and the department which will play a big part in the development of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 40-Annual report.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, as hon. members know, this clause deals with the annual report. I wish to move an amendment that is related to the annual report. While this bill has been debated fear has been expressed in this house, by members of the public and in the press, that the minister is being given too much power under this legislation. The minister has been given more power than is normally entrusted to a minister heading a department. His power takes three forms. First, he has power to designate areas. He will be able to say what kind of industry shall be established in areas in order to correct regional disparities. Second, he can decide what kinds of grants are to be made to industries in their first three years of operation and whether there will be grants or loans. Perhaps because the house respects the minister, this point has not been raised tonight. As hon. members know, this power might be used for purposes of political patronage however, hon, members in this house have too high a regard for the minister to even suggest that he would use this power in that way. The third point, and this was discussed at some length, is the power the minister has to co-ordinate or to conscript the co-operation of other government departments.
March 24, 19G9	COMMONS
We have tried to assist the minister in making sure that he can carry out his duties successfully. Although we support these measures, we must be realistic. We have entrusted the minister with a great deal of responsibility. That responsibility is greater than other ministers bear. If we are to be responsible members of the house we must, in our turn, examine on a regular basis the minister's stewardship. If the house has no assurance that it will examine on a regular basis the way the minister has discharged his duties it will have failed in its responsibility of ensuring that the department achieves the objectives which have been set out. For that reason, I propose to move an amendment to clause 40. I hope the minister will accept it. If he does not, perhaps he may move a similar amendment of his own. I think the minister and his officials would be on weak ground if they refuse to set up any adequate or necessary machinery which would examine how the minister has discharged his powers under this legislation. I, therefore, move to have the following words added to the end of clause 40:
Such report shall then be immediately referred to Standing Committee of the House of Commons on Economic Growth and Regional Disparity which shall be constituted as soon as possible after the commencement of the first session of each parliament, in any event not more than 20 days after the commencement of the said session, and presided over by a member of the opposition.
Three things are significant about this amendment. First, it refers specifically to a committee that is to be established regularly under the standing orders of the House of Commons. It will discharge certain responsibilities that are related to this department. The present committee most closely approximating the proposed committee is called the Committee on Regional Development. I think the minister will agree that that designation is much too vague. Clearly the minister thought it vague because the new department is to be called the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. The proposed committee would examine matters related to economic growth, which is of paramount importance to the whole country, and questions concerning regional disparity. It is important to have such activity clearly spelled out in the designation of the committee. If the minister, his staff or the people of the country consider the department the only agency responsible for lifting up regions across the country and enabling them to join the main stream of economic viability, then of course 29180-447J
DEBATES	7049
Government Organization the department and its programs will flounder. On the other hand, if it is clear that the continued economic health of the nation depends on a realistic attack on the problems of areas suffering from regional economic disparity it will also be clear that the proposed committee will have some responsibility in dealing with this problem.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
Therefore, I think it is important that the committee be designated as a committee on economic growth and regional disparity. Second, I think it is important that this committee, by statute, be charged to meet on a regular basis. We do not foresee any problem at the present time with this minister, but one never knows the developments which will occur in years hence. It may be the government, for reasons of its own, may not want the committee to meet. This would militate against the proper responsibilities, interests and privileges enjoyed by members of this house.
This amendment suggests quite specifically that the committee shall meet as soon as possible after the commencement of the first session of each parliament or at least no later than 20 days after the commencement of the said session. That is important if we are to be ensured parliament is going to five up to its responsibilities in entrusting these powers to the minister.
Third, I suggest this committee be presided over by a member of the opposition to give it the kind of impartiality and credibility that is important for major committees of this kind. I hear a member to my far right "phoo-fawing" that idea. I do not think he is serious because I am sure he realizes how important it is for committees such as Public Accounts to be chaired by a member of the opposition in order to have a full, free, frank inquiry into the circumstances that relate to its own area of jurisdiction. It would be important, not only for members of this house but for the general public whom we seek to serve as well as to a degree the provinces that will not from time to time share all the views of the minister, to know that full and open discussions are being held on a regular basis of all activities related to the particular responsibilities exercised by the minister. If the minister suggests this is not an acceptable amendment, he is then denying to this house the kind of responsibility it should exercise, while freely accepting a number of responsibilities being entrusted to him under this legislation.

March 24, 1969
Government Organization
The Depuly Chairman: Shall the amendment carry?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I feel there is some confusion in all this. Many times I have heard it said in this house that this legislation will give huge powers to the minister and that the house must be protected, not necessarily against the present minister, but anyone who can abuse those powers. Anyone who reads the bill carefully will notice the powers are not given to the minister, but to the Governor in Council. This is where the powers lie. Every decision must be ratified by the Governor in Council.
All the arguments which are based on having something accepted because of special powers of the ministers, I do not think are good arguments because the minister does not have those special powers. I think under the present rules the estimates have to be referred to a committee and the type of discussion mentioned by the hon. member for Egmont could take place there. Therefore, the problem is not to try to hide anything from the house, because the house already has all the means to control what is going on in this department. First, there is the control of the Governor in Council and then there is the control of the house. My main argument is that I do not like the idea of having a standing committee of the house created to deal with a particular piece of departmental legislation. I believe it is the function of the house itself, in accordance with the rules, to establish such a committee if the house feels such a committee should be established. I do not believe this should be done through a piece of departmental legislation. I think that would be bad procedure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jean Marchand: I still agree in principle with what has been said. I think this department must be controlled like all others. I believe members of this house at least at the beginning will have to be careful, but we have everything under control in the department. I do not think the house is in danger of being cheated by the minister or even by the department. I am entirely in agreement with the objectives. If the house is not satisfied with the discussions when the estimates are referred to the committee, then the house can always create a committee of the nature and kind suggested in the motion. This is the reason I am opposed to the amendment.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, one of the most important reasons perhaps for considering this important committee, along with the arguments I advanced, lies in the importance of the subject matter with which the Committee would deal. While the minister might suggest that normally a standing committee is not established in legislation setting up a department, that course may be necessary if we are to have this problem settled. If the government and the house are not prepared to do this, then we should pack it up now and go back to what we had because it is likely that it will be as good as anything we will see in the next four or five years. I think there must be engagement at all levels in the government structure if we are to get at the problem which has been so chronic that no amount of goodwill has been able to settle it.
The minister suggested it is the function of the house to set up a committee which it feels it needs. That is all well and good. We all know that committees are or are not set up at the wishes of the government in power. When the government sees fit, and sees no great problem for itself in having a matter fully aired, it will allow the committee to go ahead with its responsibilities. When, however, there are questions which it would not like to see raised it can use the device employed by all governments and not refer the estimates or not establish the committee. Despite what the minister said to the effect that he is not engaged with any special powers, we would certainly hope he is being given some special responsibility or else we will not really get beyond what has existed with previous ministers.
[DOT] (10:10 n.m.)
I do not see how, on the one hand, he can say he is not to be given any special responsibility and, on the other hand, say this attempt will go farther than the previous ones. I do not think he can have it both ways. The minister is going to make many decisions that will be important. If the house expects him to exercise these special kinds of responsibilities through his department, then, if I may say so, it is a little bit fraudulent not to believe that the house itself has some responsibility. I do not deny the good will of the minister. I do not deny that he agrees with my suggestion, with the exception of the way it is stated. I do not think that his good will is sufficient when it is important to this house
March 24, 1969	COMMONS
that the committee meet, even if the concurrence of the government of the day is not given to such a meeting.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could set the hon. member straight on the business of standing committees. By Standing Order 65, concurred in earlier in this session we did set up a Standing Committee on Regional Development. I also suggest that the hon. member might look at some of the other changes that we made in the rules on December 20 last.
He would then find that his assertion is mistaken that the government can prevent the committee meeting and considering estimates. The government has no choice over whether estimates are referred to a standing committee. It is under an obligation to refer estimates and each year, until the rules may be changed by the house, the estimates will automatically be referred, and the opportunity will exist for the committee to meet and to consider the particular questions that may be of relevance to it.
May I make another point with respect to the observation of the hon. member about putting into legislation essentially matters which surely should be the prerogative of the House of Commons only. The procedure of the house is determined by the house itself. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre very often says that the rules here should be determined by parliament, but he does not really mean that because parliament means the Senate, the House of Commons and the Queen. I do not think that we, under this legislation, or under any other legislation-


William Arnold Peters: Do you want this by eleven o'clock?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: My friend, we will have it by eleven o'clock and not even you will be able to prevent it. There was an order to that effect earlier today. May I also point out to the hon. member for Egmont that if we fall into the practice of putting this kind of amendment into statutes, then anytime we in the House of Commons wanted to change our rules in the house with respect to the manner in which we handle our business, the type of committee that we have, or the process of legislation, we would have to ask the permission of the Senate, and the Queen to do so. I think it is appropriate and reasonable to make procedural changes with respect to the business of the house within the context of the standing orders, and not to shackle the house's right to deal with its own
DEBATES	7051
Government Organization procedures by including procedural limitations in statutes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, a few minutes ago I was prepared to get up and say that even though it hurt me to do so I had to support the position taken by the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development. I hope that his case has not been spoiled by the intervention of the President of the Privy Council, but as a matter of fact I am afraid he has provoked my hon. friend from Timiskaming to keep this going until eleven o'clock. I had hoped we would finish it by 10.30.
If I may revert to the case made by the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development, I suggest that it is an unwise policy to write rules for this House of Commons into statutes. I think we should make our own rules. I believe we have made some improvements, and things are getting along reasonably well.
I also ask the hon. member for Egmont, even if his amendment were to carry, where would he be? All he would have is a requirement that a committee be constituted, that its chairman be a member of the opposition, and that the report be referred thereto-period.
There is no requirement in this amendment that the report be dealt with, that there be a report back to the house, and that it be dealt with here. Maybe I have saved my hon. friend from Timiskaming the trouble of making the speech that is probably up his sleeve, but may I point out that a more serious problem which faces us is what we do with the reports of committees. We have too many committees that meet-not the ones on estimates and bills-but on investigations and so on, and they report back to the house, and those reports do not get dealt with. In any case, I think it would be a mistake to write into our statutes, which have to go to the other place, the rules under which we carry on our proceedings in this house.
I think it would be better to leave it to the house to exercise its responsibility over this department by seeing that when the estimates of the department are referred to the committee, as they must be, all its operations are thoroughly scrutinized.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, having listened to these two house leaders, both somewhat recognized with regard to

March 24, 1969
Government Organization house procedure, I suppose I am really putting my head in the lion's mouth in disagreeing with them. However, I think they themselves put part of the argument when they suggested it is really the responsibility of the house to establish particular committees to deal with this question or that.
Under normal circumstances their suggestion is correct. But the very fact that the house from time to time must make that kind of decision means there may well be many occasions when the importance of questions raised with regard to the operations of this department should be considered by a special committee. It may be, and I apologize to the house for insufficient draftsmanship at this point, that I should have added another sentence at the end, namely, that in all other respects it would function as a regular standing committee of the House of Commons. If that would satisfy hon. members to my left and those on the other side of the house, I would be happy to add those words. I gather, however, the nature of the objection is more than that.
While the house leader was anxious to jump into the discussion and give the house his views on the matter I am sorry that he did not express, nor did the minister, their views on the importance of a member of the opposition functioning as Chairman of the committee. I do not know whether he thought this was not an important question to be resolved in the context of this amendment, but it is one of the questions that should be looked at very seriously. If there is to be the degree of impartiality and the breadth of discussion necessary in order that all facts are known on a regular basis, some such arrangement should obviously be very seriously considered. That, of course, is1 all that is included-


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the hon. member a question? What exactly is the reason he would give why a member of the opposition would be less partial in this political body than a member supporting the government?


Gerald William Baldwin: Experience!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I would think the answer to that question is obvious. But if the minister needs an answer, it is of course the fact that the government has on this committee and on any other, of course, a majority of members. I am trying to balance off what are the particular partisan positions of members. No one is denying,

least of all me, that every member who functions on a committee represents to some degree his own party and his own position in the house. But I think we must try and create-this is the closest I can come to it-a committee that allows for enough balance so that it can make the full and frank inquiry that is necessary. Otherwise, I presume there will be some movement on the government side to do away with having a member of the opposition chair the Public Accounts Committee.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I was referring to a previous chairman of the Public Accounts Committee.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: 
Jean Marchand: I do not think it would be proper for me at the present time to make a commitment of this kind in the name of the government.


Albert Béchard: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Albert Béchard: The amendment is negatived, on division.
Amendment (Mr. MacDonald, Egmont) negatived.
March 24, 1969


Gerald William Baldwin: After listening to the debate, in which I did not participate much as I was tempted to, I am sorry to hear the President of the Privy Council and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre indicate they cannot support this idea because it is new.
I would have thought that in matters of this kind the fact that something had not been done before should not be the basis of an objection to it being tried at this time. I am amazed at the company which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is keeping at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't rub it in, please.


Gerald William Baldwin: The amendment was defeated, of course, and is not subject to discussion. Despite what the minister and the President of the Privy Council said, there is nothing in the bill that will make it essential that the report be referred to a committee dealing with the operations of the department. Let me point out that we have passed clause 39, which will presumably be passed by the other place, and will become part of the law under which we give to the government the right to legislate. The Govemor-in-Council is empowered to make regulations for carrying out the purposes and the provisions of this bill. These are very wide powers indeed; they virtually constitute the right to legislate. For that reason, the operations of the minister and his department under this report should certainly be the subject of discussion and consideration by the appropriate committee. Will the minister undertake that so long as he is minister he will ensure that this report will be given to the appropriate committee for its consideration each year?


Jean Marchand: I think the power to make regulations which is contained in clause 39 is not more extensive than the power given to other departments.


Gerald William Baldwin: But it is still objectionable.


Jean Marchand: This is nothing special. Perhaps the whole bill will have to be revised some day, but this is the only way to proceed.
To answer the hon. member's question, if there is a good reason for referring the report of the department to a special committee, I will be ready to discuss it and accept it. I do not see the difference between discussing it now or at some other time when the problem is before the house. What my reaction will be at that time I do not know because it will depend on the importance of the report. I do

Government Organization not think it is fair to expect me to commit myself on a problem that has not yet arisen, and on something that I know nothing about right now.


Gerald William Baldwin: Will he place any obstacle in the path of the committee considering and receiving this report? I put it to the minister in this way: Despite what he said, under clause 39 this government is securing extraordinary powers to make regulations and to carry out the purposes and provisions of the bill. These powers have been specifically spelled out; they have been debated, they have been the subject of amendment and they were passed.
Now, we have reached a situation where the minister can be given by the Governor-inCouncil wide and extraordinary powers. Much of what will be done will be done by regulation. If the minister is not prepared to give an undertaking that the report will be given to the appropriate committee for consideration by that committee, will he at least indicate that he is prepared to facilitate the committee being given the opportunity to consider the report and that he will place no obstacles in the path of it doing so?


Jean Marchand: If this is something reasonable, I am sure I will support it. If it is a manoeuvre, I will oppose it. The hon. member tells me that a majority government may abuse its power. I think that is true. The only remedy for that, as far as I can see, is an election and nothing else. But if I think the proposal is reasonable, then as far as I am concerned I will surely support it. I cannot go further than that.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I should simply like to make a few remarks following those of my colleague of Peace River (Mr. Baldwin).
When the anti-dumping legislation was being studied, we were able to insert in it a provision stipulating that all regulations passed by the governor in council will be tabled in the house and referred to the appropriate committee.
The minister knows as well as I do that under the regulations act, any regulation enacted in accordance with section 39 should at least be published in the Canada Gazette.
But there is an exception and the minister will recall our discussion with his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, (Mr. Olson) during the consideration of Bills C-154, C-156 and C-157. At that time, the Minister of Agricul-

March 24, 1969
Government Organization ture refused' to incorporate any regulation into the act but promised that any regulation would be published and actually tabled in the house for the consideration of the committee.
I raise that point because my colleague, the hon. member for Peace River, said, and rightly so, that we were thereby giving the governor in council unlimited powers to draw up a second bill.
In fact, what does clause 39 contain? Only some patching up. Perhaps the number of paragraphs in that clause is no greater than in other acts, but the essential can be found in them.
The minister can say that the same provisions appear in the other bills, but I still maintain that it only amounts to some patching up. However, the fact is that the principle is quite dangerous and that we shall insist more and more to have any regulation published and submitted for consideration, since everyone knows that he who gets unlimited powers can misuse the privilege.
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)
Even if there is good will, one is inclined to abuse power when one has it. Therefore, I ask the minister if he can assure us that all regulations made under clause 39 will be presented to the house so that the appropriate committee may have the opportunity to examine them.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, maybe there is some misunderstanding-and perhaps also a lack of precision on my part.
Once this legislation is passed, I hope that we will be able to bring down in May, as I announced it, a bill respecting industrial incentives, which will be the real legislation that will enable us to help industry.
That legislation will provide the criteria for designation, the amounts of money, etc. In other words, the legislation will spell out everything the house needs to know in order to make up its mind and pass' judgment on the general activity of the government in this field. The bill before us is only intended to establish the department and nothing more.
As soon as we start studying the field of industrial incentives, a special legislation will be brought before the house.
As to the regulations which will allow the department to take some steps, they could only fall within the public domain and perhaps be discussed in the house, should hon. members not agree on them.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 20 agreed to.

Clauses 102 to 106 inclusive agreed to.
Schedule A agreed to.
Schedule B as amended agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Albert Béchard: This concludes consideration of Bill C-173.
Bill reported.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: When shall the said bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I shall just take a minute, Mr. Speaker. The bill has now proceeded through the house. With regard to what is, perhaps in many ways, a most important section of the bill, namely the part of the bill we have been discussing these past several days relating to regional economic development, I do not wish to add anything to what I said previously when I made some suggestions and expressed some reservations about the manner in which the department is constituted and its approach.
Actually, I am disappointed that it has taken the government 10 or 11 months to prepare this bill for the house. Perhaps the house has not done too badly by dealing with it in 10 or 11 days. But the point 1 want to make is that the bill has now been passed and the various departments finally established.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No-what about the Senate?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The bill has passed as far as this house is concerned. This measure is obviously one of the most irhportant measures the government is undertaking. The activities of the various departments will be watched with great interest and scrutiny. As I say, it has taken the government 10 months to get the bill before the house; in God's name, let the government now go ahead with its work and get the job done.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, although we can commend a great deal of Bill C-173, there is one serious gap in it. No provision has been made to set up a department of housing and urban affairs. The federal cabinet should include in the bill a minister responsible for housing and urban development who would occupy his portfolio on a
March 24, 1969

full time basis and have the assistance of a staff in carrying out important policy decisions. The activities of the new department would embrace research, review in this field and the generating of policy. It would not replace or compete with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That Bill C-173 be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole house for the purpose of amending it to provide for a department of housing and urban affairs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
Chair has serious doubts as to the validity of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) and if an hon. member would like to make some comments, the Chair would be happy to hear them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is wrong with it, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I think this amendment is not relevant to the bill. It
Government Organization is beyond the scope of the actual bill. I refer hon. members to citation 418 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition:
The question for the third reading is put immediately after the report from the Committee of the Whole. All amendments which may be moved on a second reading of a bill may be moved on the third reading with the restriction that they cannot deal with any matter which is not contained in the bill-
When a motion is made 'that the Bill be now read a third time', the same kind of amendments are permissible as on the second reading, i.e., amendments postponing it for three or six months.
The amendment must be relevant to the bill at third reading. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the main motion.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
time being after ten o'clock, this house stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m.
At 10.40 the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.

Tuesday, March 25, 1969



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Sixth report of Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social affairs, in French and English-Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull).
[Editor's Note: Text of foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]