1969-11-24

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
21545-li
Queen's Printer for Canada, Ottawa, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Monday, November 24, 1969


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, seldom does a Prime Minister of Canada rise in the House of Commons to comment on activities undertaken by foreign governments. Nevertheless, the simultaneous steps taken this morning by the United States and the Soviet Union are of such importance to all of mankind that I regard it as entirely proper to use this opportunity to bring them to the attention of all hon. members, all the more so as in my statement at the beginning of the session this is what the government of Canada asked these two governments to do.
At eleven o'clock this morning the governments of the United States and the Soviet Union announced their intention to deposit forthwith instruments of ratification of the non-proliferation treaty, a step which our government and other governments have been urging for some time. This event will hopefully precede the coming into force of the treaty, which Canada and 20 other countries have already ratified.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that hon. members will join me in welcoming this important decision and in hoping that it will be followed by others of similar importance during the strategic arms limitation talks now being held in Helsinki.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, the news announced by the Prime Minister will receive widespread approval throughout the world. I hope that the next countries that will see fit to ratify the treaty will be France and the Federal Republic of Germany. As a matter of fact, the latter has recently announced that it will take such a step. It becomes increasingly important that
continental China, the country with the largest population in the world, be brought within the community of nations so that she can be a party to some of these instruments that may result in the survival of mankind.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: I am sure that members in all parts of the House join with the Prime Minister in expressing great pleasure that this first step toward reaching a non-proliferation treaty has been taken by the United States and the U.S.S.R. I hope that the Canadian government will press on to urge the establishment of an underground test ban treaty and that we will also continue to press for changes in the proposed treaty with respect to seabed nuclear installations. I think Mr. George Ignatieff has been taking a very excellent position on this matter in Geneva. I hope the Canadian government will support him and get the support of other countries to take this necessary step.
However, Mr. Speaker, the whole question of nuclear arms is so far-reaching in its implications for mankind that I do not think we can ever be satisfied until we have succeeded in getting the nations of the world, in particular the nuclear nations, to agree to a treaty which will not only ban testing and reduce proliferation but will finally ban the manufacturing, storing and use of nuclear weapons in every field. I hope that this is the position which the Canadian government will press in the various international agencies when our representatives sit down with the representatives of other countries.

Mi. Real Caoueite (Temiscamingue): Mr. Speaker, we from the Ralliement creditiste are pleased to learn that the world is now taking a course that will encourage the various countries to realize that they are in danger of being completely wiped out if they carry on the nuclear arms race.
We are quite pleased to learn from the Prime Minister of Canada himself that the United States and Russia have concluded this morning an agreement to restrict the production and use of nuclear weapons.

November 24, 1969
B.C. Oil Drilling
As the other members, we hope that the other nations will follow suit and show more understanding and co-operation in order that there may be less suspicion among them. Thus, the entire world will be in a position to consider the future more calmly than in the past few years.
We are pleased to hear such good news and we hope that a similar agreement will be concluded with the other nations that already have nuclear weapons.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I desire to introduce a motion of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43 which reads 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.
My explanation, Mr. Speaker, is quite brief. My motion arises out of the fact that the government of British Columbia has granted seismic testing permits for drilling in the coastal areas of B.C., in particular in Georgia Strait. The people who live in those areas are fearful that they will be subjected to the same kind of oil pollution which has been experienced by people living in the coastal areas of California. If the seismic tests prove to be favourable the oil companies will be applying to the federal government for oil drilling permits.
I therefore contend it is imperative that parliament be given an opportunity to express its opinion on this matter and that the government should indicate whether or not it intends to grant these oil drilling permits before the seismic testing goes too far. I would therefore like to move, seconded by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis):
That this House expresses its concern regarding the potential oil pollution arising from the proposed exploratory drilling in the Georgia Strait and in the waters off the coast of British Columbia and urges that all those concerned take immediate steps to assure that this will not be allowed to happen.


Mr. Speaker:: As the hon. member knows, this motion, to be presented for consideration

by the House at this time, requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not. Therefore the motion may not be put to the House.



URBAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) has indicated the gist of Standing Order 43. I would now ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion under that Standing Order. In order to establish the urgent and pressing necessity which justifies my request I make the following brief explanation. The federal government, Mr. Speaker, is currently involved in a number of problems relating to issues which directly affect the municipalities, that is, airport location, pollution, violence, urban transportation, housing and slum clearance, urban poverty, etc. Despite the provincial governments' primary constitutional responsibility, it is urgent and essential that a forum be established by this House to permit those concerned in such immediate urban problems to make their representations.
I therefore ask for unanimous consent to move the following motion:
That In the opinion of this House, a special committee of this House on urban affairs should be appointed to consider and make recommendations, and to report to this House on the advisability of measures to be taken affecting people living in urban areas.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has indicated the urgency of this matter and has indicated what his motion is. I hope he does not intend to proceed into the matter much further. I have to bring to the attention of hon. members that a special committee of the House spent a few years revising our rules, changing substantially Standing Order 26. I would think that hon. members would agree that we should not now find a way to circumvent the new rules of the House by abusing- by taking advantage of Standing Order 43. If
November 24, 1969



hon. members wish to propose a motion under Standing Order 43 they should be satisfied with making a brief explanation. I would invite the co-operation of all hon. members to respect the spirit of that rule by limiting their submissions to the House to a very brief explanation. I suggest to the hon. member for Hamilton West that this is what he has done to this point, and I do not think any purpose would be served by pursuing the matter further.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: On the
point of order that Your Honour has raised, Your Honour is quite correct, but during the course of proceedings in the House a day or two ago I attempted to make use of the provisions of Standing Order 68 and Your Honour reminded me that because that order had not been made use of it has probably expired.
I think it must be our course on this side to ensure that such rules are not lost through atrophy.


Mr. Speaker:: That is quite obvious. I would think that the use we have been making of this Standing Order during recent weeks indicates that the Standing Order is still acceptable in the sense that it is the type of Standing Order that can be made use of. I do not want to make things difficult for the hon. member for Hamilton West. If he has further comments to make they can be made, with the usual caution by the Chair. I would certainly allow him to continue.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It was not my intention to circumvent the rules of the House, nor was it my intention to take the time of the House unnecessarily. I think I can say, with a great deal of respect to the Chair, that the problem I have posed is one of great concern to all Canadians. Perhaps it can be put down to my inexperience with the rules, but I have followed the rules and I would hope that the Speaker would realize that my intention was sincere. Of course it is unfortunate-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's hope is well-founded, I can assure him. I thought that, as I always do, it was my duty to remind hon. members that under Standing Order 43 the only explanation that can be made is regarding urgency and it has to be as brief as possible. I am sure all hon. members will agree with me, upon reflection, that we should
Urban Affairs
be careful not to revert to the situation we had previously under Standing Order 26 which was not quite conducive to effective, efficient and orderly debate. I hope we will not get ourselves involved in that situation. I am not suggesting that we have at any time up until now, but I think it may be useful to bring this point to the attention of the House from time to time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would think it would be helpful to hon. members if Your Honour would make clear what your concern is. The wording of Standing Order 43 is perfectly clear. It says "that in case of urgent and pressing necessity explained by the mover" an hon. member can, by unanimous consent, move a motion. I take it Your Honour is concerned about the length of the explanation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member is making the point now. What I am worried about is that we could have a lengthy explanation that would in effect be a speech rather than an explanation in support of the motion. That is what I am hoping to prevent, for the benefit of all members of the House.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
I have often said it is difficult for the Chair to determine what brevity is. We do not all have the same standards. The Chair always hopes that hon. members will observe brevity in the sense that they will be brief rather than long. At the same time I think that an hon. member who moves this type of motion would feel that he is entitled to have some kind of leniency in proceeding somewhat longer than the Chair may wish. As the hon. member knows, my concern is in connection with the possible extension of such remarks. I am sure that hon. members will keep this in mind as they have in the past and as they no doubt have this afternoon.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I know all hon. members want to be guided by your wishes in the matter. We all agree that explanations should be brief, but some explanation is necessary. I contend that both explanations which have been given have not been longer than necessary to explain the motions being introduced.
November 24, 1969

Provincial Grain Payments


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is no point in our pursuing this matter much further. I told the hon. member I was in agreement with him. The explanations which were made were acceptable. It was only when the hon. member for Hamilton West sought to pursue the matter after having moved his motion that I thought this caution should be given. Motions.


Gerald William Baldwin: Your Honour has not put the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member for Hamilton West leave to proceed with the motion which has been presented to the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I hear some yeas and some nays. The hon. member knows there must be unanimous agreement before the motion can be put, and there has not been unanimous agreement.



MEASURE TO AUTHORIZE PROVISIONAL PAYMENTS

Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (for Mr. Lang, Minisier wiihout Portfolio) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-157, to authorize provisional payments for the 1969-70 crop year in respect of unthreshed grain in the prairie provinces.


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


Allan Joseph MacEachen: for leave to introduce Bill C-158, respecting civil liability for nuclear damage.


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

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-159, respecting the designation of the Speaker of the House of Commons as the

member for the electoral district of Parliament Hill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, may I first thank the hon. member for Fundy-Royal for seconding my motion for the introduction of this bill. I also thank those members of other parties who have indicated their interest in it.
The purpose of this bill is to make it possible, when the House has a Speaker in whom we all have full confidence, as is the case at the present time, to take steps to provide for that occupant of the chair to continue therein from Parliament to Parliament. My bill preserves the principle that a Speaker, in the first instance, must have been elected in a constituency. It also preserves the principle that each new Parliament must elect its own Speaker. My bill provides, however, for the continuity we would all like to see. I hope hon. members will study its details and that the house leaders may be able to arrange a time when this matter can be discussed.


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


Allan Joseph MacEachen: the first reading of Bill S-2 (from the Senate), to amend the Quebec Savings Banks Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN AND BRITISH INSURANCE COMPANIES ACT


Allan Joseph MacEachen: the first reading of Bill S-6 (from the Senate), to amend the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act and other statutory provisions related to the subject matter of certain of those amendments.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FOREIGN INSURANCE COMPANIES ACT


Allan Joseph MacEachen: the first reading of Bill
November 24, 1969



S-7 (from the Senate), to amend the Foreign Insurance Companies Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



TRUST COMPANIES ACT


Allan Joseph MacEachen: the first reading of Bill S-8 (from the Senate), to amend the Trust Companies Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



LOAN COMPANIES ACT


Allan Joseph MacEachen: the first reading of Bill S-9 (from the Senate), to amend the Loan Companies Act.
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. Broadbeni: 1.	For the fiscal years 1955-56, 1960-61, 1961-62,
1962-63, 1963-64,	1964-65, 1966-67, 1967-68, 1968-69,
what was the total expenditure of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (Radio), and of that amount what percentage was publicly funded and what percentage was due to commercial advertising revenues?
2.	Is the Government of Canada presently giving favourable consideration to the elimination of commercial advertising over the CBC Radio Network?
Projects
1968- 69	177
1969- 70	148*
*(to 1 Sept. 1969)
Questions


Hon. Gerard Pellelier (Secretary of Stale):: 1.	I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that the following table summarizes the total expenditure of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (Radio), the precentage provided by Parliamentary Grants and the percentage due to commercial advertising revenue for the years indicated. The remaining percentage of revenue was due to miscellaneous income. Expenditure totals do not include depreciation, capital expenditure, loan principal repayment, and International Service expenditure.
Percent
Percent Provided By Provided By Commercial
Expenditure	Parliamen-	Advert'gin $000's	tary Grants	Revenue1955-56	14,898	77	221960-61	19,017	87	121961-62	20,959	87	121962-63	20,800	86	131963-64	21,976	87	121964-65	24,543	89	101965-66	27,156	90	91966-67	31,374	92	71967-68	35,494	93	61968-69	39,598	94	5
2. No.


NRC INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Mr. Broadbent: For the fiscal year 1968-69 and the current fiscal year up to September 1969, what has been the number of projects, the forecasted federal government expenditures and the actual government expenditures for the National Research Council's Industrial Research Assistance Program?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: The National Research Council of Canada and Canadian Patents and Development Limited inform me as follows:
Forecasted Expenditure (cash allotment)
$6,100,000.00 $6,800,000.00* *(to 31 March 1970)
Expenditures
$6,111,300.00 $2,576,456.00* *(to 1 Sept. 1969)
1136

November 24, 1969
Questions


PATENTS ISSUED TO NON-RESIDENTS JUDGES' SALARY INCREASES
Mr. Benjamin: For the years 1950, 1955, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969, what percentage of Canadian patents have been taken out by nonresidents?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Percentage of Canadian Patents taken out by non-residents
ear ending in	Percentage
March 1950	92.3
March 1955	94.5
March 1960	94.5
March 1961	94.3
March 1962	94.4
March 1963	94.4
March 1964	95.4
March 1965	95.2
March 1966	95.3
March 1967	95.0
March 1968	95.1
March 1969	94.8


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West): 1.	What was the date of the last general salary and wage increase granted to judges of the Supreme Court of Canada, Exchequer Court of Canada, Supreme or Superior Courts of the provinces, and County or District Courts of the provinces prior to April 1, 1963, its effective date, and what was the percentage increase?
2.	From April 1, 1963 to date, what have been the dates (both of publication and coming into force) of any general salary and wage increase for judges of the Supreme Court of Canada, Exchequer Court of Canada, Supreme or Superior Courts of the provinces, and County or District Courts of the provinces and what was the average percentage increase for each such increase?
3.	What cumulative average percentage increase does the salary and wage level to judges of the Supreme Court of Canada, Exchequer Court of Canada, Supreme and Superior Courts of the provinces, and County or District Courts of the provinces as at present date reflect when compared to the relative salary and wage level of April 1, 1963?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1.
Percentage
Increase
Over
Previously
Publication Effective	Existing
Court	Judges	Date	Date	RatesSupreme Court of Canada	Chief Justice	July	11,	1955	July	11,	1955	10.0Puisne Judges	July	11,	1955	July	11,	1955	12.5Exchequer Court of Canada	President	July	11,	1955	July	11.	1955	15.6Puisne Judges	July	11,	1955	July	11,	1955	17.4Supreme or Superior Courts of Provinces	Chief Justice	July	11,	1955	July	11,	1955	15.6Judges	July	11,	1955	July	11,	1955	17.4County or District Courts of Provinces	Judges	July	11,	1955	July	H.	1955	31.32.	Percentage Increase Over PreviouslyPublication	Effective	ExistingCourt	Judges	Date	Date	RatesSupreme Court of Canada	Chief Justice	i	July	31,	1963	Aug.	1,	1963	21.3\	Mar.	1,	1967	Mar.	1,	1967	14.3Puisne Judges	j	July	31,	1963	Aug.	1,	1963	33.3i	Mar.	1,	1967	Mar.	1,	1967	16.7Exchequer Court of Canada	President	;	July	31,	1963	Aug.	1,	1963	35.11	Mar.	1,	1967	Mar.	1,	1967	28.0Puisne Judges	/	July	31,	1963	Aug.	1,	1963	24.3\	Mar.	1,	1967	Mar.	1,	1967	33.3Supreme or Superior Courts of Provinces	Chief Justice	r	July	31,	1963	Aug.	1,	1963	35.1\	Mar.	1,	196/	Mar.	1,	1967	20.0Judges	{	July	31,	1963	Aug.	1,	1963	24.3\	Mar.	1,	1967	Mar.	1,	1967	23.8County or District Courts of Provinces	Judges	/	July	31,	1963	Aug.	1	1963	52.41	Mar.	1,	1967	Mar.	1,	1967	18.8

November 24, 1969
3.
Court
COMMONS DEBATES	1137
Questions
Current Salary Expressed as a Percentage of Salaries in Effect
Judges	April 1, 1963
Supreme Court of Canada Exchequer Court of Canada Supreme or Superior Courts of Provinces County or District Courts of Provinces
Chief Justice	145.5
Puisne Judges	155.6
President	173.0
Puisne Judges	165.7
Chief Justice	162.2
Judges	153.8
Judges	181.0
Note: Effective June 1, 1967, a provision was made in the Judges Act for an additional salary of $2,000 per annum as compensation for extra-judicial services. This $2,000 was not counted in the above calculations.


WHITE PAPER ON TAX REFORM
Mr. Sallsman: 1.	Were any changes in substance made to the White Paper on Tax Reform after the proposed United States Tax Reform Act was made public?
2.	Has the Minister of Finance had a study done to assess the effects of the proposed U.S. tax returns on Canada or on the proposals contained in his White Paper on Taxation?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: 1.	The reasons which led the government to advance the proposals which are in the white paper on tax reform are set out in the white paper. It is not the practice, nor in the public interest, to identify when government decisions were made.
2.	The U.S. developments are being kept under review. There is now a tax treaty in effect between Canada and the U.S. which will be reviewed and possibly renegotiated following the decisions on tax reform in both countries.


RESEARCH STUDIES, CRTC ECONOMICS BRANCH
Mr. Rose: 1.	For the fiscal years 1968-69 and 1969-70, what specific research studies have been undertaken by the Economics Branch of the Canadian RadioTelevision Commission?
2 Who are the individuals involved in these studies and when it is anticipated that these studies will be completed?


Gérard Pelletier: 1 am informed by the Canadian Radio-Television Commission as follows: 1. During the
21545-2J
past two years the Economics Branch working in conjunction with the Research Branch and with other branches of the Canadian RadioTelevision Commission, has carried out a number of specific research studies on such subjects as satellites, CATV, microwave and CATV, commercial policy, extension of service, FM radio, integration and rationalization of Canadian broadcasting.
2.	Members of the Economics Branch engaged in these studies include J. Hagborg, H. Patry, J. Parent and G. Cloutier. Some of the studies mentioned above are completed; others are of a continuing nature.


RESOURCES RESEARCH CENTRE STUDIES
Mr. Harding: 1.	For the fiscal years 1968-69 and 1969-70, what specific research studies have been undertaken by the Resources Research Centre of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources?
2.	Who are the individuals involved in these studies and when is it anticipated that these studies will be completed?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: 1. The specific research studies undertaken during fiscal years 1968-69 and 1969-70 by the Resources Research Centre, Department of Energy, Mines and Resources are as follows:
Title	Status
1.	Flood Inundation Limits from Completed Flood and Post-Flood Photography
2.	Establishment of Criteria for Completed Predicting Flood Characteristics through Airphoto Interpretation
3.	Current Extent of use of Air- Completed photo Interpretation in Small Watershed Planning

November 24, 1969
Questions
Title	Status
4.	Manual-"Airphoto Interpre- To be com-tation as an Aid in Watershed pleted in and River Basin Planning 1970
and Development"
5.	Socio - Economic - Ecologic Completed Simulation in Water Resource
System Planning
6.	Eng-Economic Models for To be com-Water Quality Management pleted in
7. Stochastic	Models-Flood Completed Control-Coastal Structures
-Investment-Risk Criteria
8.	Socio-Economic Factors Af- Completed fecting Resources Utilization
in Newfoundland, with Special Emphasis on the Great Northern Peninsula
9.	Alternative Proposal to the Completed Borden-Tormentine Scheme
10.	Social and Economic Spatial Completed Characteristics of the Canadian Economy
11.	The Navigable Island Water- Completed
12.	Canada Land Inventory Proj- Completed ect
13.	Northern Ontario Resources Completed Study
14.	An Analysis of Federal and In abeyance Provincial Involvement in
Flood Control and Water Conservation in Ontario
15.	Federal Resource Structures In abeyance Historical Aspects of the Commission of Conservation
16.	An Analysis of Federal Re- In abeyance sources Policy Co-ordination
17.	An Analysis of Co-operative In abeyance Planning for the Fraser River
18.	Quebec Resource Policies and In abeyance Programs from 1867-1893
19.	Detailed Annotation of Fed- In abeyance eral Resource Policies and Programs from the Papers of
Sir Clifford Sifton, Minister of the Interior from 1897 to 1905
Title	Status
20.	Formation of the National In abeyance Park System and the Role of Conservation
21.	Index of House of Commons In abeyance Debates for Resource Subjects from Conservation. An
Index of Debates on Conservation from 1948 to 1968
22.	An Analysis of the Origins In abeyance of Federal Water Management in Canada
23.	Case Study of a Large-Scale Continuing Agricultural Development
24.	Department of the Interior Completed 1877-1905 Review of Published Material
25.	Criminal Law as a Means Draft
to Pollution Control.	Available
Specific contracts awarded by the Resources Research Centre in 1968-69 and 1969-70 are as follows:
26.	A study of the Socio-Economic Structure of the Heartland-Hinterland Industrial Environment; Dr. Michael Ray; expected completion date-November 30, 1969.
27.	Hamlet Development Plans & Musquod-oboit Watershed Land-Use Control Instrument; Professor H. Spence-Sales; study completed.
28.	Distribution of Gravel Deposits in Prince Edward Island; Dr. H. Foster; expected completion date-October 31, 1969.
29.	The Role of Perceptions and Attitudes: Symposium on Attitudes In Resources Management; Professor W. R. D. Sewell and Professor Ian Burton; Symposium will be held in April or May of 1970.
30.	Examination and Description of the Canadian Urban System to Identify Major Factors Underlying Differences in Urban Growth Rates; Mr. W. A. Hamilton; expected completion date March 1970.
31.	Early operations of the Department of Marine and Fisheries; Mrs. Ann Cornellier; report overdue.
2.	Most of the studies have been undertaken or are being undertaken by personnel of the Centre; and in virtually all studies of
[Mr. Greene.}
November 24, 1969

this nature, more than one member of the staff of the Centre was involved in each study. Items numbered 26 to 31 inclusive are being done by outside consultants under contract. The consultant for each contract is named and the status of completion of each study has been shown so far as is possible at this time.


STUDIES BY ECONOMICS BRANCH, NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD
Mr. Thomson: 1.	For the fiscal years 1968-69 and 1969-70, what specific research studies have been undertaken by the Economics Branch of the National Energy Board?
2.	Who are the individuals involved in these studies and when is it anticipated that these studies will be completed?


John James Greene: National Energy Board advises: 1. The Economics Branch of the National Energy Board has contributed to a number of research studies undertaken by the staff of the Board. Such studies are in most cases directed to meet the internal needs of the Board and the government. A study, "Energy Supply and Demand Balances: 19551967" was published during 1968-69 and a supplement to this publication was published during 1969-70. The Economics Branch has also made a substantial contribution to the preparation of a long-term energy forecast, "Energy Supply and Demand in Canada and Export Demand for Canadian Energy: 1966 to 1990", which has just been published.
2.	Research studies involve members of the staff of the National Energy Board other than those of the Economics Branch. It would not be meaningful, therefore, to name those associated with economic research studies at the Board.


CABINET COMMITTEE ON ADVERTISING
Mr. Mather: 1.	Is there a government cabinet committee on advertising by the Government of Canada and if so, who are the members of this committee?
2.	Is the President of the Treasury Board, the Chairman of this committee?
3.	What are the specific functions of this committee?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: At the present time there is
Questions
no committee on advertising within the Cabinet structure, but the Government is reviewing the recommendations of the Task Force on Information, including the recommendation that "a committee of Ministers be charged with the task of developing effective information policies and facilitating a more coherent and economical approach by the executive to the federal information function".


NATIONAL FILM BOARD BUDGET
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What is the 1969-70 fiscal budget of the National Film Board?
2.	What is the current staff of the National Film Board?
3.	How many staff members are expected to be affected by the current budget freeze?
4.	How much time notice has been given to those staff members due to be laid off?
5.	How much compensation has been given to those staff members affected by the NFB reduction?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the National Film Board as follows: 1. $16,701,000.
2.	Full time, 1006; part time, 29; Total 1035.
3.	Full time staff will be reduced by 35 by January 15, 1970 and by a further 55 by March 15, 1970. The reduction will be effected as far as possible by attrition (resignations), the balance by lay-off.
4.	Three months.
5.	Severance pay at the rate of one week's salary for each year of service is paid to laid off employees who have at least one year of service in some cases, or at least four years of service in others, depending on the terms of the applicable collective agreement.


APPLICATIONS FOR REMISSION OF DUTIES ON MACHINERY
Mr. Benjamin: 1.	How many applications have been received by the Machinery and Equipment Advisory Board for the remission of duties on machinery imported into Canada?
2.	How many applications have been rejected?
3.	What is the value of the applications approved and the applications rejected?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: For the period January 1, 1968 to October 31, 1969: 1. 33,659.
2.	3,904.

November 24, 1969
Questions
3.	(a) Value listed in applications approved, $2,035,954,550; (b) Value listed in applications rejected, $402,187,337. Note: The value of approved applications is greater than the value of actual imports subject to remission, because many applications are submitted and approved so that the applicant can quote firm prices for machinery which may or may not be imported.


NATIONAL DESIGN COUNCIL EXPENDITURES
Mr. Barnett: For the fiscal years 1966-67, 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70, what have been the expenditures of the National Design Council for scholarships and grants?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Scholarships	Grants
1966-67	$ 4,250	$ 18,8801967-68	24,500	40,5751968-69	25,550	111,6971969-70*	65,140	44,448
*Up to October 31, 1969 inclusive.


NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION INFORMATION CONSULTANT REPORT
Mr. Skoberg: 1.	Was there a competitive tender for the consultant report to be prepared by Demers, Gordon and Baby of Montreal and Hanscomb Roy Associates of Montreal, on the development of a national construction information system for the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and, if not, for what reason?
2.	What is the estimated expenditures for this consultants' report?


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1. Yes. Competitive tenders were called.
2.	The estimated expenditures for the consultants' reports are $367,410.


NORTHWEST TERRITORIES BUDGET
Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1.	Were there any discussions between the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Territorial Council of the Northwest Territories regarding the 1970-71 budget for the Territories?
2.	Were there any discussions between the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Territorial Council of the Yukon regarding the 1970-71 budget for the Yukon?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Budget proposals for 1970-71 were developed by the N.W.T. Government administration after extensive discussions with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Details of the N.W.T. proposals have been discussed by the Interdepartmental Committee on Federal-Territorial Financial Relations of which the Commissioner is a member. Departmental staff are available to discuss the budget with Council should this be desired.
2.	Budget proposals for 1970-71 were developed by the Yukon Government administration in conjunction with the Yukon Budget Programming Committee on the Territorial Council which includes three elected councillors. Extensive discussions have taken place between the Commissioner and his staff and the Department of Indian Affairs and North-tern Development. Details of the Yukon Government proposals are generally left to that Government. The Yukon Government proposals are then discussed with the Interdepartmental Committee on Federal-Territorial Financial Relations of which the Commissioner is a member. The resulting budget is then discussed with the Commissioner and Departmental staff is available for direct discussions should this be the desire of Council.


NEWS RELEASE, COMPANY OF YOUNG CANADIANS
Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1.	What was the financial cost to the Department of the Secretary of State of the news release of September 26, 1969, announcing five appointments to the Company of Young Canadians' permanent council?
2.	What criteria was used in the method of distribution of that news release?
3.	What was the total cost of news releases of the Department in the last fiscal year?
4.	Is the Department presently considering further press releases using the same method of distribution as in the Company of Young Canadians' release?


Gérard Pelletier: 1. $148.15.
2.	The content and nature of the news released warranted a fast and efficient method of distribution.
3.	This information was provided in answer to Question 2,273, Mr. Robinson, tabled as an Order for Return, Wednesday, October 22, 1969.
4.	Yes.
November 24, 1969


TELEVISION PROGRAM VIOLENCE-INVESTIGATION BY CRTC
Mr. Mather: Is the Canadian Radio Television Commission undertaking an investigation into violence in television programming and if so, when is this investigation expected to be completed?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Canadian Radio-Television Commission as follows:
Yes. No date has been set for the completion of this report.


CRTC COMMERCIAL ADVERTISING REGULATIONS
Mr. Mather: 
Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Canadian Radio-Television Commission as follows: Yes. No date has been established for the release of these regulations.


NCS FOUNDATION
Mr. Sallsman: 1.	Was the NCS Foundation federally incorporated as a non-profit organization in 1961?
2.	Who were its principal officers and directors when the Foundation received its federal charter?
3.	Was the NCS Foundation dissolved in 1967 for failure to file an annual return required under the Canada Corporations Act?
4.	For what years did NCS Foundation file an annual return under the Canada Corporations Act?
5.	What other non-profit educational scholarship foundations have been incorporated with the federal government and who are the principal officers and directors?
6.	Have each of these foundations submitted an annual report since their federal incorporation under the Canada Corporations Act and, if not, what action is contemplated by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?


Stanley Ronald Basford: 1. Yes; N.C.S. Foundation was incorporated by Letters Patent dated May 12, 1961.
2.	The applicants who were the provisional directors were: "Donald Roebuck Walkinshaw, of the Township of Etobicoke, in the Province of Ontario, one of Her Majesty's Counsel learned in the Law for the said Province of
Questions
Ontario, Donald Harrison Walkinshaw, Insurance Agent, and James Beecham Trotter and Bruce Campbell North, Solicitors, of the City of Toronto, in the said Province of Ontario, and Eunice Allicock, of the Township of Scarborough, in the said Province of Ontario, Secretary."
3.	The corporation has been dissolved according to the provisions of subsection (12) of section 125 of the Canada Corporations Act on June 24, 1967, by an order published in Part I of the Canada Gazette on the same date.
4.	The company never filed any annual returns.
5.	This information is not available as there is no index of companies by types of objects.
6.	Not applicable.


NUCLEAR POWER STATION BIDS BY ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
Mr. Broadbent: 1.	For the years 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969, what formal bids have been submitted by the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to other countries for nuclear power stations?
2.	In each case, what was the financial amount involved and was the bid successful?


John James Greene: Atomic Energy of Canada Limited advises as follows: 1. and 2. 1960-1967 inclusive, nil; 1968-Atomic Energy of Canada Limited assumed nuclear power marketing responsibility in July 1968. No formal bids were submitted during 1968. 1969- During 1969 a preliminary offer was made to Greece which was not taken up; this offer was valued at $75 million to Canada. A formal bid has been submitted to Rumania. This bid is currently under negotiation.


KNOWPLACE SCHOOL-CYC FINANCIAL SUPPORT
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What financial support did the Company of Young Canadians give to the Knowplace School in Vancouver in each year since the Company of Young Canadians has supported the school?
2.	How many staff members and how many Company of Young Canadian volunteers were supported in each year at the Knowplace School?
3.	How many students are attending the school?
4.	What fees are charged to the parents of each student?
5.	What methods have been developed to channel successful new educational theories into the existing British Columbia school system?

November 24, 1969
Questions


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Company of Young Canadians as follows: 1. Year ending March 31, 1968, $13,542.00; Year ending March 31, 1969, $57,178.00.
2.	Four volunteers and one staff person, per year, were supported by the Company of Young Canadians.
3.	As of September 30, 1969, the C.Y.C. no longer supports Knowplace but when the school was operational, 22 full time students attended.
4.	There was a standard fee of $25 per month or $75 per semester charged to the parents of each student.
5.	Knowplace developed ongoing communication with educators, students and administrators in the Education Departments of both Vancouver universities through conferences and the media. Knowplace had also been involved in the training programme of special counsellors for the Vancouver Public School System.


CYC PROJECTS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	(a) How many projects was the Company of Young Canadians involved in for the year 1969 (b) where were these projects in operation and how many volunteers were involved in each project (c) how were these projects chosen for support by the Company of Young Canadians (d) what criteria are used in choosing between suggested projects?
2.	(a) How many of the projects in which the Company of Young Canadians has been involved since its inception have been supervised or evaluated by or for the Company of Young Canadians as to performance, effectiveness, usefulness, etc. (b) if the evaluation has indicated defects or shortcomings in the projects, what steps were taken to eliminate the defects (c) how many projects in which evaluation indicated major defects were phased out?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Company of Young Canadians as follows: 1. (a) In the year 1969, the Company of Young Canadians was involved in 37 projects across Canada, (b) The location of the projects and the number of volunteers is as follows: B.C., 5 projects, 23 volunteers; Alberta, 2 projects, 14 volunteers; Northwest Territories, 1 project, 7 volunteers; Saskatchewan, 1 project, 3 volunteers; Ontario, 9 projects, 41 volunteers; Quebec, 18 projects, 69 volunteers; Maritimes, 1 project, 5 volunteers, (c) The Council of the Company of Young Canadians accepts or rejects project submissions. During the year 1969, the Interim Program Committee of the Provisional Council received and studied all submis-

sions for projects and made recommendations to the Provisional Council for acceptance or rejection of these submissions, (d) The criteria used by the Interim Committee for choosing between projects is the need shown by the requesting community in relation to the current resources of the C.Y.C.
2. (a) All projects in the C.Y.C. have had staff people assigned from an on-site, regional or national level. Most projects have been evaluated at one point and presently the new Council is defining an evaluation procedure to be applied throughout the C.Y.C. (b and c) As a result of evaluation, many projects underwent various degrees of change as recommended and at least nine projects were phased out.


SUBSIDIES TO CANADIAN ARCTIC PRODUCER
Mr. Laprise: X. How much was paid in subsidies to the Canadian Arctic Producer for publicity in connection with Eskimo products in each of the last five years?
2	Of these amounts, how much was allocated to New Quebec?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. Canadian Arctic Producers Limited has not received any direct subsides from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for publicity. The Department has had annual contracts with the Company to carry out marketing services including advertising and promotion since 1965 for all Eskimo producers including their co-operatives, other producer groups and organizations.
2. While no subsidies per se are paid to Canadian Arctic Producers, they have advised us that the following amounts have been spent as part of their total operating expenses on publicity: 1965-1966, $606; 19661967, $3,685; 1967-1968, $12,807; 1968-1969, $11,700 (up to end of September 1969; the year end is on October 31, 1969). These expenditures are not recorded by Regional allocations.


GOLD MINING ASSISTANCE ACT
Mr. Laprise: Is the government planning to renew the Gold Mining Assistance Act?


John James Greene: An Interdepartmental
November 24, 1969

study group is presently examining the implications of the termination of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act which expires on December 31,	1970. A decision
concerning the renewal of the Act will be made after the report of the study group is received in the early summer of 1970.


OTTAWA UNION STATION-COST OF RENOVATION
Mr. Peters: 1.	How much is the Government of Canada spending on the renovation of the old Ottawa Union Station?
2.	What are the annual rent costs to the Government of Canada of the old Ottawa Union Station?
3	When was the decision to renovate the Ottawa Union Station taken?
4.	When did the Prime Minister issue guidelines to the government departments regarding future expenditures?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Approximately $625,000 according to current planning.
2.	The building is Crown-owned and is leased by National Capital Commission to the Department of Public Works for $1.00 per annum.
3.	August 29, 1969.
4.	August 13, 1969.


DAIRY INDUSTRY-MODERNIZATION PROGRAM
Mr. Gleave: 1.	When is it anticipated that the program designed to encourage the modernization of dairy processing and manufacturing plants initiated by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce will be implemented?
2.	When was this program first developed?
3.	When was it mentioned in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce's annual report?
4	How many civil servants and outside consultants were involved in the preparation of this program?
5.	What is the estimated cost, including salaries, in the preparation of this program?
6.	Why was this program delayed implementation during the last fiscal year?


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1. It is felt that implementation will be dependent on two main considerations: (a) The recommendations of a dairy industry advisory committee, made up of senior executives of the National Dairy Council, which has been asked to review the
Questions
proposed program and advise the Department on the degree by which the industry is prepared to support the program; (b) The priority the Government is able to give such programs.
2.	The program was developed as a result of a study initiated in 1965 and completed late in 1967.
3.	In the Department of Industry's Annual Reports of 1965 and 1966.
4.	Several civil servants were involved, totalling an estimated one-man year and one outside firm of consultants.
5.	Approximately $45,000.
6.	Within the fiscal limitations of the Department, it was not possible to give this program a priority which would have allowed implementation in the 1968/69 fiscal year.


PUBLIC SERVICE PAY INCREASES
Mr. Lambert (Edmonton: West):
1. What was the date of the last general salary and wage Increase granted to the Public Service of Canada prior to April 1, 1963, its effective date, and what was the percentage increase?
2.	From April 1, 1963 to date, what have been the dates (both of publication and coming into force) of any general salary and wage increases for the Public Service of Canada and what was the average percentage increase for each such increase (for the period during which collective bargaining has been in force-a general average rate is suitable) ?
3.	What cumulative average percentage increase does the salary and wage level in the Public Service of Canada as at present date reflect when compared to the relative salary and wage level of April 1, 1963?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. Prior to April 1, 1963, salary and wage increases in the Public Service of Canada were not granted on a general basis. They were granted on a cyclical basis by employee group and the last cyclical increases granted were as follows: On December 5, 1962, the group of employees, now known as the Administrative and Foreign Service and Administrative Support Categories, received a pay increase of 3.4 per cent retroactive to October 1, 1961. On July 9, 1963, a pay increase of 7 per cent retroactive to October 1, 1962, was granted to the group of employees now known as the Operational and Technical Categories. The weighted average increase in rates of pay of the employees in the above Categories was 5.7 per cent.

November 24, 1969
Questions
2. The dates and the average percentages of the salary increases for the Public Service
Category
Scientific and Professional Category
Administrative and Foreign Service and Administrative Support Categories
Operational and Technical Categories
Operational and Technical Categories
Scientific and Professional Category
Scientific and Professional Category
Administrative and Foreign Service and Administrative Support Categories
Administrative and Foreign Service and Administrative Support Categories
Operational and Technical Categories
The weighted average increase in the rates of pay of all Public Service employees for each year of the same period is the following:
1963	-	1.8 per cent1964	-	3.1 per cent1965	-	7.7 per cent1966	-	1.7 per cent
In 1967, 1968 and 1969, the increases in pay were granted in collective agreements which were signed from April 29, to December 13, in 1968 and from February 23, to November 4, in 1969. These salary increases were effective on July 1, or October 1 of these years, starting on July 1, 1967.
Except for a 3 per cent interim increase granted at the initiative of the employer before negotiations started, the following indicates the general average rate of increase granted for the period during which collective bargaining has been in force.
1967	-	7	per	cent1968	-	7	per	cent1969	-	5J	per	cent
of Canada from April 1, 1963 to December 31, 1966 are as follows:
Date of Publication	Date of Coming Into Force	Percentage Increase20-3-64	1-7-63	4.413-8-64	1-10-63	3.214-7-65	1-10-64	7.626-8-65	1-8-65	3.431-3-66	1-7-65	9 to 1131-3-66	1-7-66	3.08-9-66	1-10-65	1.58-9-66	1-10-66	4.01-12-66	1-10-66	7.03.	The cumulative average percentage increase of the salary and wage level in the Public Service of Canada at the present date compared to the relative salary and wage level of April 1, 1963 is 48.2 per cent.


ARMED FORCES SALARY AND WAGE INCREASES
Mr. Lambert (Edmonton: West):
1.	What was the date of the last general salary and wage increase granted to members of the Armed Services of Canada prior to April 1, 1963, its effective date, and what was the percentage increase?
2.	From April 1, 1963 to date, what have been the dates (both of publication and coming into force) of any general salary and wage increases for the members of the Armed Services of Canada and what was the average percentage increase for each such increase?
3.	What cumulative average percentage increase does the salary and wage level in the Armed Services of Canada as at present date reflect when compared to the relative salary and wage level of April 1, 1963?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: 1. PC 1963-1/735 dated 14 May 1963, effective 1 October 1962, with an average increase of 2.6 per cent.

November 24, 1969	COMMONS
2.
Authorizing Authority and Date PC 1965-1/363 of 1 March 1965 PC 1966-1/1833 of 27 September 1966
PC 1967-1984 of 12 October, 1967 PC 1967-1985 of 12 October, 1967
TB Minute 684459 of 21 November, 1968 TB Minute 692350 of 9 October, 1969
Note: Effective 1 October, 1966, the salary concept was adopted for military pay and this required a number of adjustments to be made including the amalgamation of subsistence allowance and marriage allowance into the salary package. 9.82 per cent was the portion of the cost that was identified as a pay increase.
3.	Subject to the Note under (2) approximately 41.8 per cent.


LOCATING IN NORTH OF EUROPEAN FIRMS
Mr. Laprise: 1.	As a result of the visit to Europe by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, how many firms have decided or are proposing to locate in the Canadian North in the near future?
2.	What is the amount of investment, if any?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. No
firms have located per se in the Canadian North. However the firms of Agip Mineraria
S.p.a. of Italy has established its mineral exploration company in Calgary and Deminex Deutsche Explorationsgesellschaft, m.b.H. of Western Germany, indicated in Ottawa that following detailed investigations they intend to seek entry into the Canadian Oil Industry. In Paris, the President of Chambre Syndicale de la Recherche et de la Production du Pe-trole et du Gas Naturel stated that their budget would be increased to avail themselves of opportunities in Canada.
2. It is not yet possible to determine the impact on investments in the North attributable to the Minister's promotional tour.
DEBATES	1145
Questions
Average
Effective Date	Increase
of Increase	Per cent
1 October,	1964	8.961 October,	1966	9.82
(see Note)
r
-j 1 October, 1967	4.49

1 October	1968	6.5
f 1 July, 1969 (men and Medical,
*j Dental, Legal Officers)	6.5
[ 1 October, 1969 (all others)


OTTAWA-COST OF CENTENNIAL CENTRE RENOVATIONS
Mr. Fortin: 1.	On what date did renovation work of the Centennial Centre in Ottawa begin?
2.	What is the planned opening date of the new premises?
3.	What use is planned for these new premises?
4.	What will be the approximate cost of renovations to the building and what was the estimated cost?


Arthur Laing: 1. Contract was awarded on August 29, 1969.
2.	Completion date of the contract is November 29, 1969.
3.	International, National and Provincial Conference facilities. Space is also provided for the Privy Council, Press and T.V. rooms and delegates' suites.
4.	Approximately $625,000. according to current planning. Estimated cost was $600,000.


FAMILY ALLOWANCE AND OLD AGE SECURITY PENSIONS PAID IN FRONTENAC RIDING
Mr. Dumont: How much has been paid to residents of Frontenac County in Family Allowances and in Old Age Security pensions since June 25, 1968?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Family allowances and old age security statistics are not kept in such a way as to give an answer to this question.
Questions

November 24, 1969


SHUSWAP RIVER DAM
Mr. Noble: Has the government given any consideration toward the construction of a dam on the Shuswap River as requested by the Salmon Arm Municipal Ratepayers Association when they apeared before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: The Department of Fisheries and Forestry has concluded a study of the ramifications of the proposal on the fishery resource and recommends against the construction of a dam on the Shuswap River in the interests of preserving this valuable resource.


POST OFFICE CLOSURES
Mr. Coates: 1.	How many post offices have been closed by the Post Office Department since June 25, 1968?
2.	What is the breakdown of closures by province and by constituency within each province?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General and Minister of Communications):: 1. 687.
2. (a) Newfoundland, 35; Nova Scotia, 79; Prince Edward Island, 25; New Brunswick, 59; Quebec, 123; Ontario, 145; Manitoba, 46; Saskatchewan, 73; Alberta, 75; British Columbia, 23; Northwest Territories, 2 and the Yukon, 2. (b) Existing statistical records do not include this information. It could only be obtained through an examination of hundreds of files, with consequent excessive cost.


TELEVISION RECEPTION FROM CKBI-TV
Mr. Thomson: 1.	Has the Canadian Radio and Television Commission received representations from the North Battleford Chamber of Commerce outlining dissatisfaction with the television reception that the Bat-tlefords receive from CKIB-TV?
2.	What action is proposed by the CRTC to deal with these representations?
3.	Is the CRTC giving favourable consideration to allowing the Battlefords to receive reception from other channels?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Canadian Radio-Television Commission as follows: 1. Yes.
2.	Steps have been taken to enquire into the causes of the dissatisfaction with television reception.
3.	The CRTC is actively studying the extension of service in all parts of Canada.
[Mr. Munro.l


EXPLORATORY WELLS, MELVILLE ISLAND
Mr. Thomson: 1.	How many exploratory wells have been abandoned on Melville Island by Panarctic Oils Limited due to no commercial oil or gas discoveries?
2.	At what level were each of these wells abandoned?
3.	What was the total estimated financial expenditure in the drilling of these wells?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. Two.
2.	Panarctic Marie Bay D-02 abandoned on 24-9-69 at 4,175'. Panarctic Sandy Point L-46 abandoned on 2-8-69 at 6,895'.
3.	Estimated drilling costs are as follows: Marie Bay D-02, $450,000; Sandy Point L-46, $750,000-Total $1,200,000.


LONG-RANGE TRANSPORT AIRCRAFT
Mr. Lambert (Edmonton: West):
1.	In view of the proposal to reduce the strength of the Yukon aircraft from 12 to 4, what aircraft is to be used as a long-range transport for both personnel and equipment for Mobile Command and Transport Command?
2.	What is proposed to be done with the 8 Yukon aircraft which are to be phased out of active service?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. In addition to the Yukon aircraft there are 23 Hercules which have the capability of carrying out long range transport for both personnel and equipment. Studies are continuing as to a replacement for the Yukon.
2. No decision has been taken yet regarding disposal of the Yukon aircraft being phased out in 1972.


INDIAN BAND FUNDS
Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1.	What amount of money is in Indian Band Funds as Capital Account?
2.	What interest rate is paid to Indian Bands on this money and, if the interest rate varies, how much is covered and what interest rates?
3.	What interest rate is currently applicable to Canada Savings Bonds issued in this year?
4.	What amount of money is in Indian Band Funds as Revenue Account?
5.	What interest rate is paid to Indian Bands on this money and, if the interest rate varies, how much is covered and at what interest rates?
November 24, 19G9


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1.
$27,000,000 as of November 10, 1969.
2.	7.24 per cent.
3.	Average of 8 per cent.
4.	Approximately $5,000,000.
5.	7.24 per cent.


CF-5-ACQUISITION OF IN-FLIGHT REFUELLING AIRCRAFT
Mr. Lambert (Edmonton: West):
1.	At the time the decision was taken to procure the CF-5 as a tactical support aircraft for the *Canadian Defence Forces, what consideration was given to and what decision was taken for the acquisition of an in-flight refuelling aircraft to increase the operational range of the CF-5?
2.	What efforts have since been made to acquire such an aircraft and with what results?
3.	What aircraft were considered and why were they rejected?
4.	Has it now been decided to acquire such an aircraft and, if so, what aircraft, at what cost and what was the date of the decision?
5. If the answer to part 4 is in the negative, is it because there has been a change in the indicated role and use of the CF-5 as announced by the former Minister of National Defence?
3. Aircraft Type KC 135
KC 130: or modified Yukon

DC8-62F or Boeing 707-320C
C5 Galaxy
4.	No-the subject is under study.
5.	No.


POWER, BAY OF FUNDY TIDES
Mr. Coates: 1. What is the present estimated cost of the economic and engineering feasibility study into the harnessing of the Bay of Fundy tides from a power point of view?
Questions


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. Immediately following the decision to purchase the CF-5, steps were taken to examine all available options that would give this aircraft a rapid world-wide deployment capability. Because of the financial restraints imposed on DND, it was recognized that any aircraft chosen as a suitable tanker would also have to adequately fulfil at least one other role, i.e., long range strategic transport.
2. After numerous studies and proposals the C141 was selected and recommended as the best aircraft available with a multi-role capability. Acquisition approval was given for the purchase of four C141 aircraft to provide an in-flight refueller for the CF-5 and a long range transport to augment airlift resources. However, when negotiating the purchase of the 041, Lockheed advised that due to the advanced stage of their production line shut down, they could not re-open the line for an order of less than eight aircraft. The possibility of purchasing used C141s from the USAF was also explored with negative results.
Discarded in Favour of the C141 - because
No new ones available No used ones available None available for lease
Flies too slow and too low for a CF5 ferry operation which would necessitate a rendezvous mission rather than the air-to-air technique considered essential
Vickers advised they could not respond to our requirement due to production shut down.
The C141 considered to be a more satisfactory military transport.
Too large and too costly to be a practical tanker, however, an excellent transport aircraft.
2.	What is the breakdown of financial responsibility between the participating governments?
3.	What is the present estimated date for the completion of this study?


John James Greene: November 24, 1969
Questions
3. The Atlantic Tidal Power Programming Board expects to complete its report on this study by about the end of the calendar year.


RAIDS ON NEWSPAPER OFFICES BY COMBINES OFFICIALS
Mr. Flemming: Was any examination made or raids conducted by officials under the Combines Investigation Act on any others newspaper offices in Canada, except the Daily Gleaner, of Fredericton, New Brunswick during the years 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Yes.


EXAMINATION OF RECORDS OF FREDERICTON &quot;GLEANER&quot;
Mr. Flemming: Was a request made for an examination of the records of the Daily Gleaner of Fredericton, New Brunswick prior to the raid on that newspaper office by officials under the Combines Investigation Act and, if so, by whom?


Stanley Ronald Basford: The usual procedure was followed in this case, namely: the Director of Investigation and Research, having reason to believe that the Act had been or was about to be violated applied to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission for a certificate allowing him to exercise the power of entry and search provided under section 10 of the Combines Investigation Act. To proceed in any other way would give rise to serious problems of proving the documentary evidence.


CLOSING OF CERTAIN POST OFFICES
Mr. Mazankowski: Is consideration being given to the closing of the following post offices in Alberta (a) Duvernay (b) Brosseau (c) Foisy (d) Lafond?


Eric William Kierans: 1. (a) Yes; (b) yes; (c) yes; (d) It has been decided to retain the Lafond, Alberta Post Office which had been considered for closing.


LETTER TO PRIME MINISTER FROM PRESIDENT, RCAF ASSOCIATION
Mr. MacLean: Has the Prime Minister received a letter from Mr. Alex M. Jardine, National President of the RCAF Association on the matter of Canada's Defence Forces and, if so, has this letter been replied to and what was the nature of the reply?


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Yes: an acknowledgement was sent to Mr. Jardine informing him that his letter was referred to the Minister of National Defence for study and further reply.


TOTAL STRENGTH, REGULAR AND RESERVE FORCES
Mr. MacLean: On the most recent date for which figures are available (a) what was the total strength of the Regular Defence Forces of Canada (b) what was the total strength of personnel in the sea, land and air environments respectively (c) what was the total strength of the corresponding three elements of the Reserve Forces on the same date?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: As of 30 September 1969: (a) and (b) sea, 17,844; land, 36,675; air, 42,525-Total 97,044. (c) Sea, 2,330; land, 23,619; air, 789-Total 26,738.


*USE OF VIRUSES AS INSECTICIDES
Mr. Nesbitt: 1.	How soon is it expected that viruses will be available for use as insecticides, as referred to in the publication known as "News" issued by the federal Department of Agriculture, Issue No. 1346, for the week ending November 7, 1969?
2.	Are precautions being taken to make absolutely certain that no dangerous effects will result from the proposed dissemination of viruses for insecticide or any other purpose, unlike the precautions advocated by scientists in the past with respect to DDT?
3.	What are the details of the precautions in (2) above?
4.	What scientists or scientific bodies have been or will be consulted with respect to the use of viruses as insecticides?
5.	Has the government received warnings or any other information that would indicate that such use of viruses might be potentially hazardous?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is as follows: 1. Developmental work on the commercial use of viruses as insecticides has been undertaken by two companies in the U.S.A. No Canadian commercial production is currently anticipated. The first virus formulations specifically directed to the cotton bollworm and corn earworm in the United States are not likely to reach commercial status until 1971. This insect specific virus is not likely to have commercial application in Canada. Another virus which may be suitable for cabbage looper control in Canada is not likely to be available before 1973 for
November 24, 1969

a number of reasons, including evaluation of safety, efficacity and commercial suitability.
2.	Viruses to be used as insecticides will have to be registered under the Pest Control Products Act and meet the requirements of the Food and Drugs Act insofar as acceptability is concerned. Fish, Wildlife and Forestry authorities will also be consulted in evaluating data to determine whether the insecticides should be accepted for registration under the Pest Control Products Act.
3.	Precautions are those required under the Pest Control Products Act which include: (a) A full description of the insecticide including the chemical and/or biological properties of the active principle, (b) Evidence of effectiveness under field-use conditions. (c) Full description of the manufacturing process, (d) Assurance as to the safety of the product, (e) Approval of directions for, and conditions of use. (f) Any other measures which are deemed to be in the public interest to reduce risks.
4.	Scientists in the Departments of Agriculture, National Health and Welfare, Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Fisheries and Forestry; United States Department of Agriculture and the World Health Organization. Also the Society of Invertebrate Pathology, the clearing house for information on insect pathogens used for insect control.
5.	No. However, officials in departments having a responsibility for the control and use of insecticides are maintaining a watching brief on research papers and commercial developments both in Canada and in other countries.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg: North Centre):
1.	For the fiscal years 1968-1969 and 1969-1970 what specific research studies have been or are being undertaken by the Research Branch of the Department of Manpower and Immigration?
2.	Who are the individuals involved in these studies, and when is it anticipated that these studies will be completed?
Return tabled.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: In connection with starred question No. 268, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that this was asked by me on October 23, over a month ago. It concerns the
Inquiries of the Ministry total amount of expenditures by the Company of Young Canadians for 1969 and, further, the names of staff members who receive salaries between $10,000 and $15,000, over $15,000 and over $20,000. It seems inexcusable that a simple question like this should not be answered. As I understand the rules, starred questions are to be answered within three days, if we are to follow the course taken in the United Kingdom, and such delays as this can only indicate the terrible mess the finances of that organization must be in.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)


ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Gerald William Baldwin: I have a question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, based on his statement that our attention or the attention of the government-sometimes I do not know which is which-would be directed toward so-called genetic engineering beginning in the seventies, that is, next year.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Is this going to be funny?


Gerald William Baldwin: If the government has any serious thoughts on this issue, is it the intention to provide an opportunity for discussion in a parliamentary committee at an early date?
While the right hon. gentleman is pondering the significance of that question, may I ask whether in making that statement he has taken into account the experience of the Hitler years in Germany in selective breeding? Is this an attempt to get the state back into the nation's bedrooms again?


STRAIT OF GEORGIA-ISSUANCE OF DRILLING PERMITS
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Has he received representations from the board of the regional district of Nanaimo and other interested bodies regarding proposed oil drilling in the Georgia Strait and the coastal waters of British Columbia? May I also ask whether any decision has been reached on whether such oil drilling permits will be granted by the government of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I believe the question was whether I had

November 24, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry
received any representations. I shall have to was, on the contrary, a very open meeting, inquire whether any such representations and no resolution such as the hon. member were made.	has mentioned was introduced.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Could the Prime Minister tell us by whom any definite decision would be announced on behalf of the government in respect of this matter, bearing in mind that on November 13 the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry announced in Vancouver that no drilling permits would be granted, and that in the House on November 18, as reported at page 934 of Hansard, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources stated there had been no change in departmental policy. Can the Prime Minister tell us which minister in the government will be able to give a definitive answer with respect to the granting of oil permits in the Georgia Strait?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: For the time being the question is hypothetical. I shall get the petition and see whether and how we should answer it.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister by way of a supplementary question whether, when looking into this matter, he would determine what consultation with the federal government, if any, was undertaken by the government of British Columbia prior to the issuance of these drilling permits?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


BANK OF CANADA
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
The Liberal party bigwigs having gone into an important retreat that took place behind closed doors in British Columbia over the week-end, was the establishment of regional development banks, as branches of the Bank of Canada, suggested to help the financing of underdeveloped regions in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I must point out that the question is groundless in every regard.
First of all, it was not a retreat behind closed doors. It was not a retreat, but an advance. And then, far from being closed, it


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
Assuming that it was a very open meeting, would the Prime Minister be in a position to tell us if, on the other hand, the government intends during this session to introduce a bill to create regional banks?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. R. Gordon L. Fair weather (Fundy-Royal): A supplementary question to the Solicitor General, Mr. Speaker. What is the minister doing to soothe the acute embarrassment caused by an over-zealous member of the RCMP, posing as a journalist, who attempted to prevent an invited guest from confronting the Liberal establishment at Harrison Hot Springs?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would the minister make a statement on motions or in some other way to establish the government's position on external aid, in view of the extraordinary statement he is alleged to have made on the subject, namely, "I think we should give aid to promote revolution which is very much needed"?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I have been misquoted. What I did say was that "I think we should give aid even though revolution may result".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: That is worse than the original statement.


John Angus MacLean: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the innate sense of fairness of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, would it be fair to assume that he would not take for himself rights that he would not grant others, and that therefore any revolutionary activities carried on in
November 24, 1969

Canada by non-Canadian subversive elements have his approval and blessing?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the question is argumentative, though perhaps the minister is entitled to one supplementary reply.



URBAN AFFAIRS


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is the government giving serious consideration to recommending to the House the appointment of a special committee on urban affairs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not at this time, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In reply to a question from the hon. member for Egmont on Wednesday last the minister stated that the only agreement reached by the Red Cross with respect to daylight flights into Biafra was a signed agreement with Nigeria. Since that time has the minister's attention been called to an agreement dated August 27 signed by Professor Freymond and Dr. Cookey, representing the International Red Cross, providing for daylight relief flights into Uli and accepted by the Biafran authorities, and will the minister correct the no doubt unintentional misstatement he made at that time?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what I said, that the only agreement reached was the signed agreement between Nigeria and the International Red Cross, which the Biafran authorities did not agree to.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Is it not correct that the agreement signed between the Nigerian authorities and the Red Cross was prior to the agreement signed by the Biafran authorities?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The supplementary is argumentative.
Inquiries of the Ministry MANPOWER


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the honourable and learned Minister of Manpower and Immigration and is prompted by the welcome announcement that the Canadian Chamber of Commerce is undertaking a project to find jobs for half a million unemployed students. Can the minister advise whether his department is co-operating in this project, and has he any new major plans for dealing with this important problem?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the person in the Chamber of Commerce who is heading up this program, Mr. Scrivener, has been in touch with the department. We have discussed their plan and are very pleased with the initiative that is being taken. We hope it will succeed in mounting an even better community program for student summer employment next year. We have not yet made any decision about a new program for next summer because we have not yet evaluated the results of the program that was in force last summer.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingaie):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister say whether his department is planning any special programs to help alleviate the heavy unemployment in Atlantic Canada, a problem that is being accentuated by the non-discriminatory, anti-inflationary policies of the government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member
knows that kind of question normally should be replied to by way of a statement on motions. The minister may want to indicate whether he proposes to make such statement.


John Howard Lundrigan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I was just asking the minister whether he was planning any programs, and I expect a very simple answer.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, any plans that will be implemented will be announced in the House in the regular way.

November 24, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It is prompted by a coroner's jury request that products such as lemon oil furniture polish be required to bear lables on the container which will more clearly warn of the poisonous nature of such products. What steps is the minister taking to ensure that our children will be protected from such hazardous products?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the hon. member that that question is more appropriately one for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who has responsibility for this matter.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration related to a question I asked in the House last Friday of the then Acting Prime Minister, the Solicitor General. It has to do with complaints from the governments of Saskatchewan and Alberta concerning the activities in this country of the Black Panther's organization. Is the Minister of Manpower and Immigration in a position to answer the question now or, indeed, the Solicitor General, since I understand that three of them have been kicked out of Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have examined the question and in reply I would say that three members of the Black Panthers were admitted to Canada last week to attend various functions at universities in the west at the invitation of the students unions at these universities. These people were admitted under the policy that we have been pursuing for a considerable time, namely, that otherwise prohibited persons are permitted to visit the country for a short period at the invitation of a reputable organization if there is no evidence that any disorder will result. This policy was carried forward in this case.
However, it was later discovered that two of the persons had misrepresented their identities at the border. When this was discovered an inquiry was held and an order of deportation was effected. In addition, two of these

persons were prosecuted and fined for the misrepresentation which took place at the border. This was an issue aside and apart from implementation of the policy respecting admission of prohibited persons into Canada for short periods.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorklon-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. In view of the fact that the Minister of Justice has already expressed concern about a student's charge that RCMP officers harassed him at the Liberal conference at Harrison Hot Springs, can the minister indicate to the House whether he is at present undertaking an investigation of this matter?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the minister already has.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister indicate to the House what are the results of this investigation?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the minister can. Two members of the RCMP on duty last Thursday afternoon were called in to remove certain persons who were loitering around the hotel. After this was done the person concerned came into the hotel. He was wearing jeans at the time, long hair and dressed somewhat similar to them.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. Bell:: Explain.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Fairweather:: What colour-green
jeans, blue jeans?


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether there was wisdom in allowing the question in the first instance. I do not see that the question as asked is one that should be allowed at this time. I also wonder whether the minister should be entitled to continue his explanation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate that hon. members may be-


An hon. Member:: Unanimous.
November 24, 1969


Mr. Speaker:: -enjoying the situation, but I doubt whether it would be in order to pursue the matter. I might say that when the hon. member for Fundy-Royal asked the same question originally 1 thought it should not be allowed because I do not consider the question asked to be one of national urgency.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, if I leave the answer at the point at which I was it would do an injustice to the man concerned. This would be quite unfair. In the circumstances I believe I should be permitted to complete the answer, the question having been asked. If there is not to be an injustice done to the person involved, I believe the answer should be permitted. The answer is that this person did not go, as did the other guests, directly to the place of registration. They intercepted him-


An hon. Member:: That was Russ Jackson.


George James McIlraith: -and asked him if he was there in connection with the conference. He promptly said he was and produced his identification. They apologized immediately and profusely. He seemed to be satisfied at the time that the incident was closed.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether the minister is now satisfied that the answer has been given.


Some hon. Members:: More, More!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must make the statement that this is not a matter of such national urgency that a supplementary question should be allowed at this time. If the hon. member wishes to pursue the matter he might ask a supplementary at the time of adjournment.


Mr. Lewis:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With the very greatest respect to you, sir, another question might have received an answer in respect of the behaviour of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers involved at the place and at the time, which does make it a matter of national concern. If I may say so with respect I would urge Your Honour not to dismiss the consideration of this matter, because the reports in the newspapers indicate that these police officers disguised themselves as press representatives and had-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me we are going to spend some time on this matter and therefore we might as well have the supplementary as a lengthy point of order. I will allow the supplementary.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, could the Solicitor General indicate to the House whether it is common practice to have RCMP undercover agents masquerade as members of the press?


George James McIlraith: No. I think, however, I should answer the part of the question referring to the reports in the press about the wearing of a press badge, which is properly a matter of some concern to the public. The members of the RCMP did not disguise themselves in any way, but shortly before this incident they were requested by the hotel manager to accept these badges so that they would not be questioned because they were there without any identification. The badges were provided for them. I think they ought not to have accepted the badges.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, so that other people will not find themselves in the position of being picked up or pushed out if they attend a Liberal meeting, would the minister say whether the action taken was under some anti-pollution provision?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Having heard the original question, the supplementary and the point of order I believe I was right in my opinion at first that there was some doubt whether the question should be allowed at all.


Mr. Burton:: Mr. Speaker, a further
supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In light of the many serious problems facing the Canadian agricultural industry and in view of the fact that a month has now elapsed since the session commenced, will the minister take immediate steps to reconvene the Standing Committee on Agriculture in an endeavour to solve these basic problems?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion there is no doubt that this committee will be reconvened to

November 24, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry consider matters that Parliament *will refer to it, including some legislation as well as a number of reports which traditionally and properly are referred to that committee. Once the committee is reconvened the matters it takes up are, of course, under its own control.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Could he tell the House whether at the Liberal party think-in over the weekend it was suggested to apply the theories of Social Credit to solve the problem of poverty?



WHEAT-EXPORT FORECAST-REMOVAL OF LAND FROM PRODUCTION

['I will make inquiries about that. There were some earthquakes about the time of the former tests but they were before the tests were made so it would have been very difficult to establish any relationship between the two. However, I will make inquiries whether the scientists see any connection between them.\nNovember 24, 1969']
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the statement made this morning by the chairman of the Economic Council of Canada that two recent studies indicate that in the next five years exports of wheat may be 25 per cent below the level of the last few years, may I ask whether the government shares this view and whether it anticipates the removal of millions of acres of western agricultural land from wheat production in that period?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as asked is much too wide in scope. The hon. member is asking whether the minister agrees or disagrees with a statement made outside the House. The question is not in order in those terms.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether the government anticipates the removal of millions of acres of western agricultural land from wheat production in the next five years?


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



Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs arising out of the statement

made today by the Prime Minister concerning the agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union on non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Having in mind the fact that the United States is said to be planning further massive nuclear tests at the present time in the northern Pacific, will Canada do what it can at the present session of the United Nations to bring about a ban on underground testing?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are working in that direction. We are applying all the pressure we can for a test ban treaty. It might be of interest to the hon. member to know that according to the information we have from the United States government no further tests will be held on Amchitka, where the original test was made, for a period of one or two years and may not be made at all depending on the results of the first test.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether in that interval Canada will make any representations to the government of the United States that testing not continue on Amchitka in view of the serious consequences it could have because the anticipated tests are to be much larger than the test held this fall?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will recall that the reason we made our representation on the previous occasion was the danger that because of a fault there might be a tidal wave or earthquake generated by the test. We will be following the results of the test and if we find any reason to make further representations we will do so.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he has any information on whether the earthquake which resulted in a recent tidal wave alert on the Pacific coast, though fortunately it did not result in a tidal wave, had any relationship to the test on Amchitka? If he does not have that information, can he secure it from the United States?


Mitchell William Sharp: I will make inquiries about that. There were some earthquakes about the time of the former tests but they were before the tests were made so it would have been very difficult to establish any relationship between the two. However, I will make inquiries whether the scientists see any connection between them.
November 24, 1969



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-Sf. George's-Sl. Barbe):: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture of which I have given him notice. Would he be prepared to consider granting compensation to Newfoundland farmers who suffered serious losses to potato crops owing to early frost damage, and would he advise what can be done to assist the farmers in this emergency?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: As the hon. member is aware, the responsibility for providing assistance in cases of this kind rests with the provincial authorities. In the past there have been occasions when the cost of providing assistance has been such as to cause serious financial problems, and federal funds were provided to assist the provinces in carrying out their responsibilities to producers. However, recently the federal contributions for crop failures have generally been confined to those made under the Crop Insurance Act. Up to the present time, we have received no representations from Newfoundland to the effect that they wish crop insurance to be introduced.



ASSISTANCE TO WESTERN FARMERS

Gerald William Baldwin: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the government taking or considering any action to provide relief for a large number of farmers in Canada, particularly in the west, who are unable to meet their obligations as they fall due because of the situation there? This is a responsibility which, in the past, has been assigned to the federal government by legislation.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, very positive action has been taken, and part of it was announced by the Minister of Agriculture a week ago last Friday.



SCIENCE SERVICES


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Now that the Prime Minister has received the report of the OECD on Canada's science policy, does he intend to act on one of its central recommendations and establish a ministry solely responsible for science policy?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We have a minister responsible for science policy, Mr. Speaker.


John Edward Broadbent: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Apparently the Prime Minister misunderstood my question. I asked whether the Prime Minister is considering establishing a ministry responsible solely for science policy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We may consider naming some more Ministers without Portfolio, if the opposition does not object.


Thomas Miller Bell: Is there anybody left?


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to the question of science policy and ask the Prime Minister if, for once, he would try to give a serious answer to a serious question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It was a serious answer, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Do the accounts of the minister's press conference held during his visit to the United Arab Republic give grounds for the belief that the minister's remarks were censored by government officials of that country?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister formally protested against this act of discourtesy, and what steps has Canada taken to ensure that the homes of embassy officials are free from search and other harassment?


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not see the relevance of the second part of the question. As to the first, I am not quite sure whether my department has yet made a formal protest, but at least one will be made and I may make one myself to the ambassador of the United Arab Republic.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the

November 24, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry Secretary of State for External Affairs concerning the press conference referred to by my hon. friend from Fundy-Royal. Does the minister happen to have an uncensored transcript of the press conference so that we might know what remarks were deemed dangerous?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian press reporters who were present reputed my comments, I think, fairly well in full. If the hon. member reads their reports, he will find what I did say.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
According to some report heard at noon, the Department of Agriculture intends to reduce by several millions of dollars subsidies to dairy producers. Could the minister confirm or deny such report?


Mr. Speaker:: Unfortunately, the question as worded is unacceptable.



CANADA PENSION PLAN


Mr. Max Sallsman (Waterloo):: I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It concerns the granting of exemptions to the Old Order Mennonites. Has this matter gone before the cabinet and what is the cabinet's decision on the granting of such exemption?


Mr. Speaker:: The question as asked is not in order.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Thomas Miller Bell: I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, of which I have given him notice. It is in connection with meetings held in New Brunswick. Has the minister decided that there will be five growth centres in that province and, if so, when will the areas be officially announced? Can he supply any other information on that subject?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: No, I cannot supply any information at this stage. Shortly, we will be in a position to announce where the growth centres will be, but this has not yet been agreed upon by the provincial governments and the federal cabinet.


James Aloysius McGrath: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister make a statement to the House once the government has decided on the growth centres in the Atlantic provinces?


Jean Marchand: I do not know whether I will make a statement in the House, but I will certainly make a public statement. I do not mind telling the House where the growth centres will be when a decision has been reached.


An hon. Member:: Thank you very much.



FUTURE OF FAIREY OF CANADA PLANT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. M. Forreslall (Dartmouth-Halifax
East): I have a related question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Can he say whether or not his departmental officials have made any progress in the last week or so toward providing assistance to ensure the future of Fairey Aviation of Canada?
Jean Marchand: I am afraid I cannot answer this question.



POLLUTION


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the increasing apprehension and warnings from scientists everywhere of the danger to our environment through the pollution of the atmosphere by the use of our present internal combustion engines, has his department or any department of the government initiated any investigation, research or discussion on plans to meet this increasingly serious problem?


John Carr Munro: I am not aware precisely of how much research has been done by the government or by my department, but I do know that many discussions have taken place between various specialists in this field and specialists in my department.
November 24, 1969



LABOUR CONDITIONS


John Howard Lundrigan: My question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister say if he has received any representations from the Union of National Defence Employees that he hold discussions with his U.S. counterpart regarding Canadians dismissed by the United States at their bases in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: The question as asked is not in order. It is not sufficient to ask merely whether a minister has received representations.


John Howard Lundrigan: May I rephrase my question and ask whether the minister can indicate to the House what response he has made to the representations made by the Union of National Defence Employees respecting negotiations with his U.S. counterpart regarding Canadians employed at U.S. bases in Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: It may be that I have received such representations. I will have to check, but I do not recall them.


John Howard Lundrigan: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister indicate to the House the result of his recent negotiations with his U.S. counterpart regarding better arrangements for Canadians employed at U.S. bases in Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: I did report on this subject in answer to a question some time ago and I stated that the results were not very favourable. The United States was not prepared to change its policies.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, but in his absence perhaps the Minister of Agriculture would answer it. On November 17, I asked the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs whether he would instruct the Prices and Incomes Commission to investigate the increase in fuel oil prices. May I now ask the Minister of Agriculture, in view of the fact that virtually all the major oil companies have served notice they will increase their price in the
Inquiries of the Ministry area west of Ottawa by one cent a gallon, whether the government will now instruct the Prices and Incomes Commission to investigate what effect this price increase will have on farm production costs?

Mr. Paul Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs):	Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
should know that the Prices and Incomes Commission is an independent body. We dare hope that the Commission is studying what relates to the oil companies and will report on the subject.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question on this subject. I accept the Parliamentary Secretary's answer, but my question was: Will the minister ask the Prices and Incomes Commission to consider this problem?



ALLEGED INEFFECTIVENESS OF PRESCRIPTION PRODUCT-INQUIRY AS TO STATEMENT

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. A week ago, in answer to one of the numerous questions from this corner about his forthcoming statement on the alleged ineffectiveness of certain prescription drugs, he said he would try to make a statement "this week", which is now last week. Obviously he could not do so then and I want to know if he will be able to make the statement this week?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am planning to make a statement on Thursday of this week.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General and it is related to the musical ride series we had a little earlier in the question period. Are plainclothes members of the RCMP present at the current hearings on the Company of Young Canadians being held before the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts and, if so, what is the reason for their presence?
November 24, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry


George James McIlraith: believe they are not, Mr. Speaker.


Mark Willson Rose: I wonder if the minister would be kind enough to look into this matter, Mr. Speaker.


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker, although I do not like unduly checking on committees of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mark Willson Rose: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker,
I was not requesting that the Solicitor General check on the committees-God forbid. I asked him if he would mind checking to see if the RCMP are present at these hearings?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to do that.



POST OFFICE


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Communications. In view of the fact that the Post Office in Winnipeg is hiring Christmas help at a rate of pay below the Manitoba minimum wage, will the minister look into this matter with a view to correcting it?


Eric William Kierans: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



CANADA PENSION PLAN


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has a decision been reached on the granting of an exemption from the Canada Pension Plan to the Old Order Mennonites?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. The government is still giving active consideration to this matter. One of the factors involved in this consideration is the practice followed in other countries, which we are now looking into, especially with regard to what this has meant in terms of administrative difficulties. I would hope I would be in a position to give a final decision on the matter within the next month.



AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO BARBER COMMISSION REPORT Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):
Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has he received a request from the President of the National Farmers Union calling for the immediate release of the Barber Commission report? Would he also advise the House when we may expect the release of this report, whether there will be an interim report and, if so, when it will appear?
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, quite obviously I cannot release the final report of the Barber Commission until I have received it, and I have not received it yet. There has been a further interim report, or what is more accurately described as a report dealing with a specific subject matter, that is, tractor and combine pricing patterns around the world. I have already answered that as soon as it is translated and printed it will be released. It cannot be done before that.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-6, to wind up the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition and to authorize the writing-off of certain costs and the deferral of certain payments connected therewith, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
John Stratford Burton: That Bill No. C-6, An Act to wind up the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition and to authorize the writing-off of certain costs and the deferral of certain payments connected therewith, be amended by deleting therefrom subclause (I) of clause 7.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the party is over and just about everybody has gone home, except those people who have been left with the job of tidying up some of the problems that were created over the past several years in the administration of Expo affairs. These are the people who have to figure out how the bills are to be paid. They are still on hand, and the bills do have to be paid.
November 24, 1969

A number of years ago an Expo Corporation was established by an Act of this Parliament. It was given the power to borrow money under guarantees from the government of Canada. The Corporation was also provided with a $20 million grant as a contribution from the government of Canada to the 1967 Exhibition. Loans were made and the Expo corporation did borrow money. When these notes came due the guarantee was honoured by the government of Canada and those amounts were entered in the books of the government of Canada as accounts receivable; in other words as assets of the government of Canada.
The Auditor General has taken objection to some of the methods used in handling these accounts. I had occasion to question him when he appeared before the Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs Committee, where this bill was being considered clause by clause, and in answer to my questions he made the following comments:
I can only direct you to the comments made in my last report to the House, where I refer to the recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee in which it stated:
"-and that amendments to the existing legislation be placed before Parliament and the Legislature of Quebec so that the additional grants could be made by the parties concerned, namely, Canada, Quebec and Montreal.
The Committee directed the attention of the House to the fact that unless these additional grants are provided, the Corporation's presently estimated total requirement of $143 million (less $40 million already provided by Canada, Quebec and Montreal) will have been financed by loans from Canada and the Corporation will be burdened with the cost of additional interest and at the conclusion of the Exhibition will not have the cash resources necessary for payment of its indebtedness to Canada.
The Auditor General noted that, in fact, an asset was being set up on the books of the government of Canada in the form of an account receivable from a Corporation that had no resources with which to pay that account receivable. He noted this later in further questioning when he said, and I quote from page 36 of the testimony on Monday, November 17:
Mr. Burton, my responsibility in connection with the making of this money in the form of loans was because they were treated as assets, as a balance sheet or a statement that I am required to certify. Do you think it is an asset to show an indebtedness from a corporation that does not have any means with which to discharge that debt, which is called an asset? I think, although it sounds an odd statement to make, that Mr. Bryce and I were kicking this around one day in the 21545-3
Closing Expo 1967 Corporation Public Accounts Committee when I described it as an operation which was like lending money to your wife, and then calling it an asset.
The Auditor General also noted that in the past several years loans were authorized by this Parliament to Expo Corporation when they may have been more properly made in the form of grants. I understand that these loans were made before my own tenure in this House. It was considered at that time that a significant portion of the money being lent would never be repaid since Expo Corporation would not have the resources with which to repay it. These amounts would have to be written off eventually by the government of Canada as an investment in this project. Mr. Henderson, in his testimony on Monday, November 17 also noted-I am quoting now from page 35 of the testimony:
It was started out with grants of, as you know, $20 million in the federal case. The normal or expected way would have been that there would have been an amount of money appropriated each year as you go along. As a result, there would have been an accounting of some kind given to justify it, and it would have appeared in the estimates. It would have appeared in the computation of the budgetary deficit or surplus in those years. To use the expression rather loosely, you would have been paying your way. Now you get the bill in one chunk at the end.
A number of criticisms have been made of the operations of Expo Corporation and some of these matters came under review during the course of the committee's consideration of this bill. It is not my intention to go into these items at the present time since it is expected that the Public Accounts Committee will probably be giving this matter rather more thorough study than was possible before the Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs Committee. At the same time, I think it is proper to note that consideration of the management of Expo finances was a proper matter for consideration of the Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs Committee since the management of those finances, in fact, does relate to the action which we are now being asked to approve. The fact is as well, Mr. Speaker, that some assets created through the Expo project, and as a result of the work of the Expo Corporation, have been taken over by other government agencies. This quite properly might be noted in appropriate fashion.
The question is now: How do we deal with the remainder of the bill? The fact is that it would appear the total contribution of the government of Canada to the work of Expo Corporation will amount to approximately
November 24, 1969

Closing Expo 1967 Corporation $142.9 million. Twenty million dollars of this amount has already been provided in the form of grants; the remaining $122.9 million remains as an account receivable by the government of Canada. The money has already been spent and, as already noted, errors may have been made in the earlier handling of these funds when they were approved by Parliament in the form of loans rather than outright grants, as suggested by the Auditor General of Canada. It is also clear that the national debt of Canada will be increased, regardless of how the present problem is handled; I think there is no question of that.
There are two alternatives in dealing with this problem of how to treat the $122.9 million in accounts receivable, which is certainly no longer collectible from the corporation. The first step would be to pass the legislation now before us which would simply write off this amount as an account receivable, remove it as an asset, and thereby increase the national debt by a corresponding amount. The second step would be to approve a parliamentary appropriation so that this amount would, in fact, be shown as an expenditure by the government. There would be a decision taken by this Parliament that the $122.9 million should be considered as a grant for the purpose of financing the 1967 Expo project. Under the present proposal, as I have already noted, the national debt will be increased and there will be no corresponding expenditure to account for this increase.
In his budget speech on June 3 Finance Minister Benson noted it was the intention of the government to ask for parliamentary approval of action to remove this account receivable and thus wind up the affairs of the Expo Corporation. At page 9421 of Hansard he is reported as follows:
A further budgetary provision will also be appropriate under present circumstances. The final acounting for Expo '67 has now been carried out, and arrangements made for the settlement of the operating deficits incurred by the Expo Corporation, which Parliament will be asked to approve by legislation. The federal share of this deficit amounts to about $125 million, and I propose that this amount be written off completely as a budgetary charge during the current fiscal year...
This will of course reduce the surplus on budgetary acount, but will not affect our cash position. After the adjustment, the net budgetary surplus now foreseen for 1969-70 thus stands at some $250 million.
Then, at page 9423 of Hansard we find this: These non-budgetary requirements for the current year will be financed in considerable part by the budgetary surplus which I have forecast at 

$375 million, before the write-off of the Expo deficit, which will give rise to another non-budgetary offset.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there is some conflict between these two quotations which I have presented.
It seems to me there is no question about the legislation now before Parliament. Clause 7, subclause (1) of the bill, as it has been reported back by the committee will, in effect, constitute appropriate and adequate legislative authorization for the removal of this particular item from the accounts of the government of Canada. But the problem is, how will this action be reflected in the accounts of the government and in the accounts and reports of expenditures, as they will be shown to the people of Canada?
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this is a matter for serious consideration. We should make sure the legislative measures adopted by this Parliament are in such form that the people of Canada will have a proper accounting of how their money was spent. I suggest that the proposal now before Parliament in the form of clause 7, subsection (1), as reported by the committee, will not result in a proper accounting of this expenditure to the people of Canada. First of all we had the loan; then, the loan was simply written off without any further accounting of what was, in fact, a grant to Expo Corporation and what constitutes an expenditure of public funds raised through taxation. Thus, I suggest that the alternative procedure should be to remove subclause (1) of clause 7 from the bill and to press upon the government the necessity of taking appropriate steps to bring in a supplementary estimate, to bring in another appropriation bill to deal with this item. In this way, the $122.9 million outstanding from the Expo Corporation, which is to be absorbed by the government of Canada, would be correctly shown in the public accounts as an expenditure by the government in what was certainly a worth-while national project. This procedure would convey the true story of these expenditures to the people of Canada.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I should also like to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the need for consistency in dealing with contributions made by the Government of Canada out of public funds to Expo Corporation. As I noted earlier, $20 million was provided to Expo Corporation in the form of a grant as a result of the original legislation approved by parliament. It is in fact
November 24, 1969

noted in certain accounts, where this is shown, that the total that has to be borne by the Government of Canada is some $142.9 million. To be deducted from that is the grant that was made by the Government of Canada, leaving a net figure of $122.9 million. We have on the one hand $20 million which was gran.ed to Expo Corporation in the form of a grant, which is quite properly shown as an expenditure of the Government of Canada and, on the other hand, we have the other $122.9 million that will be contributed to Expo by the people of Canada. This latter figure will simply show up as an addition to the national debt and no record of that will show up in the expenditures of the government. So, the total amount is really a grant to Expo Corporation and, in my view, it should be shown as such.
When this bill was before the committee I moved an amendment which I should like to place on record. I moved, "that clause 7 subclause 1 be deleted from the bill and that this committee recommend that consideration be given to a parliamen ary appropriation as a more appropriate means of effecting the objective of writing off the item 'accounts receivable, Expo, guarantees' as shown on the accounts of the Government of Canada."
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that there was some response from the minister when I presented this amendment. Possibly he was embarrassed at having this matter raised, because he had suggested before that possibly he would place this mat er before the Minister of Finance. I certainly appreciate that suggestion by the minister, because it shows that he is somewhat embarrassed at having to deal wi h this subject in this way. I thought he would like to find some other way of handling what is certainly a rather awkward problem for him in winding up the affairs of Expo. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, when the vote came all government members voted against my amendment. They were quite happy to see the proposal placed by the government before the House presented to the people of Canada, and to have public funds dealt with in this en irely inappropriate way.
The amendment I have now placed before the House, Mr. Speaker, carries forward the first part of the motion I moved in committee. It is not possible at this time for me to place a motion before the House which would give effect to the second part of my motion moved in the committee. I refer to the recommendation to the government and the House of Commons. Certainly, one consequence of the 21545-3J
Closing Expo 1967 Corporation approval of the amendment I have placed before the House at this time would be to require the government to bring an appropriation before Parliament, as recommended in the second part of my mo don in committee.
I commend to the House the amendment I have moved and hope that hon. members will approve it, that the government will reconsider its actions and that it will choose, instead, to bring forward a parliamentary appropriation to deal with the problem we are confronted with at this time.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the amendment before us deals entirely with the writing off of amounts of money up to $125 million. These consist of loans made to Expo which are uncollectible. Actually, an amount of $122.9 million appears on the books of the government as an asset. It cannot be collected and, of course, must be deleted in some way if we are to get any sort of true picture.
What we are really discussing at the moment is, what is the best or preferable method of dealing with this write-off; is it best done by introducing and passing a clause like clause 7(1) of this bill, or would it be better to deal with it by means of an appropriation bill.
I will not repeat the arguments of the hon. member who introduced the amendment. In my view, and I expressed my view in the committee, the more usual method of writing off uncollectible debts of this sort is for the government to bring in an appropriation bill. That is also a preferable method. I will, therefore, support the amendment.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended speaking on this matter until I read the gratuitous remarks of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin). I, therefore, feel that the circumstances connected with Expo should be placed on record so that it will be clear and definite.
Often it is asked: What were the circumstances connected with the beginning of this great project? Expo brought Canada to the attention of all the world. It was a tremendous project. Where did it have its beginnings?
My records show that the first person who brought up this matter and suggested that a world exposition would be a means of Canada's being known all over the world was Hon. Pierre Sevigny. He went into considerable
1162	COMMONS
Closing Expo 1967 Corporation detail in connection with this matter. Subsequently, in Paris, the late Senator Marc Drouin, while attending an exposition in 1958, suggested in a speech that the time had come to inaugurate that great undertaking in Canada. Throughout there was the complete, enthusiastic, energetic and imaginative support of His Worship Mayor Drapeau. Immediately, recommendations came from various individuals. On September 5, 1958, a letter was received from Raymond Dupuis, President, Chamber de Commerce du District de Montreal, asking for support on behalf of an exposition to be held in 1967 in the city of Montreal.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
On two occasions, the government which I had the honour to lead endeavoured to bring this about. The first occasion was at the meeting of the international Exposition board. The Soviet Union stepped in and asked for the exposition to be held in Moscow in commemoration of their fiftieth anniversary. Canada lost out by one vote. Later, the Soviet Union decided that it did not intend to go ahead, and we sent a representative to Paris in the person of Colonel Sevigny to bring about support for this exposition being given to Canada. The decision of the board was unanimous and the question of financing arose. There can be no doubt as to where the Government of Canada stood, despite the statements made by the minister in the committee and outside of this House. The question was, for how much should the federal government be liable? This question was discussed at length in co-operation not only with the municipal government of Montreal but with the government of Quebec. The then premier of that province, Mr. Lesage, gave the fullest co-operative support to the bringing about of an exposition toward which the three governments, federal, provincial and the municipal government of Montreal, would make their contributions. I emphasize the degree to which there was full co-operation among the three levels of government.
The determination as to the amount for which the federal government should be responsible was clear and definite. Section 11 of the Canadian World Exhibition Corporation Act reads as follows:
The Minister of Finance, at the request of the Corporation, may, out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, pay to the Corporation by way of grant such amounts as are required for the conduct of the business of the Corporation but the aggregate of all amounts paid to the Corporation under this section .shall not exceed twenty million dollars.

DEBATES	November 24, 1969
Now, by some method of false reasoning the minister has endeavoured to raise the smokescreen that sometime, someplace, I stated that we should not restrict ourselves to that amount if a few million dollars more voted by Parliament would make the exposition a success.
The sum of $40 million was the total amount of the contribution from all three levels of government. The city of Toronto was interested in having this exposition. It had had virtually 100 years of experience in operating the finest annual exposition anywhere in the world. Naturally, Toronto had facilities for a world exposition, although the area covered by the Toronto exposition would not have been sufficient to meet the needs of a world exposition.
The then mayor of Toronto, Nathan Phillips, Q.C., took strong exception, in a communication to me on August 25, 1958, to a statement made by the late Senator Drouin. Senator Drouin made a public statement that the centenary should be celebrated by a fair in Montreal. However, when Toronto found out that the federal contribution determined would be $20 million, the answer was that it was not interested in having the exhibition because it could not be put on for a total contribution of $40 million. We, in the government, then determined that the exhibition should go to the city of Montreal.
It was a tremendous success and everything about it made Canadians proud of their heritage. We are dealing now with a financial situation, and the failure of the government of Canada to exercise any control over the greatest orgy of expenditure that has ever taken place in this country. Apparently anything went and there was no care, no attention and no regard by the Department of Finance or by the Pearson government in respect of controlling expenditures. Much the same thing has happened in the last year in connection with this organization of the young Canadians, where everybody is a friend and nobody is controlled. The government sits and looks on while the Canadian taxpayer's money is poured down the drain. That is what happened at Expo for that period from the time of the organization right through to the end. We cannot do anything about it now, they say, That is true; the Canadian taxpayer has paid $122 million more than there was any undertaking to pay because the government simply did not exercise any control.
One of the most interesting features in visiting Expo was the degree to which nobody
November 24, 1969	COMMONS
seemed to have any control-spend, spend and draw on the government of Canada, or at least with the tacit approval of the government of Canada. I repeat that there was never any suggestion anywhere, any place or at any time that this kind of thing would be tolerated.
The minister has the habit of making statements accompanied with a happy face.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I learned that from you.


John George Diefenbaker: He is a congenial fellow. Nobody I know in the House of Commons can be more congenial when he is in greater difficulty. That is an attribute I give to him. He smiles.


Mr. Prud'homme:: He is not going to cry.


John George Diefenbaker: He exudes congeniality, but I am not going to tell the hon. member that he also imitates the minister or that the minister imitates him. They are both happy individuals, and always when there is difficulty the minister adopts that attitude.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: What about the total amount that was to be spent? Did anybody ever contemplate the expenditure of $270 million? Did anybody ever begin to realize that we were going to be asked to cover up $122 million by the subterfuge of the bill now before the House instead of following the constitutional system? There was nothing of that kind.
What did Mr. Pearson say? On August 13, 1963, within a period of a few months after he resumed office, he announced an immediate summit conference to guarantee safe sailing for the world's fair. Then, he announced that the federal contribution would be something over $50 million toward the exhibition. There had been no ratification or acceptance by Parliament, but even Prime Minister Pearson, in his most effusive declaration regarding the exhibition, never went beyond something over $50 million.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
The Prime Minister went on to say that federal government support for the fair had already been decided and an allocation of $20 million had been made toward direct costs. Added to this amount, he said, would be the cost of an exhibit "worthy of this country", and a "substantial extra amount" would be required to protect the site. He said the total expenditure of the federal government would be something over $50 million. That included
DEBATES	1163
Closing Expo 1967 Corporation the cost of Canada's pavilion. Let that be clear. The whole cost would be the original $20 million plus some $30 million to cover Canada's exhibition and certain additional costs. Then he said that improvements to bridges, access roads and other ancillary needs would have to be met by either the Province of Quebec or the City of Montreal. And he added these words: "There must be a clear understanding of who will do what." Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are saying now. The hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) who spoke, and who moved an amendment, had this in mind. Well, nobody ever decided that question. The government simply allowed those people in charge to spend whatever they wished to spend, without any control whatsoever.
Let me go on. Mr. Pearson said:
We must anticipate events. Each government must assess the full meaning of what it must do. Time is all too short for what must be done.
The report continued:
The three government leaders, with other dignitaries, sat under 16-foot high blue, green and red letters reading EXPO '67 on one side of the main barge-From then on, the folk dancing took place.
Today, the folk who are dancing are the people of Canada who have to pay the taxes from which to meet these unjustified expenditures, outlays which constitutionally ought not to have been permitted. I see the minister says my figures are a myth, and while I had suggested in the House in April, '64 that net costs were to be held to that amount, I had not been so certain of that possibility in December, 1963.
I never altered my view, Mr. Speaker. Parliament approved the amount which was required and requisi e on the part of the federal government. What happened was this: the Government of Canada under Prime Minister Pearson and those associated with him simply permi ted expenditures to be made beyond reason, completely without any authori y and in the absence of any information giving details. Nor are we going to find out, because if this bill is passed in its present form what we shall be doing is something along the lines of the old adage "forgive and forget". But in this case the people of Canada will have to pay.
The government I had the honour to lead brought EXPO about. I was in Vancouver in February, 1963 and I had before me six or seven different areas, one of which, it was suggested, should be the site of EXPO. Having examined them at greater length than ever
1164	COMMONS
Closing Expo 1967 Corporation before, I decided on St. Helen's Island. We brought it about. We launched it. Then, what happened? When the opening proceedings took place, Premier Lesage, no longer premier, and myself, both of whom had done their part to bring it about, were seated so far back in the audience that an ordinary telescope was not sufficient to enable us to see what was going on. The government had decided to turn EXPO into a Liberal holiday, and it turned out to be one in which the liberality of the expenditure has never been exceeded in Canada at any time.
There was waste. There was extravagance. There was an orgy of wasteful expenditure over which no one had any control. Now, hon. gentlemen opposite want us to pass Bill C-6 to wind up the corporation. They tell us, in effect: We won't go into any of the detail, or into any of the facts in connection with expenditure; we just want the House of Commons to say "Blessed are they who spend extravagantly and beyond any right, because they were spending on something which was worthwhile for Canada."
Well, to get the record straight-because we shall not otherwise get the facts on the record-it is well to recall that on March 27 last the Auditor General in his annual report set out certain details which prove beyond question that what happened is an indictment of the Government of Canada for failing to exercise any control over the purse-strings of expenditure. Let me mention some of the references. The construction cost of Habitat's apartments went up to $17,982,000, or $10 million more than the original estimate. Mr. Speaker, if you want to see a habitat of inefficiency and ineffectiveness, view that place. Nobody wants to rent there, because if they did so they would need the resources of EXPO to pay the monthly rental rates. There it stands, a monument to inefficiency and to wild expenditure for which Canadians will have to pay. When the architects' fees and other costs involved are added to the expenditure, the 115 finished apartments and the 43 unfinished apartments cost a grand total of $22,685,000. I should like to hear the minister defend that expenditure. It was waste unjustified, and all there is to show for it is that monument, Habitat, which nobody wants to occupy.
Then, there were the two theme buildings, Man the Producer and Man the Explorer, whose cost went up from-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to apologize to the right hon. gentleman but I must
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
DEBATES	November 24, 1969
bring to his notice that under the terms of the Standing Order his time has expired, unless he has the unanimous consent of the House to continue.
Sone hon. Members: Continue.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: Thank you. I mentioned those two theme buildings. Their cost rose from an original estimate of $9,125,000 to $20,560,000. Just imagine what would have happened had there been any control. Then the Auditor General, who does not seem to be very popular with this government, urged that Parliament should commission a fulltime investigation of these operations. He goes on to talk about the jumbled books. The accounting was so jumbled that the joint auditors, Mr. Henderson and the Quebec provincial auditor, were unable to certify the correctness of $101,438,000 out of an approximate total revenue of $141 million. This amount was lost without trace. There was nothing to show how $101 million had been spent.
[DOT] (4.00 p.m.)
Salaries at Expo also went haywire, almost from the beginning. Thirty-three officers received salaries of $10,000 or more, and these amounts were increased during 1967 by from 20 per cent to 60 per cent. This was the time when the government was talking about inflation. All these people had to do was to spend; no one controlled them.
Thirty-three employees left their employment before the end of the year and received severance pay averaging 27 per cent of their boosted salaries. Instead of these people themselves being boosted out, they received severance pay amounting to 27 per cent of their boosted salaries.
Of the work force, about 24,000 received overtime ranging from $1,000 to $19,000, at a total cost of $4.5 million. We hear so much today about people getting overtime. I should think these people at Expo ought to give correspondence courses so that labour can understand how to obtain overtime.
Then, a collective labour agreement that gave most hourly rated employees 4 per cent severance pay was extended to those who were not covered by the agreement, and 12 such employees received a total of $70,000, the largest sum received being $15,425.
The next item dealt with is rental. The Expo Corporation itself lost $345,000 on the
November 24, 1969

rental of an apartment for six months. The CBC, which the government says is usually very careful in its expenditures, was not to be outdone. It contracted for guaranteed accommodation for 1967 in three Montreal hotels. This accommodation remained unoccupied 24 per cent, 48 per cent and 50 per cent respectively of the time, at a cost of $148,000, including a termination fee of $18,900 for premises that were unused.
Did you ever hear, Mr. Speaker, of a gravy train like this? As long as you were aboard it you could spend regardless of whether there was justification. At the same time that these hotel facilities were not being used, the CBC rented accommodation in other hotels costing approximately $40,000. The CBC paid $450,000 to employees for what was called scheduled hours during daily or weekly tours of duty which were in excess of the actual hours of attendance.
It is an amazing record, Mr. Speaker. These are but a few examples of expenditures made. The report also deals with the other losses. Of the assets that were simply written off, Canada was assessed $116,794,000. The Centennial Commission got off lightly with a spectacular-tout, of course, I am not going to go into that because it was not part of the fair.
What I have placed before you, Mr. Speaker, is a record that is unequalled anywhere, any place in Canada, for wild, uncontrolled expenditure. The minister says that I thought we ought to spend a little more if all that was going to be spent was $20 million. But the losses were colossal. Control of expenditure was non-existent.
The government now comes along and says, in effect: "Let's forget all about it; it was a wonderful event". And it was. But that is not what we are dealing with at the moment. We are dealing with the right of the people's representatives in Parliament to control a government that exercised no control over the purse strings placed in the hands of the Commission. The government has found a nice, easy way of ending the affair. There will be an Expo Winding-Up Act, and all rights of creditors and all actions pending are unimpaired by the transfer to the minister of the assets.
The purpose of the bill is to provide for the dissolution of the Canadian Corporation. Clause 7 provides:
There may be deleted from the accounts of Canada, as a portion of the deficit of the corporation that is to be borne by the government of
Closing Expo 1967 Corporation Canada, not more than one hundred and twenty-five million dollars of the amounts shown therein as Accounts Receivable Expo Guarantees.
The government will push this measure through. Parliament no longer has any authority. There is a supine membership that stands behind the government whether it be right or wrong-though the government is always right. This measure should not receive the support of this House. To support it is to place the seal of approval on the most unprecedented and wildest expenditures made in all of Canada's history, with the taxpayer of Canada required to pick up the
bin.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) has taken part in the debate. "La grande histoire", and "la petite histoire", would not have been complete without his participation. I am sure that whoever writes the history of Expo will quote the words of the right hon. gentleman, that it was the "greatest orgy in expenditures in the history of mankind".


John George Diefenbaker: No, I said in the history of Canada.


Jean-Luc Pepin: In the history of Canada, then.


John George Diefenbaker: As usual, the minister is too expansive.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I can think of a number of people who would turn in their graves because they thought they held the record.
I do not intend to reply point by point because many of the matters raised by the right hon. gentleman have already been dealt with in the committee. Although I understand they were not dealt with to the full satisfaction of some members of the committee, explanations were nevertheless provided, and quite graciously accepted in many instances.
I pointed out during the committee hearings that there were a number of safeguards in the original legislation, some of which originated from the right hon. gentleman's, cabinet. These safeguards were the master plan, the annual budget, the decisions of the boards that had to be approved by the two governments in Ottawa and Quebec, the annual report and the observations of the Auditor General. I might also underline the fact that the loans made to the Corporation were approved by Parliament in the Appropriation Act in the year in which they were made, and
November 24, 1969

Closing Expo 1967 Corporation consequently already appear as such in the public accounts.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
On the subject of cost escalation I felt obligated to quote in committee the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) because in my view this figure of $20 million as being the total federal contribution planned appeared rather unrealistic. I looked at Hansard of that time to find out what the facts were. I knew that the right hon. gentleman had said on a number of occasions that his understanding was that the whole thing-I suppose it was irrespective of other federal participation in terms of a pavilion for Canada, for example-would cost the federal government only $20 million. Having the kind of mind I have I had to find out the truth. So,
I went to the record and this is where I found the following quotations from a speech of the right hon. gentleman. I am reading from page 3-21 of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs for November 7, 1969:
We should also have information as to the total expected expenditure to be made on this fair.
The date of the speech is April 10, 1964:
I do not want to reiterate what I have already said, but this fair cannot fail. To allow this fair, representative of this nation, even to enter the spectrum of failure would give to Canada a black eye internationally.
So, I gathered from that the right hon. gentleman wanted to make sure Expo would be a success and was willing to pay the price. This, however, is not the most important paragraph I quoted in the committee. The other quotation I gave-and again this is dated April 10, 1964-was the following:
Canadians as a whole have a great stake in national prestige to assure the success of this project. No one yet knows what the total expenditure will be.
This was rather important to me. The former prime minister who, as everybody agrees was the political creator of this great thing, Expo '67, did admit on April 10, 1964 that no one knew what the price would be. I cannot understand how, on the one hand, the gentleman could say it would cost $20 million and, on the other hand, that no one by April 10, 1964 knew what the price would be. This was rather disturbing to me.


I was even more disturbed when I read the rest of the paragraph:
There has been an estimate of $585 million as the total cost, an estimate I think made by Mr. Bienvenu some months ago.
On the one hand we are told nobody knew what the price would be. On the other hand, we are told it would be $20 million and, on the third hand-if that is a possibility-we are told it would cost $585 million. All statements made by the same gentleman.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister would allow a question. Does he realize that the $585 million was the estimated cost for all the buildings erected on these premises by all the countries that participated.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Even at that there would be some $300 million or more left to be payed, even if we deduct the costs of foreign pavilions. But again, the part of the quotation I emphasized most was the statement, "no one knew". Why was it that nobody knew? Because of the limited amount of time. The Russians had got it first, and we only got the fair when they gave it up. The fact is that the Expo Corporation had to tie together the actual planning of Expo and the actual building of Expo. I have read that from the moment the Corporation obtained the land on which Eixpo was to take place it took only two years, nine months and 26 days to actually build the fair.


John George Diefenbaker: That is wrong.


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is what I am told.


John George Diefenbaker: The land was picked out in February, 1963.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I said that from the time they took possession of the land, the Corporation took only two years, nine months and 26 days to build the fair. Anyway, the point I am trying to make is that Expo was not actually created. It grew. The result of this was that the master plan was revised seven times before the opening of the fair and even once after.
I am quite sure members of this House would also like me to emphasize that as the costs of Expo grew the benefits also grew. This is a point I made before the committee. For example, $480 million of extra tourist revenue in 1967 was directly attributed to Expo. An amount of $230 million in the form of taxes payed to all levels of government
November 24, 1969

could be attributed to Expo. I am trying to make the point that as the actual costs of Expo grew, because of the demonstrated enthusiasm of people all over the world, and Canadians, the benefits also increased. In other words, Expo in 1967 was not what the government of the time had in mind in 1963; it was very much bigger.
With regard to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton), may I say first that I am rather surprised he moved it because I thought I had charmed him out of it, in the committee. I thought the promise I made that 1 would bring his views to the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) would have been sufficient. I thought the hon. member, having said this was only a bookkeeping operation, would have chosen another forum in which to debate the issue which I assume is an interesting one.
His first grudge is that the financing of Expo '67 took place in the form of loans rather than in the form of grants. Had it been done in the form of grants, I suppose someone else would have a good reason for saying it should have been done by loans. Since it has been done by loans, I presume there are good reasons for saying it should have been done by grants. I explained in the Committee the reason it was done by loans; time was of the essence. I do not think this is a major issue. I believe the hon. member for Regina East said so himself, before the committee even if he did not say so in his speech in the House. As I said, the loans were the subject of parliamentary appropriations in the year in which they were made. That gave them parliamentary sanction.
The hon. member's other point, is in respect of how the "bookkeeping transaction" should appear in the financial books of parliament. This is debatable also. Mr. Speaker, we have two sets of books on expenditures, as you know better than I do. One contains the estimates of expenditures and the other contains the accounts of Canada. I want to underline for the benefit of the hon. member for Regina East the fact that these figures will be included in the accounts for Canada; that is, the share of the deficit to be borne by the federal government will appear in the accounts of Canada. This is the document on which the Auditor General can comment. So, if he wishes to comment again he is free to do so and the Public Accounts Committee will be free to look at that again. I was not sure

Closing Expo 1967 Corporation whether or not the hon. member for Regina East was aware of this.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I do not think it is fair, and I do not think there is any justification, for the minister to attempt to leave the impression that I would not be aware that this matter would come to the attention of members of this House through the report of the Auditor General and the subsequent reference to the Public Accounts Committee. The point I was making was that this matter is not being reported to the people of Canada in the form of an expenditure, which it is.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I had not finished my commentary, but I am glad to know the hon. member was aware of the point I was making. I regret having made it now that I know he was aware of it.


John Stratford Burton: I hope the minister is aware of it also.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Jean-Luc Pepin: I just became aware of it today! I am no authority on procedure, as is my hon. friend, so this is why I looked into this personally to make sure that the right procedure was followed, and being proud of my newly acquired knowledge I may have tended to be too keen to pass it along.


Gerald William Baldwin: This is a very dangerous thing.


Jean-Luc Pepin: With respect now to the other side of it, that is estimates; the deficit could not be included in the main estimates for 1969-70, although it was mentioned by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) during his budget speech, because the exact figures were not known then.
The other possibility, which was mentioned by me in the committee, was to include it in a supplementary estimate. There are arguments both in favour and against that. One of the arguments against is that supplementary estimates are introduced usually for the purpose of covering unforeseen expenditures. This Expo deficit can hardly be considered to be an unforeseen expenditure. I see the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) smiling at that thought. So, apparently this matter did not fit too well into supplementary estimates, either.


John Stratford Burton: May I ask the minister a question? Can he state that all supplementary
1168	COMMONS
Closing Expo 1967 Corporation estimates introduced in the House can be correctly described as unforeseen expenditures?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I would not dare, do that, but as we are speaking theoretically, and as the hon. member spoke of theories before, I thought I could go on in the same rather philosophical vein. I had the impression in the committee that one of the things which the hon. member for Regina East wanted was to ensure that this expenditure, this deficit, was made well known to the Canadian population, for educational purposes, I presume. If that is the objective, what better place is there to make it known than by way of a clause in the winding up legislation itself? So, I think that from the point of view of good democracy and of making the people of Canada aware of the price of Expo to the federal government, the present way is a very democratic way of proceeding.
It seems to me that the way that is being taken by the government now is very proper and there is certainly nothing illegal about it.
Mr. Diefenbakers Because it conceals everything.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Consequently, I think the
amendment should be defeated. However, I will bring the whole debate to the attention of the Minister of Finance, and I am sure there will be other forums where the hon. member's arguments could be more properly made, in my estimation.


John Stratford Burton: May I ask the minister another question? Is the government in fact giving consideration to the recommendations made by the Auditor General in his report to the House on a number of occasions in which he requested the government and Parliament to put an end to the practice of dealing with expenditures of money or writing off certain assets or accounts receivable through the method of non-budgetary transactions? Can we expect any change of policy on this matter?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am not familiar with this matter but I will inquire from the Minister of Finance and I will gladly have a conversation with my hon. friend later.


Gerald William Baldwin: His answer will be no.


Randolph Harding: would like to say a few words on the amendment. I was rather interested in the remark of the minister that one of the safeguards for projects of this type was the annual report 
DEBATES	November 24, 1969
which is always issued. As I recall the terms of the agreement, the annual report was to be issued within three months of the termination of the financial year. As an example, let me speak of the sixth annual report. The financial year ends on December 31, yet the financial report for the year 1969 was issued on November 4.


Jean-Luc Pepin: May I break in at this point, with the permission of the hon. member? A confession was made in the committee to that effect. I blushed and I said that indeed the report came too late. Explanations were provided. They were judged to be sufficient by some and insufficient by others, but the confession was made.


Randolph Harding: I understand that no explanation was given as to why it was not provided to members.
What really worries me about this whole affair is the fact that for a period of years the Auditor General of Canada, and the auditor general of the province of Quebec, have been submitting reports recommending that certain things be done. It is amazing to realize that after a series of reports which have come to the government pointing out inadequacies in certain financial arrangements with Expo, the government has ignored them year after year. According to the Auditor General, some changes might have been made after a great deal of pressure, but they were inadequate. The question which I think we should ask ourselves is whether this should be the normal procedure, that a goal is set in all government departments, then the Auditor General, who is the watchdog of the Canadian taxpayers' money makes a report and that report is ignored right down the line. This is what really worries Canadians and worries me. Someone is at fault. Somewhere along the line following the receipt of the Auditor General's report by the government someone has not been doing a job. I think we have every right in the world to criticize the lack of effective action by this government on this particular matter.
I should like to put on the record a few comments made by the Auditor General just to show that he has drawn this matter very clearly to the attention of the government on numerous occasions. I will quote from the report of the Auditor General for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1968, at page 185. This is what he said:
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
In our 1965 and subsequent Reports (paragraph 226 in 1967) we drew to the attention of the House
November 24, 1969

certain expenditures and practices of the Corporation which, in our opinion, were inconsistent with those usually followed by Crown corporations and agencies. We mentioned that these matters had been drawn to the attention of the Corporation's management and Board of Directors who advised the joint auditors that the expenditures in question were necessary to the Corporation. The practices were continued in 1967. A number of other matters arising from the 1987 examination have been dealt with in the joint auditors' detailed report to the President and Members of the Board of Directors, and three of these are referred to in the following paragraphs of this report:
67. Salaries and termination payments.
69. Loss on operation of rented apartment building.
71. Cost of repairs to sanitary sewer system.
Certain revenues of the Corporation aggregating $101,438,000 of the total of $140,984,000 could not be effectively checked by the joint auditors and their report was qualified accordingly. This matter is dealt with in paragraph 65 of this report.
Then at page 186, the Auditor General's report reads:
Following the close of the Exhibition all of the capital assets, with the exception of minor items which were demolished or sold and the mass transit system which has since been sold to the city of Montreal for $1,880,000, were transferred to the ownership of Canada, Quebec and Montreal, whichever owned the land on which they were situated. Details are given in paragraph 66 of this report.
In paragraph 226 of our 1967 report we pointed out that a number of procedures followed in connection with capital construction projects had the effect of materially weakening financial control. These included amending contracts subsequent to the work having been completed in whole or in part without prior ascertainment of the additional costs involved, making a substantial number of progress payments to contractors without complete verification, and renegotiating bid prices with the lowest tenderer for modified programs without the benefit of competitive bidding. These procedures were continued throughout 1967.


Jean-Luc Pepin: May I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I just want to observe that these points were raised at the committee stage, after second reading. I wonder what the purpose of third reading is-


Douglas Scott Harkness: This is not third reading.


Jean-Luc Pepin: -if we are to discuss over again what was dealt with in committee. This is more question than an observation.


Douglas Scott Harkness: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that this is not third reading. This is the report stage.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member for Kootenay West.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the minister's point is well taken. Not all the 21545-4 J
Closing Expo 1967 Corporation members of the House were on the committee. I think these points should be explained, so the members who did not have the opportunity to attend the committee meetings will clearly understand that warnings had been continuously given to the government and requests for action had been made. I contend that this is very pertinent to the debate currently taking place. I quote again from page 187 of the Auditor General's report:
A request by the joint auditors for confirmation of the correctness of the amounts due by Canada, Quebec and Montreal as their share of the cost of the Exhibition was not replied to by the City of Montreal (see paragraph 66 of this report).
At page 188, the Auditor General said:
In previous reports (paragraph 67 in 1967) we pointed out that, since the major portion of the cost of the Exhibition was being financed by loans from Canada and because of the existing limitation on grants, changes in legislation would be required before the additional substantial grants could be made to provide the Corporation with the necessary resources to pay its indebtednes. The Public Accounts Committee discussed this matter with officers of the Department of Finance on June 16, 1966 and in its Seventh Report 1966-67 expressed its concurrence with our view and recommended that amendments to the existing legislation be placed before Parliament and the Legislature of Quebec so that additional grants could be made by the parties concerned, namely Canada, Quebec and Montreal.
Then, we see on page 32 of the Auditor General's report the following:
In their annual report to the President and members of the Board of the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition over the past five years, the Provincial Auditor of Quebec and the Auditor General of Canada, joint auditors of the Corporation, have stressed the importance of the Corporation establishing and maintaining an adequate system of internal financial control.
Prior to the opening of the Exhibition, the Auditors drew to the Corporation's attention certain aspects of internal financial control that required improvement and certain important decisions that had to be taken before the opening of the Exhibition with respect to the procedures to be followed during the Exhibition for the handling of substantial amounts of cash and the recording of revenues from admission passports, tickets, parking fees and other sources. However, action taken was not adequate and serious breakdowns developed in the control of on-site revenues shortly after the Exhibition opened on April 28, 1967. Furthermore, the remedial action eventually taken did not correct all major weaknesses and the joint auditors were unable to express an opinion as to the correctness of revenues aggregating $101,438,000 of a total of $140,894,000. This situation was communicated by the auditors to the Minister of Trade and Commerce on July 30, 1968 and to the Minister of Industry and Commerce of the province of Quebec on July 31, 1968.
The most recent annual report of the Corporation, including the report of the joint auditors, was
COMMONS DEBATES	November 24, 19B9
Closing Expo 1967 Corporation
delayed because of the inability of the Corporation to finalize the accounts and answer the auditors' queries. This report, which pursuant to the requirements of section 18 of the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition Act, 1962-63, c. 12, should have been submitted by the Corporation to the Minister within three months of the close of the financial year on December 31, 1967 and laid by him before Parliament within 15 days of receipt thereof, was not tabled in the House until October 2, 1968.
It is very clear, therefore, that the constant warnings given by the Auditor General of Canada and the Provincial Auditor of Quebec were disregarded by the ministers and the government. Surely, if there is a breakdown somewhere along the line between the receipt of information to correct situations which should be corrected and the taking of the necessary action we should search and find where the breakdown occurs and have it rectified. It is just a little much when Canadians, who expected to pay $20 million initially found this raised to $40 million, and now discover the amount has reached $142.9 million. I am not objecting to Expo, but I do object to this way of estimating expenditures which puts Canadians, the government, and members of this House in a very awkward position.


Jean-Luc Pepin: It is not the same product.


Randolph Harding: Anyhow, Mr. Speaker, this is the point I am going to make. I trust that in future, if we have other commitments of the same nature, we will have adequate controls established so that we will not get into a mess similar to that which has been indicated by the Auditor General in this case.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might begin with the famous words that I did not intend to take part in this debate. It so happens that such is the case, but I am brought to my feet by the suggestion of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) that the amendment posed by my hon. friend from Regina East (Mr. Burton) is only a bookkeeping technicality which might have been dealt with in some other forum. These bookkeeping technicalities can be obscure; they can be the subject of debate-


Jean-Luc Pepin: I did not say it; he said it. I did not say it was a bookkeeping technicality; he said it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My
hon. friend the minister said something to the effect that it was the kind of thing that my friend might have raised in some other forum. If I have "done the minister wrong" I shall withdraw.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Don't.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But
certainly, what he said and the way he said it made me feel that I could not let him get away with it-whatever it was he said.
I am concerned about this matter, Mr. Speaker, both for its own sake and for an ancillary reason which I will allude to in a moment. I think the suggestion made by the Auditor General should be considered and if we are appropriating money, giving to Expo $125 million, the way we do it should be made clear. I do not think it is clear at the moment; I think it is being played down as simply the writing off of a debt.
I said I had an ancillary reason for getting to my feet and it would not take many guesses for members opposite to know what that is. We are dealing here with a $125 million deficit with respect to Expo. In my city we are concerned about a very small item, a $1 million deficit from the Pan-American games.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will gladly inform my hon. friend that I have taken up this case with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) who apparently has received representations. He is looking into the matter now and he tells me that a decision should be reached soon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I thought the minister was going to cut me out of my remarks altogether by telling me that a favourable decision had been made. It is very nice that he interrupts me at this point and tells me that a decision is close. That is the sort of charm that the minister turns on which makes one feel that he does not need to say any more. The trouble is that around this place we have been close to decisions time and time again. I am glad to know that the Minister of National Health and Welfare is considering this, as is the Minister of Finance. He is perfectly right in saying that many representations have been made about this and I hope that fair play with respect to Winnipeg will come into effect.
On the subject of the amendment moved by my hon. friend from Regina East, may I indicate the argument that has been used by the
November 24, 1969

Minister of Finance. When some of us asked that Winnipeg be helped with its $1 million deficit, since Montreal is being helped with its $125 million deficit, he said that the matters were not comparable, that in one case we were simply wiping out a debt while in the other case a request was being made for new money.
Let me try to put this in terms that I can understand. Supposing I were to lend $10 to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen) and some time later he informed me that he could not repay it. Then I would say, "All right, Allan, forget it." But the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce hears this and says, "You gave my friend Allan $10, how about giving me $10?" But I reply, "Oh, no, I didn't give the Minister of Manpower and Immigration $10, I just wiped out a debt." In fact it is $10 to one and $10 to the other; it is just the same thing. This is the way Winnipeg feels about the situation. To be told that it cannot be assisted with its debt because this is new money whereas in the case of Montreal it is a matter of wiping out the debt, does not make any more sense than my simple illustration.
Mr. Speaker, this is one reason why I do not like clause 7(1) in this bill. It carries forward the idea that Montreal is not being given the money, it is just having a debt cancelled. It is on this basis of a bill being put through Parliament to help Montreal that Winnipeg is told it cannot receive the assistance it feels is due to my city.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that the interjection just made by my charming friend the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to the effect that a decision is about due means that it will be a favourable decision because I feel that the situation in both cities is on all fours and I think if we are going to help out with the huge deficit in the one case we should help out with the small deficit in the other case, both of them having been incurred with respect to great national events in our centennial year.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. Is the House ready for the question. All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
Division


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


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Jean-Luc Pepin: that Bill C-6, to wind up the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition and to authorize the writing-off of certain costs and the deferral of certain payments connected therewith, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


An hon. Member:: Later.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the House that the motion now be put, subject to debate later this day?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Luc Pepin: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It being after five o'clock it is my duty to bring to the attention of the House the matters to be discussed at the time of adjournment. The questions are as follows: the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) -Information-retraining program -lack of knowledge by farmers; the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch)-Federal buildings-Vancouver-new project and "Project 200"; the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald)-Penitentiaries-Dorchester-extension of work of Jaycees with parolees.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard).]


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, Notices of Motions and Public Bills.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I understand that because of the limited time available today for private members' business, and the desire of the hon. member in whose name the motion appears, we might now call it six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At 5.40 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pepin that Bill C-6, to wind up the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition and to authorize the writing-off of certain costs and the deferral of certain payments connected therewith, be read the third time and do pass.
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, during second reading of this bill, during the meetings of the Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs Committee which considered the bill, and to some extent this afternoon at the report stage several speakers laid a great deal of emphasis upon the great success of the exhibition and the indirect benefits which it brought to Canada. There is no argument in this regard. I think everyone recognizes that the exhibition was a tremendous success and that it brought many indirect benefits to Canada in the way of advertising throughout the world, the possibility of increased tax returns and other benefits along that line. However, the reason for a good many of the questions raised in connection with this measure, both here and in the committee which considered it-and this is really
November 24, 19G9	COMMONS DEBATES
the point which we have to consider-is that all these benefits and all this success could and should have been secured at a great deal less cost than was actually the case. We are now considering whether the exhibition was carried on in an efficient and effective way and at a reasonable cost.
The more one considers the evidence in regard to the matter, the more definitely one comes to the conclusion that the cost was excessive. The 1968 report of the Auditor General which was before the committee, and other evidence before it showed without any doubt that there was a great deal of loose administration. Many inefficient procedures were allowed to continue in operation, and there was carelessness over the letting of contracts for the construction of capital works. All this resulted in a very large waste of public funds. This resulted in a terrific escalation of costs, as was pointed out at second reading by myself and by others. As was pointed out in the committee, and again here this afternoon, by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), the cost escalated so far as the federal government was concerned from what was supposed to be, to begin with, about $20 million to a final cost in excess of $144 million.
I submit that a good deal of this increased cost was due to the fact that no real control was exercised by the various ministers responsible at different times for the conduct of the exhibition, by Treasury Board or by the cabinet as a whole. Therefore, the responsibility for the great increase in cost and the amount of waste that took place rests squarely on the shoulders of the government. When we were considering this bill on second reading, the minister, in directing his remarks to me, said the following: as recorded at page 557 of Hansard of November 5.
-I know how fair he is and I do not think he would respect me if I were not to say that these points were raised-
The points he refers to are the numerous criticisms that I had brought out and read from the Auditor General's report of 1968 in connection with the administration of this exhibition. He went on to say:
-and answered before. I will appear before the committee soon and will explain, with the help of my officials, all these matters.
In fact, these questions had never previously been answered and they were not answered satisfactorily at the committee by the minister and his officials. I might give further proof in that regard. The committee's
Closing Expo 1967 Corporation Minutes of Proceedings No. 5, at pages 5-9, contain evidence in that regard. Mr. Henderson, the Auditor General, was before the committee and I asked him the following question:
I will put my next question. It was stated that the various criticisms or observations that you made, some of the main ones you have just outlined, had all been satisfactorily answered to you people as auditors. Would you have any comment in regard to that statement?
Mr. Henderson answered as follows:
My answer to that statement, Mr. Harkness, would be quite a simple one: if they had been satisfactorily answered we would not have placed the qualifications in our certification on the accounts.
When referring to the criticisms he brought out his report to the House of Commons. The following exchange then took place:


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think the statement or the implication at least was that they had subsequently been satisfactorily answered.


Mr. Henderson:: That is not so, sir.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You have had no subsequent answers from the corporation to these various observations of a satisfactory nature?


Walter Clarence Henderson: Not to my knowledge, sir.
I do not think anything could be more definite than that. However, in addition to that it was disclosed in evidence that the Auditor General had written a letter to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) containing the observations and criticisms which subsequently appeared in his 1968 report, a report which has been quoted extensively when the House has been considering this bill. I questioned the Auditor General in connection with this matter and he said he had written the minister but had received no answer from him; he had received no request to see the minister, although he indicated that was the purpose of his letter. In other words, the letter was completely disregarded.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
When the minister appeared before the committee I questioned him about this matter. I quote from the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence No. 7, page 7-13, as follows:


Douglas Scott Harkness: As the Auditor General said, the whole purpose of his meeting with the board and his attempt to meet with you was to get explanations of this, if possible, so that he could change it and not put it in this form.


Jean-Luc Pepin: All right; I agree with that; and I have already apologized for not having acknowledged or answered his letter. But I am trying to explain what actually took place.
The minister went on with many explanations, but I do not think anybody on the
November 24, 1969

Closing Expo 196 7 Corporation committee thought they were really satisfactory. I subsequently observed that I hoped this sort of treatment of the Auditor General would not be repeated. As a matter of fact, as recorded at page 7-14, having listened to the minister's apologies and unsatisfactory explanations for his total disregard of the Auditor General's criticisms, I said:
As the Auditor General really represents the House of Commons in going over these accounts, and things of this sort, I think he is at least due the courtesy of an answer and, in fact, an interview relative to representations he makes to the responsible minister in any case. It is the sort of situation that I would hope would not be repeated.
I can only reiterate that statement here. I hope that in future this minister and others will not treat the Auditor General in the cavalier fashion that has been revealed in this case, and that I am afraid has occurred in too many other cases involving other departments.
One of the things which amazed me at the hearings before the standing committee was that it was impossible to establish the total cost to the Canadian taxpayer of this exposition. For quite a long time several of us on the committee tried to get the definite figure of the cost, but without success. As far as could be determined, the Canadian government put out in cash $142.9 million, and there is a further $1.1 million in lost interest because of the postponement provision in this bill with respect to Quebec holding back some $5J million for over two years, all of which would make a total of over $144 million. Further, we could get no figure whatsoever to cover the assets which remained in right of the Crown through the federal government; neither could we get any information as to the costs of other departments in connection with Expo, although these costs were quite considerable.
In summing up, Mr. Speaker, I say that this represents an extremely unsatisfactory situation. It is not the sort of thing which should happen in connection with the expenditure of government money and accounting for it to the taxpayers. However, I recognize that the money has been spent. Now that the careless way in which it was spent has been brought out there is no point in continuing to go over the details of the mistakes that were made and the inefficiencies which were disclosed. I end by hoping that making this situation public will at least have the effect of serving as a warning to other government departments and agencies, and that considerably


more care will be shown in the future in the administration of public funds.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make one or two observations before this bill is given final passage. Much was said this afternoon, and during second reading, about the great success of Expo. I do not intend to dwell on that. Much has also been said about the cost to the Canadian taxpayer. I do not propose to belabour that point, but I do want to say a few words on the lessons to be learned from the experience gained in connection with Expo.
One of the first lessons to be learned is that the House should take more notice of recommendations laid before it by the Public Accounts Committee. In the normal course of events, the Auditor General makes certain observations in his report to the House; then the Committee on Public Accounts deals with them and makes recommendations to the House. In its seventh report for 1966-67 that committee recommended as follows:
The committee recommended that amendments to the existing legislation be placed before Parliament and the Legislature of the province of Quebec so that the additional grants required can be made by the parties concerned, namely Canada, Quebec and the city of Montreal.
In effect, the committee recommended that the legislation be changed so that this money would not appear in the form of loans but as grants. If the suggestion had been adopted the money would have been passed by this House in the form of grants; it would then have appeared each year in the Public Accounts of Canada and we would not have had to meet the great amount coming all in one lump as is the case with this bill, asking Parliament to write off $122.9 million.
Another good reason for the committee making that recommendation was that there was no use giving money to the corporation and calling it a loan, knowing full well the corporation would never have the ability to repay it. In such a case the money may as well be given in the form of a grant. It would also have saved the corporation a certain amount of interest. I quote further from the seventh report of the Public Accounts Committee for 1966-67:
The committee again expressed the opinion that expenditures of this type are not loans or advances which can or should be regarded as revenue-producing assets but are in fact grants and should be charged directly to budgetary expenditure in the Public Accounts of Canada.
No action was taken, so we find ourselves in this position today. If we have a piece of
November 24, 1969

very valuable Dresden china which has fallen down and broken into a million pieces, the question we must ask ourselves is: Are we going to attempt to pick up the pieces, or sweep them under the rug? We cannot sweep them under the rug. We have to bring this to the attention of all concerned, particularly the taxpayer, the individual who has to pay the shot.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
As a matter of fact, this show cost Canadians about $142.9 million. When you subtract the $20 million grant that the federal government gave, it leaves $122.9 million as the cost. However, taking the full amount of about $142 million it represents approximately $6 50 for every man, woman and child in Canada. A married man with three children will pay $32.50 as his family's share for Expo, and he will want to know why.


An hon. Member:: It is his share of the gravy train.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Many explanations have been given in this House as to why he is being charged $32.50, most of it due to great extravagance, waste and carelessness. This is the way in which the money voted by this House and entrusted to the corporation was spent. Had we known at the time what we have since learned from the witnesses in committee, I am pretty sure this money would never have been granted.
The joint auditors made six reports during Expo. The first one had some qualifications, and the last thing an auditor likes to do is make any qualification when auditing a statement. However, they qualified it by informing us of the default on notes to the order of $183,900,000. The second qualification was this: "We were unable to check revenues to the order of $101,438,000." Then the third qualification: "We had to report that the banking arrangements, in our joint view, were not in order."
When questioning witnesses in committee about this latter qualification we were told that a legal opinion had assured them that the bill was poorly drafted and left the way open to them to go ahead and do what they liked in regard to banking. The committee report No. 5 continues:
Fourthly, as to the over-all plan, the deficit was restricted to $210,665,000 by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, and the accounts we were certifying
Closing Expo 1967 Corporation
showed a deficit of $273,589,000. Our fifth qualification was that the city of Montreal had not confirmed the correctness of its share of the deficit.
If this had been known to members on all sides of this House I think a great deal more attention would have been paid to the direction in which Expo '67 was drifting, so far as the financial operations were concerned. The joint auditors stated in the committee:
On May 19, 1967, our attention was drawn to serious breakdowns that had occurred in the handling of cash receipts and revenues. Two months later-
Imagine, Mr. Speaker, two months later!
-the corporation itself established, or had established for it, the following points:
Can you imagine any man in business knowing that the tills at the check-out desks of his supermarket were not accounting for all the money? Do you think he would wait two months before looking into the matter to see what was going on? The corporation waited two months and then were told the following by consultants:
1.	that ineffectual control was in fact being exercised over the delivery and returns of floats to and from the clearing houses on site:
A "float" is the apparatus that took the money from where it was collected to where it wasi accounted for and deposited.
2.	that there were no integrated accounting records to ensure that cash passing from one operation arrived at the next;
Some of it might have been lost, in transit according to this.
3.	that revenue distribution reports were inaccurate to the point that they were misleading;
4.	that independent checks were either nonexistent or ineffective;
5.	that ticket control records were not tied in with the cash or float preparation records; and
6.	that procedures differed from shift to shift and procedural changes were not communicated to all concerned.
These points were communicated to the corporation two months after the joint auditors first told them that things were not right. Some of them were corrected but the auditors state: "In fact, we refrained from making any spot checks at that time." If anything, I would accuse the auditors of failing to make spot checks. I think they should have; there was no reason why they should have waited before making them. The report continues:
We deferred it until later. It took remedial action, but this did not correct all of the major weaknesses. I will list the ones it did not correct and which we found in the course of our work.
1176	COMMONS DEBATES	November 24, 1969
Closing Expo 1967 Corporation
1.	The records for the first part of the exhibition were never reconstructed;
2.	procedures for the handling and destruction of surrendered tickets and passports were unsatisfactory;
3.	no detailed audit work on site cash receipts was performed;
Imagine-no detailed audit work on site cash receipts was performed!
4.	prompt clearing of differences disclosed in bank reconciliations were not effective; and
5.	failure to instal a power line which would have eliminated parking lot power failures that affected control of a number of vehicle entrances by means of total counts.
Well, Mr. Speaker, what lessons are to be learned? This is the subject I commenced with. After reading the report it is obvious that this information should have been before the House long ago. If it was impossible to bring it before the House, the responsibility falls on the minister in charge who with his officials and the corporation was entrusted to see that things were done in a businesslike way.
I know it will be said that the House passed the estimates, but at that stage the House is often pushed for time and cannot get all the details. The estimates for 1968 simply say, "1967 World Exposition" and give six headings, no details, and cover $6,750,800. There are no particulars, and if we had known then what we know now I am sure we would have held up the estimates. This raises another question. Estimates are now referred to a committee of 20 people, which means that only those 20 members have the opportunity to dig into the particulars. There are in this House many people who would like to ask questions. Some wonder whether we are doing the right thing by sending estimates to a committee for study. I know there are points in favour of doing so. but in this instance many members of the House would have been interested in the expenditure of Expo moneys and there would not have been the same opportunity to sweep the matter under the rug.
Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of lessons to be learned here. I have not mentioned them all. More attention must be paid to the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee. The suggesiions and recommenda ions of the joint auditors of the corporation should have been dealt with more sincerely and with greater respect. This whole expenditure was an exhibition of slipshoddiness and-I will use the word used in the committee-the auditors said it was a sloppy operation.

[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
I am convinced it was a sloppy operation. I know the corporation officials were pressed for time in trying to get everything ready, but they were warned long before the show opened that there might be difficulty in the handling and collecting of gate receipts. I know in some ways they could not be flexible; but anyone who runs a business ought to be ready to meet these conditions when they arise. Surely they did not have to wait for two months to obtain a report from a firm of consultants and find out what to do. I will not repeat what I have already said, so I conclude my remarks. I hope Parliament has learned its lesson from what has happened and that the people involved in the Corporation have also learned their lesson. If any official of the corporation is asked in future by Parliament to spend the taxpayers' money, I hope he will treat it as if it were his own and will not wait two months before finding out where the mistakes were made.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



CUSTOMS TARIFF-EXCISE TAX ACT

Hon. H. E. Gray (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that Bill C-140, to amend the Customs Tariff and to make a consequential amendment to the Excise Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee of the whole.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I think the House will expect me to give some explanation of this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: This bill is based on the notice of ways and means motion which I tabled in the House on October 24. As I said at that time, the notice was substantially the same as Bill C-212 which was given first reading on June 27 in the previous session of Parliament. The main purposes of Bill C-140, therefore, are to implement the proposals in the June 3 budget sta ement in so far as they deal with the Customs Tariff and related matters. Of course, it is my intention at this stage to comment only briefly on the various parts of
November 24, 1969

the bill. I will of course be pleased to expand on these remarks if hon. members so wish when the bill is being considered clause by clause.
The first two clauses of the bill deal with the formalities required for the obtaining of authority from Parliament for the continuing in force of Orders in Council which may be made pursuant to sec lions 4 and 7 of the Customs Tariff, and the proposed amendments are largely for the purpose of clarifying the parliamentary procedures required.
Paragraphs B, D and F of subsection 1 of section 4 of the Customs Tariff provide the Governor in Council with authority to withdraw by Order in Council the benefits of the British preferential tariff, rates more favourable than this tariff, or the Most Favoured Nation tariff from any country. Subsection 1(a) of section 7 authorized the Governor in Council, on the report of the Minister of Finance, to impose a surtax on imported goods that cause or threaten serious injury to Canadian producers of goods that are like or directly competitive with the imported goods. This section came into force on January 1, 1969, in conjunction with the enactment of the new anti-dumping law.
Under the present wording of section 4, an Order in Council made pursuant to it would cease to have any force or effect on a day which is 180 days after its making unless approved by Parliament prior to such date. Under the present wording of section 7, an Order in Council made pursuant to it would cease to have any force or effect on a day which is 180 days after its making or if Parliament is not then in session on the 15th day after the commencement of the next ensuing session unless before that day such an order is approved by Parliament.
The proposed amendments would make clear that for Orders in Council made under sections 4 and 7, the approval by Parliament required for their continuation would be in the form of a resolution adopted by both Houses. Amendments would also provide that orders made under section 4 as well as those made under section 7 would cease to have any force or effect following the 180th day after their making, or if Parliament is not sitting on that day, by the 15th day next thereafter when Parliament is sitting unless before such day the order is approved by Parliament. Such approval is to be given by resolution, as I have just said. Finally, the amendments are to make clear, as I have indicated, that the 15th day in question is to
Customs Tariff-Excise Tax Act be one when Parliament is actually sitting rather than simply one when it is only in session. These provisions are the only ones which are substantially different from those proposed in Bill C-212.
Moving on to the third clause of the proposed bill, the third and eleventh clauses should be looked at together. I will simply say about that, that they provide for technical changes arising out of the Anti-Dumping Act which came into effect on January 1 of this year.
Next we come to the provision which brings into effect as of June 4 the final rates which were negotiated in the Kennedy Round. Hon. members will recall that these changes were the subject of a careful study by the House finance committee during a previous session of Parliament and were given further study and approval by Parliament last year.
As the Minister of Finance noted in the budget speech, a number of Kennedy Round reductions had been completely implemented in one step in January, 1968, or January of 1969. Originally the remaining tariff changes were to be staged over four years. This meant that for these items two of the steps, that is to say two-fifths of the reductions, have been made as of January 1, 1969. It is now proposed that the final rates, almost all of which were to come into effect on January 1, 1972, should come into force instead as of June 4, 1969. These remaining reductions amount on the average to around three percentage points. While this acceleration has direct benefits for consumers, the main effects are on producers' costs.
As the Minister of Finance said in his June 3 budget statement, this acceleration of the Kennedy Round reductions is being made as part of the government's anti-inflation program. It is a measure which could be directed in a more selective way to deal with particular problems, as the minister said. I quote his words:
-one of these is the need to increase the element of price competition and efficiency in the domestic economy.
He went on to say:
In considering this situation, we have concluded that a particularly useful and effective way of intensifying competition would he to put into effect immediately the remaining tariff reductions of the Kennedy Round.
"A most important consideration before the government", he said, "in making this proposal is that the burden of adjustment and the
1178	COMMONS DEBATES	November 24, 1969
Customs Tariff-Excise Tax Act pressure of increased competition will fall mainly on producers in the industrial centre of Canada. It is here that inflationary pressures are greatest."
There may be some hon. members who are wondering whether some producers have been given sufficient time to adjust to the increased competition created by this acceleration of tariff changes. I have been informed, however, that there have been only a relatively few complaints to the Department of Finance since the announcement of the acceleration of the Kennedy Round cuts in the June 3 budget statement. I have also been informed that since this announcement the General Adjustment Assistance Board has received only a few general inquiries, I think about five in number, as to what help will be available from it to assist in any adjustment that might be required as a result of the acceleration in cases where it was found that there was serious injury or threat of injury.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
Next we come to the provisions for implementing three reports which have been made by the Tariff Board. These should be looked at in conjunction with Schedules A, B and C to the bill. These reports were tabled in the House of Commons on the dates shown in the explanatory notes to the bill which all hon. members have. Briefly, clause 5 and schedule A deal with the recommendations of the Tariff Board for a new schedule of tariff items for machinery, apparatus and printing plates for the printing and allied industries. Clause 6 and schedule B cover tariff recommendations with respect to precision instruments and apparatus used in such activities as engineering, surveying, prospecting, drafting and metalwork.
The next part and schedule C flow from a Tariff Board report which dealt with the concept of duty free entry of certain goods for religious, educational, scientific, literary or artistic purposes, institutions or groups, or for the benefit of afflicted or handicapped persons. The next clause of the bill contains the usual mixed group of tariff changes similar in type to those which appear in every budget. They are set out in schedule D to the bill. These changes normally arise out of studies of representations received by the department and involve amendments to existing tariff items or the introduction of new items.
I should now like to say something about the amendments to the provisions in the Customs Tariff for goods brought in by Canadian

residents returning from trips abroad. These are dealt with in clauses 9 and 10 and schedules E and F. It is proposed to replace two items in the tariff with four new items. One of the present items now provides for $25 exemption once every four months after an absence from Canada of not less than 48 hours. Under the second of the present items Canadian residents returning from points beyond the continental limits of North America after an absence of not less than 14 days may claim an additional exemption up to $75. If use is made of this latter exemption no further claim can be made under either tariff item for the next twelve months. That is the present situation.
The main purpose of two of the new items is to facilitate the clearance of returning Canadian residents by customs. These two new items came into effect on a provisional basis as of June 4, 1969, and appear in schedule E. The first tariff item in this schedule provides for a new combined rate of 25 per cent for duties and taxes on goods valued up to $100 which they cannot claim under an exemption other than duty free goods, alcohol and tobacco, brought in by Canadians after 48 hours absence. The second item provides for a new exemption after 48 hours absence for goods other than alcohol or tobacco valued up to $5.
Two more substantive changes appear in schedule F. First, there will be a $100 exemption each calendar year for Canadian residents returning from any country, including points in North America, after an absence of 12 days. Also effective January 1, 1970, the $25 exemption after an absence of 48 hours will be available on the quarterly basis and will be completely independent of the annual exemptions I have just mentioned. These two exemptions, however, may not be combined for the same trip abroad. In conclusion let me say that the final portions of the bill are consequential to the amendments I mentioned earlier and also set out the dates on which the tariff changes are to come into effect. I would therefore ask the House to give the bill its support at this second reading stage.


Hon. J. W. Monieiih (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, the minister has outlined in detail the clauses of Bill C-140. He has pointed out certain technical changes. At the end of his comments he made remarks concerning the facilitating of Canadian citizens returning through customs to Canada from points abroad or from continental North America. This bill will be going to a committee of the whole House. I do not
November 24, 1969

intend to deal with it at length because it will receive clause by clause attention at that time.
The principle behind clause 4 is that all the Kennedy Round reductions not in force as of June 4, 1969, are to be brought into force as of then. It seems in this regard that the minister is repeating the words of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). This provision is being adopted to combat inflation and its effect is to be borne by the producers. I am not against anything which may assist in our fight against inflation, nor do I object to anything that may assist the consumer. However, it is my feeling that the producers who have been singled out in this case accepted the Kennedy Round negotiations, which were studied by the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. This is a unilateral effort with no reciprocation by anyone else; we are simply handling these benefits to other coun tries.
Let me suggest that years ago the government might well have listened to suggestions about inflation. Had it listened to the advice of the Governor of the Bank of Canada and the Economic Council back in 1965, which warned the Minister of Finance of that day about the state of the country's finances, it would not be in the state in which it now finds itself. The Minister of Finance of that day, now the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) would not listen to any advice and the government went ahead-and continues in this way today-with a spending spree.
Today this government supports a policy of austerity and suggests that everybody must save money. Why does the government not follow that policy at home? The construction of three new buildings was announced recently, particularly the new R.C.M.P. building in Toronto. I fail to see how the government is protecting our economy. Some jobs here and there are going down the drain, but an austerity program should have been commenced years ago.
We are now facing another step in combatting inflation. This measure is to be taken at the expense of the producers who finally accepted Kennedy Round reductions. They geared themselves to putting their operations into the position wherein they would be able to meet that measure, then suddenly they are faced with a complete loss of tariff protection in this respect. Certain industries still require protection from foreign competition. This government has taken an unfair advantage of

Customs Tariff-Excise Tax Act corporations. We must remember that about 50 per cent of manufacturing in Canada is carried out in Ontario.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
I would suggest that Ontario corporations deserve some consideration; they have, over the past number of years, paid their taxes. Of course, they are getting another setback in the white paper which we shall be discussing on Thursday and Friday-I do not wish to go into that subject at the moment-but they seem to be the whipping-boy. They had geared their whole operation to a gradual reduction which had been initiated and finally agreed upon according to the Kennedy Round, and now they are faced with this reduction in tariffs all at one time. As I said earlier, there are several clauses in this bill involving a surtax on certain goods, and so on, which the government will be allowed to impose. We shall be dealing with these in detail when we get to the committee stage. I would just say once again that the government should stop using small producers in Canada, particularly those in Ontario, as a whipping-boy.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I should like my first words to be those of congratulation to the new minister. I had the pleasure of working with him on the Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs Committee and I want to say that no one is more deserving of the honour which has been paid to him.
On the subject of this bill may I say that while almost everyone is in favour of free trade, just as almost everyone is in favour of motherhood and God, I do not believe we should delude ourselves into imagining that the results of the Kennedy Round are likely to do a lot of good for Canada. The cuts which were made were not very significant and in some cases the protection afforded is somewhat higher than it was before. A recent study by the Economic Council of Canada showed that the so-called tariff cuts did not go very far. The minister's statement that this is a way of fighting inflation has to be viewed in the light of the miniscule success achieved in bringing about significant tariff changes. I do not see that this can play any important role in fighting inflation.
In the second place, while we are moving in the direction of freer trade through agreements of the Kennedy type, non-tariff barriers are emerging all round the world and are seriously affecting industry in this country.
November 24, 1969

Customs Tariff-Excise Tax Act Up to the present there is little evidence that the government is directing firm efforts against these practices. Recently we witnessed the example of a country maintaining its currency at an inflated rate despite an obvious need to change it. We are aware, today, of the action taken by several countries to bonus their exports through low-cost financing, making it impossible for Canadian competitors to compete successfully. A serious situation is developing as a result in areas where low-cost financing is used to block out Canadian industry. I trust the government will look at some of these practices under the terms of the anti-dumping provisions. Unless it does so, all the talk about freeing trade will be meaningless as countries impose these other methods of restricting competition.
At this very moment the United States is talking about imposing new barriers against trade by providing a bonus for certain of their export industries and excluding certain imports altogether. This is not in keeping with the generous mood of President Kennedy when he initiated the talks which came to a conclusion not very long ago. In other countries we find examples of the outright prohibition of Canadian goods. Little songs and dances are invented to maintain the fiction that Canadians can enter these markets, whereas in fact they are effectively kept out. Hon. members may have heard about the experiences of cable manufacturers in Canada who have been making bids to sell in the Japanese market without the least success. My purpose in mentioning this experience is to show that one cannot consider these tariff cuts out of context, that is, without at the same time taking into account the other barriers which have been erected around the world for the restriction of trade.
Too often, it seems to me, we as Canadians are so concerned about being good world citizens that we do not take sufficient effective action when such barriers are raised. If we intend to plan our future on the lines of freer trade we shall have to do a great deal more, otherwise we shall fail to play our role in international world trade. Today much of our trade is not really international; it is continental, with 70 per cent of our exports going to the United States. At the same time, the overwhelming amount of industry in this country is dominated by United States-based international corporations which are not really interested in exporting; their essential interest lies in serving the domestic market.
[Mr. Saltsman.f
As a result, we are developing what is probably the most inefficient production pattern of any western nation. If we are to go all the way with free trade while neglecting to do something about this inefficient pattern of production, freer trade, instead of proving a great salvation may well be the beginning of the end for us.
To succeed in international trade we must take immediate steps to ensure that Canadian industry becomes more competitive. I am getting a little tired of listening to big business tycoons in this country declaring at their annual meetings that we are pricing ourselves out of international markets while laying the blame, as they usually do, at the doorstep of labour. They claim that labour costs are too high. A close examination of the facts would show that nothing could be further from the truth. The real reason industry in this country is not as competitive in international markets as it should be can be simply stated: it is badly organized. I could give any number of examples of over-investment, of unnecessarily duplicated facilities, of failure to provide guidelines which the industry itself would have accepted.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
At a recent meeting with a number of industrialists I was told that a particular firm had decided to build a plant. They were completely oblivious of the fact that another firm was making exactly the same plans. There just is not room enough in Canada for two plants of this size. The result will be that neither plant will operate at a level of efficiency. Both will have wasted much of their investment; they will not be profitable, and no advantage will accrue to government by way of taxes.
A very good example of over-capitalization and lack of planning is the potash industry in the province of Alberta. I understand there are something like nine mines in Alberta, all of them unable to operate efficiently since the world market is not big enough. These mines are going through a readjustment period. The Premier of the province rushed down to the United States to head off a dumping inquiry, though he was not very effective. Now there is talk of pro-rating production, having the mines produce only a small amount of potash so that all of them can stay in business.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that such policies are devastating to this country. They waste our resources and talents and are causing us to import fantastic amounts of capital that we
November 24, 19G9	COMMONS DEBATES	1181
do not need. If we do not solve this problem of industrial efficiency, the cry will go up that the only answer is continental integration with the United States. It will be said that the oil industry, the potash industry, the pulp and paper industry and the chemical industry will have to be tied together with those in the United States so that we achieve a similar arrangement to the Canada-United States auto agreement.
There are a number of things wrong with proposals of this kind. First of all, integration of industry in this fashion makes it impossible for Canada to pursue a life of its own in that it represents a serious infringement upon the sovereignty of the nation. You cannot mate an elephant with a rabbit. In addition, the United States no longer wants this kind of marriage. The United States feels we have gained too much benefit from the auto pact, despite the fact that we are still producing fewer automobiles in Canada than we buy. In other words, we are still not getting what should be our real share of the North American automobile market. Nevertheless, there are cries of anguish from the United States that we have been given too much.
The United States does not have to worry about its sovereignty or about its culture being dominated by Canada. They see only the minor economic advantages that accrued to Canada as a result of the auto agreement. On the other hand, we have to look beyond small economic advantages to the future of this country as a nation. I suggest that if we have many more pacts similar to the automobile agreement with the United States, this nation will not have a future. Already there is evidence that the real planning and decision-making process in this industry is no longer taking place in Canada. It never really did take place in Canada, but to the limited extent that there was some autonomy in this country, even that has largely gone. Decisions are being made south of the border. The design engineering and planning is done south of the border. We in Canada are the humble assemblers, the willing workers; we are a sort of annex to the main office.
When things get a little tight, if a choice is to be made in the matter of development on this side of the border or on the other side, the choice will be quite obvious to head office: they will favour locations in the United States. We will continue to be at the mercy of this kind of arrangement until we develop as autonomous an industry as it is possible for us to have free of all integration schemes.
Customs Tariff-Excise Tax Act Another aspect of this problem is, as I have said, that there will probably be no more of these arrangements. The United States is in fact saving us from ourselves. It is the United States that is now unwilling to enter into further co-operative agreements of this kind. This is rather fortunate, since our government shows little concern about the future sovereignty of this country.
If we are going to take our rightful place and create the kind of wealth necessary in a society like ours, one that wants to do great things for its people and for other nations as well, we must improve production efficiency. It is quite obvious that the Canadian entrepreneur has not been able to stand up to the United States way of doing business; he has not performed his function in our society. We will have to develop a new kind of entrepreneur.
I hope that the Canada Development Corporation-if this government ever creates it- will perform this kind of function. I also hope industry in this country will pay attention to schemes of specialization and rationalization. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is developing some programs along this line, but I also know that nobody is paying much attention to them. Should these matters not succeed in improving the productive capacity of this country, if we wish to remain a sovereign nation little choice will be left to us, but to take under public ownership many of our industries, if only to ensure that they will be efficiently organized and developed.
There will be other opportunities for debating the specifics of this bill. Although some of my comments have not been directly related to specific clauses in the legislation, I submit they are very pertinent when considering proposals regarding the freeing of trade. In conclusion, free trade in itself will not solve our problems. Unless we take steps to enlarge our productive capacities in industry, free trade could very well be our destruction.


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, first of all may I say that if I were prepared to carry out the wishes of most people in western Canada I would at this time propose a motion to repeal or rescind the Customs Tariff which this bill seeks to amend. There is a strong feeling in western Canada at the present time that a free trade area should be formed among the three western provinces. We in the west are forced, as a result of the inaction of the government, to sell our products at world market
November 24, 1969

Customs Tariff-Excise Tax Act prices, yet under the provisions of this act we must pay tariff charges on practically everything we purchase. We feel that the provisions of the Customs Tariff are discriminatory and harmful to the economy of western Canada.
As the minister said, the purpose of Bill C-140 is to amend the Customs Tariff. The explanatory note indicates that the purpose of the amendments is to clarify the parliamentary procedure relating to continuing in effect any orders that may be made by the Governor in Council pertaining to certain sections and subsections. Under clause 3 we are told the amendment is required for clarification purposes only and does not change the existing law. For a number of years we on this side of the House have asked for clarification or for a change in the Customs Tariff. This has not been forthcoming even in respect of our pleas concerning clauses 5, 6 and 7 dealing with the implementation of the Tariff Board report. As I have said, many of us hoped that because of former representations amendments would be introduced at this time to clarify the meaning of the term "all other agricultural implements or agricultural machinery" under item 40924-1, schedule A, referred to by the minister. At present this is ignored not only by the government but by departmental officials and the Tariff Board. In other words, the term has no meaning whatsoever to the groups I have mentioned.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Briefly, they contend that if any implement [DOT]or machine can be used for any purpose other than agriculture, it ceases to be an agricultural implement or machine. I contend that such an interpretation was not the intent of Parliament when this item was first put in the schedule, nor is it the intent of Parliament at the present time. I intend to prove that contention in a few moments. Also, it is not the intent of the minister who is piloting the bill through the House.
However, since we have delegated our authority or have shirked our responsibilities, the bureaucrats have taken it upon themselves to interpret these items in the narrowest possible way and the result is that farmers are forced to pay the tariff on implements and machinery which it was intended should be brought into Canada duty free.
There has been over the years in Canada a general impression that farm machinery and farm implements enter this country free of


duty. Such a conception is erroneous because public officials refuse to recognize any meaning in the term "agriculture implements or machinery". As I said previously, they contend that if any implement or machine can be used for any purpose other than agriculture, it ceases to be an agricultural implement or machine.
For many years western members have been endeavouring to have the ministers responsible for the Customs Tariff make the amendments necessary to give clarification to the term "all other agricultural implements and machinery". In July, 1963, the then minister of finance stated, as recorded at page 2798 of Hansard, that the Royal Commission on Taxation was sitting and that he would send the commission copies of Hansard so it would have the benefit of the suggestions put forward at that time. To date, to my knowledge, there has been no action to indicate that this was ever carried out.
Then again, as recorded at page 2812 of Hansard, the same minister stated he was prepared to consider the point very carefully. He apparently is still considering it. He is not in the House at the present time. In each subsequent year the same request for clarification has been made whenever the opportunity has arisen to discuss the Customs Tariff. On December 3, 1968, the then spokesman for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), while piloting a similar amendment to the Customs Tariff through the House said as recorded at page 3435 of Hansard:
It is my understanding of the will of parliament, expressed in schedule A of the Customs Tariff Act, that implements and machinery for farm purposes come in duty free-
The person who made that statement is the minister who is today piloting this amendment through the House. With that statement, and all the pleas he realizes have been made on this particular topic in years gone by, he has not even today undertaken to amend the Customs Tariff in order to clarify something which he knows has been bothering western members for many years. I can say from experience, and I wish to inform those who are of the same opinion as the executive assistant to the minister, that such is not the case: the officials are not carrying out the will of Parliament.
If this is the intent and the will of Parliament, and if the officials are circumventing the intent by claiming lack of ability to interpret our meaning, what are we as representatives of the people to do about it? Nothing? A
November 24, 1969

matter of great concern to many rural people today is the growing indifference among citizens to their government and the increasing disenchantment of the ordinary person with Parliament. I suggest this feeling may in large measure be due to Parliament's inability to supervise and control their servants, the bureaucracy whose members actually administer the legislation passed by Parliament.
We appear to have been unwilling or unable to make them responsive to the needs of the public. We seem to have reached a period of bureaucratic arrogance and stagnation. We as members of Parliament have delegated our authority and, as I said before, are shirking our responsibility. The attitude of entrenched public officials is in my view the principal cause of the loss of respect for Parliament and parliamentarians as well as the passive hostility of so many Canadians toward the machinery of the state.
We speak of the public service and public servants, but these phrases have lost their original meaning. Indeed, to speak of a public servant in all too many instances is only to provoke wry laughter. There has been a complete about-face in this country. The servant has become the master, and an unfeeling and often tyrannical master at that. The departmental octopus has fattened on a rich diet of power and responsibility delegated by us as members of Parliament. As it has grown, its tentacles have reached ever farther and wider to embrace almost every aspect of the ordinary citizen's life. This uninvited embrace is neither friendly nor helpful. In his zeal to protect an abstract thing, usually referred to as the "public interest", the modern Canadian government official has come to regard the taxpayers who employ him as a menace that must be combated and frustrated in every way possible. He has forgotten that it is the legitimate interests of millions of individual Canadians that constitute the public interest he professes to serve.
It is the interests of these millions of his fellow Canadians that the public servant is hired to safeguard and advance. Instead, today our public service appears to regard the people it was set up to serve as at least a nuisance to complicate departmental administration, and often as an opponent who must be bested. Departmental administration has become an end in itself, divorced from the original purpose and intent of its relevant legislation. This is a perversion of the basic

Customs Tariff-Excise Tax Act tenet of democracy, that government exists for the benefit and convenience of the people. Ottawa's bureaucrats today act as though the reverse were true.
The reason I have broached this subject at this time, Mr. Speaker, is that there are few areas in which bureaucratic arrogance and oppression are more clearly demonstrable than in the area covered by Bill C-140, to amend the Customs Tariff. There are few areas in which it is easier to illustrate the general public service practice of ignoring the legislative intent of Parliament and, incredible as it may seem, of even dismissing the clear interpretative direction given by courts as authoritative as the Exchequer Court of Canada.
Last summer I had the occasion to act for one of my constituents in an appeal to the Tariff Board from an arbitrary ruling by the Deputy Minister of National Revenue. It was not my first experience of dealing with this body or with officials of the Department of National Revenue. I was not unduly surprised, therefore, when despite what I considered to be a very reasonable case, the appeal was disallowed. This unfortunate experience has the dubious merit of illustrating perfec ly what I have been saying about Ottawa officialdom. My constituent, a Saskatchewan farmer, purchased two 16-inch irrigation pumps for his farm on the reasonable assumption that such pumps employed to irrigate agricultural land would be classed as agricultural machinery or agricultural implements. As such he expected that they would be allowed into the country duty free. Not so, said the Deputy Minister of National Revenue and other departmental officials down the line. They said that these pumps were just machinery and as such were liable to be taxed 15 per cent ad valorem.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Throughout my dealings with the department and the Tariff Board never once was there the slightest hint that these public servants were trying to give a generous interpretation which might help the taxpayer. On the contrary, it was as though we were guilty of some offence by appearing before them and we were trying somehow to swindle the government. Perhaps, more important, there was never a peep at any time that there was any other course open to this farmer by way of appeal other than to take his case to the Tariff Board. This is a point on which I will
November 24, 1969

Customs Tariff-Excise Tax Act elaborate later. To get back to the Tariff Board, our contention was that the irrigation pump should be classified under schedule A. This is the item that takes in all other agricultural implements or agricultural machinery. No ordinary citizen has the money to hire a lawyer, import witnesses and come all the way from Saskatchewan to fight the Department of National Revenue before the Tariff Board on such an item as two farm pumps.
We had to be content with the written assurance from the firm that made the pumps that they were primarily used and designed for irrigation work, my constituent's assurance that he bought these pumps for work on his farm, and with citing the judgment of the Exchequer Court in a similar case stating that the broadest interpretation should be given to items falling under this schedule. On the other hand, the Crown was able to array against my constituent not only officials of the Department of Justice, expert in confounding appelants, but at least four favourable witnesses whose contribution was to say that the pump was not an agricultural implement, although they had no idea what an agricultural implement was. They blandly stated that a pump was not an agricultural implement whether it was a pump for the tractor on a farm or a pump for irrigation. This is ridiculous. I consider this to be an unjustified expenditure of money. This is what the weight of officialdom really means: all the cards are stacked against an appellant in such cases.
Most people just pay the tax and swallow their anger and resentment. The whole system of pitting the government against the citizen is an unequal struggle and is exactly what I am attacking tonight. Government officials and agencies such as the Tariff Board appear to regard every citizen as a rascal. Their method of listening to appeals from an arbitrary ruling by an individual bureaucrat is a reversal of the fundamental principle of British justice that guilt against the individual must be proven, not that he must prove his innocence.
Any Canadian who has faced a government tribunal such as the Tariff Board is immediately aware of the fact that he is regarded as being guilty of something. It becomes evident that the board, chaired by an ex-civil servant, is sympathetic to the bureaucratic cause. Other members of the board are aware of those responsible for their re-appointment. I 
will have more to say on that subject at a later date. In my opinion the Tariff Board is a waste of public funds. It is inflexible, costly and negative. It operates in the shadow of the officials of the Department of National Revenue. It gets troublesome people off the back of the department and provides handy precedents for the future use of officials in handing down their own unilateral rulings.
In my view it is this sort of thing that makes the state apparatus so burdensome to Canadians. The ordinary individual is helpless to cope with officialdom with all its facilities and know-how. Both the officials and their facilities are paid for by public funds, so that the taxpayer is being bedevilled by his own money. The concept of the public service, that government is a contest between the departmental official and the public, is a gross perversion of democracy. The "in group" of the public service disdains both Parliament and the courts. They seek guidance and find precedent only within themselves. In the appeal to the Tariff Board on the question of irrigation pumps, the board's attention was specifically drawn to the finding of the president of the Exchequer Court at Winnipeg on June 22, 1954, in which he held that the ambit of the terms "agricultural implement" and "agricultural machinery" is a very wide one and a decision on this question requires consideration of the use to which they are put.
Certainly the Tariff Board in this instance ignored both the president of the Exchequer Court and his recommendation for consideration of the use to which the pumps in question were to be put. I believe, too, that the board ignored and continues to ignore the intent of the members of Parliament who formulated the pertinent acts. May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that such clauses as that included under schedule A are contained in legislation to make provision for cases which cannot otherwise be legislated for. They are to apply to any machines that may be designed between now and the next time this measure is amended.
In conclusion let me return for a moment to a matter I mentioned earlier, that is, other avenues of appeal and the relief open to taxpayers. I may be naive, but I believe that any good public servant who truly believes in serving the public will take every opportunity to point out to a beset citizen every possible avenue open to him to achieve relief from burdensome legislation. Why, then, is the
November 24, 1969

relief provided under section 22 of the Financial Administration Act kept such a deep, dark secret from ordinary people who have neither the means nor the opportunity to know of its benefits? Is it a device reserved only for large corporations or millionaires with ready access to professional legal or tax experts' advice?
The Treasury Board, under the provisions of section 22, can remit any tax, fee or penalty if it is deemed to be in the public interest. One might well ask, again: What does the term "public interest" mean? All one needs to *do in order to see the extent to which this privilege has been extended is to examine the pages at the back of the Public Accounts. Those for 1968 contain the names of hundreds of firms and individuals whose taxes, fees and penal ies ran into the millions, all of them remitted on the simple say-so of the Governor in Council. I know of no official in the public service willing to disclose such means of possible relief. Such information is guarded by a misconception which holds that something called "the public interest" is thereby being protected. All I can say to that is that it is a warped concept of the public interest.
I would like to refer now to some of the items that have been remitted by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of Treasury Board. It is impossible in the time allotted to me to cover all of them, but as I stated, they are listed in the Public Accounts because of section 22(8) of the Financial Administration Act which makes it possible for every item over $1,000 to be listed so that the public can see it. Some of these remissions were under various headings. They may have no connection with the bill under consideration, but I suggest that a great many of them have. It is revealing to see the number of automobile companies, railways and so on that have had thousands of dollars of taxes, such as customs and excise tax, remitted.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, the pleas made on behalf of western farmers have in most cases been in respect of only a few hundred dollars, but the government will take no action to protect these farmers. It does give large corporations and millionaires protection on all sorts of things. Even remissions are granted on cars. There is one here listed as, "Remission of duty and sales tax on a 1966 Mercedes-Benz automobile not entitled to free entry under -... the Customs Tariff because it was not
Customs Tariff-Excise Tax Act owned abroad for the period specified..." Some $1,300 remission was granted on it. here are several items here for remissions with respect to other cars, because the people concerned knew how to get the remissions.
I would like to direct the attention of the House to another item which comes under the heading, "Remission of Taxes Imposed Under the Excise Tax Act in cases where, on the basis of expert opinion, it is considered that litigation would not be expedient." Some $620,000 are involved here. Some of the individual amounts are outstanding. There is one time, for one company alone, of $290,000.
The next item I would like to direct attention to comes under the heading, "Remission of customs duty and sales tax in respect of certain motor vehicles, and in respect of parts and accessories and parts thereof for such vehicles." Here there is a list of automotive manufacturers, and the largest amount is for Mack Trucks Manufacturing Co. of Canada Ltd., Montreal, $1,426,041. There is another heading, "Remissions of customs duties and excise taxes payable on articles imported in excess of a pro-rated amount assessed for each month such imported articles remain in Canada." The list goes on for page after page. Just to mention a few, there are Chrysler of Canada, General Motors of Canada, International Business Machines, Goodyear Tire, Pacific Western Air Lines, Playcraft Toys, Rolls-Royce of Canada, Scott Paper Limited, and Smith and Stone Limited.
Here is another one that is very interesting, and I would just like to read the heading:
The following remissions were granted on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Industry, and the Treasury Board under the Automotive Adjustment Assistance Program, the stated purpose of which is to help Canadian manufacturers of automotive parts and accessories improve their competitive position by encouraging modernization and efficiency in their industry-
That is the very reason that the farmer imported these pumps, to modernize his farming methods, to improve his production. But all the effort he has made, the money he has spent and the time which I as his representative spent on his case, have not been successful in achieving a favourable decision for him. Yet big companies are encouraged by the government to modernize their industry. The government recognizes this principle with respect to eastern industry but will not recognize it with respect to western agriculture. I ask the government, why not? The amount that has been remitted under this heading amounts to over $500,000.
1186	COMMONS
Customs Tariff-Excise Tax Act
Here is another part of a heading, "... customs duty on machinery and parts as described in the various remission orders and schedules thereto..." This does not give the names of the companies involved. It just says P.C. No. so-and-so of such-and-such a date, and the total amount is almost $2 million.
Earlier tonight we heard about the amount of money which the Canadian people had to put up for Expo. I am sure hon. members who spoke in that debate did not know that a great deal of customs taxes were remitted to certain people in regard to the exposition. It is all listed here. In fact, one of them is very funny; it reads, "Remission of sales tax to... two firms on United States aircraft for use to transport members of a Detroit club to attend 'Michigan Day' at the Canadian Universal and International Exhibition, Montreal, 1967." Here is another one, "Remission of customs duties and excise taxes on steam boilers and auxiliary machines and equipment installed in a fertilizer plant." We heard about that a few moments ago.
Here is another item, Mr. Speaker. It reads, "Remission of duty and excise taxes on a 1967 Ford station wagon not entitled to free entry under item 70321-1 of the Customs Tariff because it was not owned abroad for the period specified in the item." Some of these are very interesting. Here is one, "Volkswagen (Canada) Limited, Toronto, remissions of customs duty and excise taxes" etc., amounting to $101,000. There is another item for Volkswagen (Canada) Limited, Toronto, "Remission wi h respect to 10,918 Volkswagen automobiles imported during the period December 7, 1964, to July 28, 1965, of customs duty and the portion of sales tax attributable to the duty remitted, $2,187,532." Under the previous heading with respect to these items the total comes to $25 million. I can go on and on. Here is Air Canada, Montreal, another remission for Montreal of $1,800,000. Someone suggests that this is a just society with just taxes for some. We in western Canada will agree it is not just for the farmer in western Canada.
The last heading I quote is, "Other remissions were granted as follows." Then there are listed four judges, one of the Superior Court of Montreal, another of the Supreme Court of Quebec, and so on. These judges had the know-how. But over the years farmers have had to pay customs duty that they should not have had to pay, customs duty that the minister has said he is sure they 
DEBATES	November 24, 1969
should not have to pay. He inferred this in the statement he made on December 3 last year. He is under the impression, as are all other people in Canada, that agricultural implements and machinery enter Canada customs free. That is not the case, because the minister on a previous occasion, and ministers before him, refused to clarify the term used in the act. We western members have repeatedly asked for clarification of this term. We say, give the civil servants some idea what is meant by this term so that they cannot dispute it. Without that clarification the farmer will have to take the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada, a procedure he can ill afford.
Lately there has been a great deal of discussion about the failure of the government and government departments to communicate with the public. Perhaps a good start could be made by informing Canadians of legitimate avenues of relief that exist for all. This one I have dug up may be one such avenue. I am not a lawyer; I am not a tax expert, and so I am not aware how many other avenues exist for the farmers I represent. As I say, I have been fighting this case for a number of years. I have taken it to the Tariff Board; now I am taking it to the minister. I shall advise my constituent to ask for a remission of that tax as other people have done. Why were we not told about this?
I dismiss the idea of an ombudsman mainly on the basis that I believe such an official would be largely powerless to assist in cases of real grievance. He would be like the Auditor General, totally ignored by the government. This matter was referred to by the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Hales) earlier this evening. But it may well be that we need something like the ombudsman concept, some body or bodies devoted to protecting ordinary Canadians from the tyranny of the faceless bureaucracy and able to impress on public servants the real meaning of public service. This might help to dispel the hostility toward politics and politicians, toward government departments and Parliament, which is a growing menace to our form of parliamentary, democratic government.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
At this time when we are amending the act I would ask the minister to consider clarifying the term I have referred to, "All other agricultural implements and agriculture
November 24, 1969

machinery," so as to give a clear interpretation of the intent of Parliament. On December 3, 1968, at page 3434 of Hansard, I suggested the item should read, "All equipment, apparatus machines and implements N.O.P. for agricultural use", N.O.P. meaning "not otherwise provided". We are not asking for much; in fact, we are not asking for as much as is now enjoyed by eastern industry. I would ask that the minister consider this suggestion in view of his statement of December last that he was under the impression that all agricultural implements and machinery are entering Canada duty free. I can assure him from personal experience that they are not.


Mr. Mac T. McCulcheon (Lambion-Kenl):: Mr. Speaker, I shall not impose myself upon the House for any great length of time, but some of the remarks of my colleague from Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) have prompted me to raise a point or two for clarification of the expression "all agricultural implements and machinery". I trust that I may be permitted to refer specifically to certain machines as an example of the frustration experienced by farmers in southwestern Ontario. I have no intention of pointing the finger at anyone, but I suggest there should be more flexibility and more imagination used by those who administer the regulations. I hope the example I use will clarify my meaning.
A number of years ago ammonium or nitrogen fertilizers were a new thing in the agricultural industry and anhydrous ammonia was one of the wonder fertilizers introduced. It did a tremendous job of improving the growth of corn, for which our part of the country is famous. This chemical is applied under pressure into the ground by an applicator-the uninitiated may call it a cultivator. The cultivator has three or five teeth. Mounted on this machine is a 250 or 500-gallon tank holding the anhydrous ammonia which is released underground by pressure. This was fine in the days of 50 or 60-horsepower tractors, but we have been encouraged to modernize in order to meet competition in the North American market and now have much more powerful tractors of 100 and 125-horsepower. In turn, to work efficiently these tractors need bigger machines with which to apply the anhydrous ammonia to the corn crop.
According to our regulations, Mr. Speaker, a tank on a three or five-tooth applicator
Customs Tariff-Excise Tax Act supposedly comes into this country duty free. This means that we can compete with our American counterparts. But in order to become more efficient some people are using much larger applicators; instead of the three or five they are using seven, nine or even eleven-teeth applicators which in turn require a larger tank. You can go only so far with a mounted piece of equipment. These 1,000 gallon tanks cannot be mounted on the cultivator, so they are being pulled behind the outfit on a wagon. But in this case they do not come under the same regulation as the cultivator type. If I am wrong, I hope somebody will correct me.
That is all I have to say, Mr. Speaker. To my mind it is completely incongruous that machines doing the same job and differing only in size should be treated differently under our Customs Tariff. On their tour through southwestern Ontario the agricultural committee-and I see some of the members here tonight-saw what I am referring to. They know what I mean when I speak about the big outfits, and I hope some of them will back up my presentation in this very serious matter, this unfair competition which is facing the farmers of southwestern Ontario.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I hope that our administrators will stay abreast of current advances in technology and will treat the new, larger outfits the same as the old-fashioned ones. As my hon. friend from Swift Current-Maple Creek has pointed out, this is done in industry and it should also be done in agriculture in order to encourage the modernization of our farms.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few things about these changes. I really do not think they will do a great deal for the western part of Canada, the part which I represent. The Kennedy Round has not been one of the most fortunate things that ever happened to us and I expect it to run true to form in the matter we are now discussing. In 1969 the government stated that a very useful method of intensifying competition would be to put into effect immediately following the remaining tariff reductions of the Kennedy Round. I suppose the government believed this to be true, but as I watched the oil companies increase the price of fuel to the farmer by a cent a gallon I lost a lot of faith in the hope of competition changing the input costs to the farmer in western Canada. I suppose this would also be true of eastern Canada. I have
November 24, 1968'

Customs Tariff-Excise Tax Act lost a fair amount of faith as a result of this particular approach.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
The previous speaker suggested some of the other members of the committee might bear out what he said about certain equipment being used for applying fertilizer. I think he was referring to the day when an Ontario farmer was describing his difficulties in the field of fertilizer application. I was informed, and I think my informants were reliable, that Ontario farmers were going to the United States and trucking fertilizer back in order to save themselves some money. You can go into western Canada, where I farm, and see the very close relationships that exist between the suppliers of various fertilizers. This leads you to the inescapable conclusion that at some place along the line, either tacitly or openly, some agreement or understanding has been reached on the price at which fertilizers of various classification will be offered to the farmer; there is agreement about the price he will pay for it. For that reason I cannot stand here and shout great hurrays because of some changes that are proposed.
We read of concessions being given to manufacturers in the east and of the adjustments they are supposed to make to the new, lower rates. All this may mean that there may be some adjustments. But when you look at the continuing increase in the cost of living and the continuing cost of inputs or business costs of farmers, wholesalers and retailers in the area where I live, I am afraid I must say -unless I am shown otherwise-that these adjustments are not filtering down to us; they are not getting through.
The other part of the Kennedy Round which has been little less than disastrous to western farmers is that having to do with grain negotiations. I include the negotiations with respect to cereals. This was the first time that cereals had been brought into the negotiations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Some of us thought, rather naively, that this would make it easier for us to go to the market, that it would enlarge markets and we would be better off. But that did not happen; instead, our markets are contracting. We negotiated prices under the Kennedy Round, but those prices have not been followed. Canadian officials have gone to meetings in Europe and the United States to discuss prices and the agreement we made. They went there, in so many words, to plead

with the people on the other side of the table to abide by an agreement to which nations had affixed their signature.
I recall a minister saying just a day or so-ago that he was hopeful that the plateau in prices which has been reached would hold. What kind of agreement is the Kennedy Round? Why is it that we and other nations feel bound to adhere to one area of the negotiations but not to adhere to and maintain that part which concerns wheat prices? Why do other nations not feel bound to maintain the price for wheat that they agreed to under that agreement? I wonder why we, as Canadians, are putting so much faith in the Kennedy Round? I wonder why we think it will help us be more commercially effective than we have been up to now? We have attempted to stabilize the market for our products, but we have been less than successful. I suspect that tariffs and juggling with tariffs is not the answer to our problems. I think it is about time we looked at our situation, at least in so far as it affects the farming sector of Canada, and considered how we might improve it by bargaining face-to-face with some of the nations which are prepared to purchase our products and do business with us in a straightforward fashion. I believe we have pretty well come to that point, because the Kennedy Round simply has not accomplished the type of agreement, the type of good will and the type of understanding and expanded trade among nations which it was supposed to accomplish. I think we may as well face that fact and go on from there.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr,
Speaker, on November 6 I addressed a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen) about the Task Force on Government Information. I asked, as reported at page 591 of Hansard, the following question:
In view of the fact that the report of the task force on government information revealed that approximately 40 per cent of Canadian farmers
November 24, 1969

were not aware of the government's retraining programs or even the location of manpower centres, is it the intention of the government to provide some emergency information to the farmers or must they wait for a white paper on this subject?
In the next few minutes I wish to outline why I was motivated to ask this question of the Minister. I think it is very important. Basically, I had two reasons for asking the question. First, it is obvious from the task force report that the farmers of western Canada are not aware of federal government programs that are available to them. It is said that only about 40 per cent of our farmers are aware of federal government programs. It is also said that a very large proportion of Canadian farmers are not aware of the location of manpower centres in their localities.
The second reason for my asking the question is the farm crisis we are today experiencing in western Canada. Because of this crisis there is today an accelerating shift of rural dwellers into the urban centres of our country. This is the most drastic shift we have seen since the 1930s, and it will get worse and worse.
If you look at the basic figures, Mr. Speaker, you will see that last year the average income per acre to farmers in western Canada was $8.09. Meanwhile, costs per acre have risen to $21.49. I emphasize that income per acre is $8 and outgo $21. Clearly, even the most efficient farmer cannot begin to make ends meet. This situation affects everybody in western Canada-the farmer, the teacher and the small businessman. Small businesses are closing. Farm machinery sales, for instance, have dropped by about 23 per cent. Housing starts are down by 21 per cent. This means disaster to the whole economy. As a matter of fact, about the only business that is making any profit or headway nowadays is the moving business in moving people into the cities and out of rural areas. That is why I pose my question. We find that when people from rural areas move into the cities many of them join the ranks of the urban poor and unemployed. This not only affects the unemployed person, but his family and the future of the family educationally as well as in many other ways.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
Just the other day a presidential report in the United States dealt with the reasons for violence and the question of the prevention of violence. It suggested there was in the United
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion States a very high relationship between poverty and violence. Another commission set up when Kennedy was the President suggested that one reason for the decaying of cities relates to poor people coming in from the countryside to join the ranks of the urban poor. We have to try to avoid this situation not only for the sake of the individual but for all society.
Why are the farmers not being informed about government programs? I think the first reason is that the government is not getting information to the farmer about the type of programs now available. First and foremost we should keep the farmers on the farms by making them aware of new techniques, planning, agricultural economies and methods. If a farmer has to leave the farm we should make him aware of the different training programs available to him as well as the different relocation programs. We should make him aware of the types of jobs and skills available to him with his qualifications. According to the task force, this is apparently not being done today. It could, of course, could be done through public relations efforts at each of the manpower centres. It could also be done by sending letters to all the farmers, together with leaflets and pamphlets This should be done in times of crisis such as the one we are now experiencing.
Besides this we could use the media of radio, television and newspapers in order to spell out what is available to these people with their qualifications. We must begin an emergency program and work in this direction, because 40 per cent of our farmers are not aware of the many programs which exist, and there is a farm crisis in the west.
Before resuming my seat let me refer to one or two precautionary measures. First of all, I am in favour of the family farm and reaffirm that we should help as much as possible those farmers who are in economic difficulty which will eventually lead them to seek other employment. Second and last, I should not like to see this report become an excuse for the government to issue propaganda through various agencies. This is being done by a number of provincial governments. The information that must be provided should be legitimate and should inform the farmer, other individuals and specific groups, of the government programs open and available to them. I am looking forward to the minister's reply in respect of the suggestions I have made.
November 24, 1969
1190	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion [Translation]


Mr. Rosaire Gendron (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has stressed the negative aspects of the report. On the positive side is the fact that two thirds of the farmers did know about the program although it had at that time been functioning only for two years. It can be inferred that all the information since made available to farmers will in the meantime have contributed to reducing the percentage of those not aware of the existence of these services.
It should also be taken into consideration that farmers are not as interested as other workers in this type of service. They are so to speak their own bosses and not looking for jobs as other people might be.

For example, a current advertising program in magazines and on radio covers all regions of the country, urban and rural. Canada Manpower centres throughout the country continually advertise in daily and weekly newspapers the availability and starting dates of adult retraining courses. In addition, 350 Canada Manpower centres dispense a wide variety of pamphlets and brochures dealing with adult retraining.
The Canada Agriculture Manpower Committee, composed of federal and provincial officials concerned with problems in the agricultural manpower area, met recently to consider experimental projects which could result in new initiatives in the training of agricultural workers. These pilot projects would focus on the training needs in this field and serve as the basis for the development of courses. This development could lead to intensified information efforts aimed at farm organizations and the general rural population.



PENITENTIARIES-DORCHESTER-EXTENSION OF WORK OF JAYCEES WITH PAROLEES

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonl):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, November 17, I directed a question to the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcll-raith) having to do with the outstanding work which has been done for almost a year and a half by the Moncton Jaycees in response to an opportunity to work with the inmates of Dorchester penitentiary as well as with the inmates of the Westmount county jail.
In a day and age when we can be increasingly cynical about the activities of a number 

of service clubs and organizations, the work of this outstanding group is to be highly commended. The fact that at a recent banquet on November 15 this group received a congratulatory telegram from the chairman of the National Parole Board, Mr. Street, as well as from the Solicitor General, indicates the degree to which its activities have been recognized.
I raised the question in the House because I was concerned, first, that the work of these people should be encouraged and enlarged and, second, that the example of the group should not be lost sight of, so that we might see an increase in this kind of activity across the country. The local newspaper was moved to publish an editorial after the recent banquet of the Moncton Jaycee unit in which it said:
Members of the Moncton Junior Chamber of Commerce have drawn high praise from Mr. T. George Street, Chairman of the National Parole Board, for their fine work in helping make possible a day parole release system for several inmates of the Maritime Penitentiary at Dorchester and the Westmorland County jail.
I can speak from personal experience about the work which has gone on in the penitentiary itself. It was my privilege in June of this year to spend an evening in Dorchester penitentiary. I suppose the advantage of spending an evening there is that one can leave at the end of the evening, unlike most of those who make their homes there.
The thing that amazed me was the calibre of the meeting which was conducted that evening. I have rarely attended a public meeting conducted on such a high level as the one which was held that evening behind the bars of Dorchester penitentiary. It is easy for a lot of people to believe that those who run afoul of the law and end up in a penitentiary are limited in outlook and that they are not interested in the wider questions facing our society. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I have rarely been asked such searching questions on such varied issues as were placed before me that evening by the members of the Dorchester Jaycee unit. The way in which the meeting was conducted spoke volumes for the members of the Jaycee unit which is behind bars in that penitentiary as well as for the assistance given by the Moncton Jaycee unit.
While there is a very active Jaycee unit in the penitentiary, composed of some 50 members, it is unfortunate that outside in the
November 24, 1969

farm annex no Jaycee unit has yet been put together. Encouragement has been given by the Moncton unit, but unfortunately one has not yet come into existence. Perhaps as a result of my encouragement and that of the minister, such a unit will be established there.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
A more remarkable program was begun in May of this year, when members of the Jaycees unit began to provide transportation for day parolees from Dorchester to Moncton. Here we have volunteers, young businessmen from the Moncton community area, leaving their homes every morning at 6 o'clock or 6.30, driving the 20 or 30 miles to Dorchester, picking up an inmate and bringing him back to Moncton. The inmate goes to work for the day at Moncton, and then at the end of the day, around 6.30 or 7 p.m.,, he is driven back to the penitentiary. One man in particular single-handedly carried on chauffeuring for a month to six weeks. Since then others have joined him. They are driving up to 500 miles a week at their own expense, and the whole thing has been a considerable undertaking. A week ago Saturday I had the opportunity of spending part of the day with one inmate who was participating in this program. I had the pleasure of his company when I attended the banquet that evening, and I can tell the House that this kind of work is beyond the normal kind of rehabilitation that has been carried on in our penitentiaries.
These volunteers from the Moncton Jaycees are making a unique contribution to the rehabilitation of men who found no hope but who, through this kind of assistance, are now finding in many ways immense hope. To give just one example, of 30 members of the Jaycees unit since released, only five have returned. That may seem a large figure to some who are uninformed about penitentiaries; but for those who know that the recidivism rate in Canada is around 75 to 80 per cent, the figure of 25 men who are "making it" out on the street, so to speak, is an astronomical one.
May I congratulate the minister and his officials for the work they have done to assist the Jaycees unit, and I hope that their good work will not stop there. We know that this kind of social education is a must, and that there must be some basic citizen interest if we are to further the work of rehabilitation. For too long have our penitentiaries operated
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion on the basis of punishment and revenge, offering very little in the way of long-term protection to society and in terms of rehabilitation.
The Dorchester Jaycees, a reflection of the Moncton Jaycees unit, have shown the way through the group operating in the penitentiary and the day parole program. They have made plans for the future acquisition of a halfway house, with which I hope this government will assist, as well as for eventually providing transportation for prisoners with the object of integrating them into the community of Moncton and beyond. I look forward to hearing the minister reply to this extended question.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for raising this question. May I also thank him both for the remarks that he made about the work of the Jaycees in Moncton and for the remarks he made about the correctional services and their part of the program. The object and the task of the whole correctional services system in this country must be the effective restoration of the inmate, the person with whom they are concerned, so that he can usefully participate in society as a normal citizen, playing his full part. You can express it in many ways, but that is what it comes to. To do this, it is quite clear that the best results are achieved when you have the full co-operation of the offender and of the correctional services personnel- that is, the penitentiary or the Parole Board, as the case may be-as well as of the local community. Tonight the hon. member has drawn attention to the importance and effectiveness of the part played by the local community.
This kind of program has been extended in various ways to different parts of the country. Fifteen or 20 different types of groups and societies have offered assistance. Bodies like the John Howard Society, the Elizabeth Fry Society and similar better known societies, as well as many other church groups and local service groups, have got together to this end.
Some groups have got together, without having any other background of organization, and in an effective and co-ordinated way have the full guidance and proven co-operation of the institutions, correctional service or parole board as the case may be. We have gone much further in utilizing this service and are trying to encourage it by every means possible. It becomes important not only
November 24, 1969
1192	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion in the way spoken of tonight but also in those areas where we have pre-release centres in the cities. The inmates prior to release are placed in these centres; then they are sent out to look for work, or perhaps begin work if jobs have been obtained. This takes place before their sentences have expired or when they are out on parole. Sometimes they attend

universities and schools. We have done this with what promises to be considerable success in some cases with very young offenders-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.20 p.m.

Tuesday, November 25, 1969