1969-06-25

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. My question of privilege arises from the proceedings on the adjournment motion on Monday last. My name was listed for debate under the heading, "Post Office Department-Courtenay, B.C., letter carrier service".
Before debate commenced I drew attention to the fact the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) was not in the house, and asked if someone present was authorized to answer me on his behalf. The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Forest) said that he was.
On June 10, I asked the President of the Treasury Board "When the government intends to lift the freeze". My question arose from a reply given me by the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) during the adjournment debate, in which he told me, as reported at page 8815 of Hansard:
Courtenay Is one of 24 communities where a letter carrier service is justified under our criteria, but where for lack of funds we cannot introduce it until such time as this freeze is lifted.
When the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council rose to reply to my statement on Monday night he stated he was answering on behalf of the Postmaster General, and as reported at page 10579 of Hansard said:
I wish to point out that the minister has already answered a similar question earlier-
This was a contradiction of the assurance he had given earlier that he was authorized to answer for the President of the Treasury Board.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that while under the provisions of Standing Order 40 no minister is required to answer either on his own behalf or through a parliamentary secretary, if an answer is given it should be an answer to the question raised, and should be made by 29180-669

or on behalf of the minister under whose jurisdiction the subject matter of the question lies.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that he may have a grievance or perhaps a point of order, but I doubt very much that the point he is now making can be accepted as a question of privilege. In any event, since there is no motion before the house we will now proceed with the ordinary business of the house.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, before reading my statement, I should like to bring to the attention of the house the presence in the Speaker's gallery of a group of Indian leaders representing all provinces. May I welcome those citizens on the occasion of their visit.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to place the government's statement on Indian policy before the house. The statement outlines the views the government brings to the consultations which must now be carried on with the Indian people and the provincial governments.
Throughout a year's consultation with Indian leaders, the government has reviewed its programs for Indians and their effects on the present situation of the Indian people. The review has shown that this is the right time to change long standing policies. The Indian people have shown their determination that present conditions shall not persist.
From the early days of this country, a trustee relationship of a highly paternalistic
10582	COMMONS DEBATES	June 25. 1969
Statement by Minister on Indian Policy nature developed between the central government and Indian people. The Indian people should have the right to manage their own affairs to the same extent that their fellow Canadians manage theirs. Under present conditions they do not have anything like this degree of control over their land, their funds, or in fact any of their responsibilities. This is the central fact about conditions today, and it must change.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
Opportunities are present today in Canadian society and new directions are open. The government believes that Indian people must not be shut out of Canadian life and must share in these opportunities. The policy is founded on the belief that Canada should be free of discrimination. People must not be kept apart from one another by artificial barriers. The goal of a non-discriminatory society can only be achieved if many ideas change. Change must not be confined to the Indian people; other Canadians must change their attitudes, too. True equality presupposes that the Indian people have the right to full and equal participation in the cultural, social, economic and political life of Canada.
The government believes that the framework within which individual Indians and bands could achieve full participation requires the following:
First, the legislative and constitutional basis of discrimination must be removed.
Second, there must be a positive recognition by everyone of the unique contribution of Indian culture to Canadian life.
Third, services must come through the same channels and from the same government agencies for all Canadians.
Fourth, those who are furthest behind must be helped to catch up.
Fifth, lawful obligations must be recognized.
Sixth, control of Indian lands must be transferred to the Indian people.
The government is prepared to take the following steps to create this framework:
First, to propose to parliament that the Indian Act be repealed and take such legislative steps as may be necessary to enable Indian people to control Indian lands and acquire title to them.
Second, to propose to the governments of the provinces that they take over the same responsibilities for Indians that they have for other citizens in their provinces. The takeover

would be accompanied by the transfer to the provinces of federal funds normally provided for Indian programs, augmented as may be necessary.
Third, to make $50 million available over
the next five years for economic development in Indian communities and for Indian people.
Fourth, to wind up that part of my department which deals with Indian affairs; the residual responsibilities for the federal government to be transferred to other appropriate federal departments.
The government will appoint a commission to consult with the Indians and to study and recommend acceptable procedures for the adjudication of claims. The commissioner will be appointed soon.
I intend to meet with the executive committees of the Indian associations as soon as possible. I shall seek meetings with the provincial premiers or their representatives in early July. The department will immediately establish a unit of senior personnel who will have no duties other than to consult with Indian people, consult with provinces, consult with other federal departments about the means of implementation and the pace of it. This unit will also consult Indian bands to determine their views on control of their own land-complex questions which offer many alternatives. I hope that we can end the single, separate service agency within five years. I hope the Indian people will agree that this system which sets them apart is no longer useful. This will be the first goal of the implementation group.
The policy proposal will be referred to the Standing Committee of the house where it can be fully discussed. I seek the support of the house for the aims of the policy. I seek the good will, the support and the energy of the Indian people. I seek the support of all Canadians. I seek the co-operation of the provincial governments.
Finally, I want to thank my department, which has supported me in this policy completely and enthusiastically since its inception.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his courtesy in sending me within reasonable time notice that he would be making a statement, and the copy of the statement which accompanied that notice. I hope this permits me to make a reply, keeping well within the framework of the injunction Your Honour laid down the other day.
June 25, 1969	COMMONS
I thank the minister for the statement he has made. There was a reminiscent tone to it.
I recall during the last years of administration under the leadership of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) that a joint committee studied this issue. The wording of the report of that committee dealt with the winds of change which were blowing through the ranks of the Indian people of Canada. Many of the thoughts which the minister expressed in his statement were good thoughts, repeating the thoughts in the report of the committee.
We welcome the statement by the minister. It amounts to an acceptance of many proposals made by the Indian people through the years, and made by those who have worked on their behalf, in this party and elsewhere. As the minister made clear, it is only a statement of position and to a degree a statement of a bargaining position. There are a lot of "ifs" and a lot of implications. I am not offering carping criticism about this, Mr. Speaker, because the extent to which this will be successful will depend on the full understanding and knowledge of the problems which lie ahead that must be overcome.
There are at least two major constitutional questions. First, there is the question concerning an agreement of the provinces to assume the responsibility referred to. Clearly the provinces will not agree unless they also receive resources adequate to their responsibility. Clearly the provinces have not agreed and apparently have not been asked to agree. We must express the hope that the minister, by making his statement now, has not introduced an aspect of ultimatum and inflexibility which would complicate the transfer.
The second constitutional question concerns giving effect to any changes. An amendment would be required in due course to the British North America Act and we can only assume that the minister has some reason to believe that agreement could be reached on such an amendment. We hope this will be the case.
There is also bound to be apprehension among some of the Indian people. While the Indian Act and the federal authority have been unpopular, they have also been familiar. Their proposed removal will raise questions and concern about Indian lands and other rights. In some cases the Indian people may not welcome the prospect of having to rely upon provincial authorities. I note that the 29180-6691
Statement by Minister on Indian Policy minister intends to establish what he calls a "unit of senior personnel", to deal with the Indian people and others on the problems of implementation. It is essential that those members of this unit which deal with the Indian people comprise persons whom the Indian people feel they can trust. It would be foolish and harmful to overlook the very real suspicions with which many Indian people now regard officials of the department.
I note also that the minister now intends further consultations with the Indian people.
I was sorry that he did not refer to the representative committee established by the last Indian consultative meeting here in Ottawa, which sought federal financial assistance in order to carry out consultations of their own. I hope this omission does not mean that the minister intends to bypass this group, which was specifically chosen by an able and representative meeting of the Indian people.
There is bound to be some contention about aspects of the statement. For instance, many provinces might be reluctant to accept the proposal if the federal government would in time withdraw financial contribution to the provinces. That proposal amounts to simply transferring responsibilities without revenues.
The statement involves what would seem to be a limited interpretation of existing treaty rights, and a reluctance to deal with specific claims of aboriginal rights. There are bound to be some very serious problems about who has the right to be consulted and the fulness of the consultation. By and large this must be regarded as a welcome statement and a step forward toward equality for the Indian people of Canada. We assume it is proposed in good faith and not merely as a bargaining instrument.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
It would be callous gamesmanship and a very real tragedy if this statement had any other inspiration than a genuine attempt to help the Indian people of Canada. We in this party assume that that is its intention, and we are prepared to help the government achieve' the general goals which are outlined. I would hope that the matter would be referred at an early date to a standing committee of the House of Commons in order that the response of the provinces and of the Indian people involved can be known by the whole of parliament and taken as a guide to our action in the future.
10584	COMMONS DEBATES	June 25, 1969
Statement by Minister on Indian Policy Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, we listened with a great deal of interest to the minister's statement. Like the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) I would like to express my appreciation for his courtesy in ending a copy of it along to me about an hour or so before the house met, thus affording members an opportunity to study it in a bit more detail than is possible when hearing it straight out of the blue.
As I say, we listened with interest to what the minister said, because in a sense what he was saying was exactly the same thing as many Indian leaders and people have been saying for quite a number of years, and in a sense what he said was a reiteration of what many of us in this house have been saying for the last five or ten years.
The hon. member for Peace River and I had the opportunity in 1959, 1960 and 1961 of participating in the Joint Senate and House of Commons Committee on Indian Affairs, to which the hon. member for Peace River alluded, and the report of which committee contained the same ideas and concepts that the minister has now outlined. Even though it has taken some period of time to get a cabinet minister to agree with those concepts, it is still welcomed.
You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that on March 6 we took one of the opposition party opportunities to institute a debate about Indian Affairs, partly to give parliament an opportunity to express its views to the minister, and partly also with the hope that any attendant publicity would give people throughout the country an opportunity to react to the debate and make some comments of their own.
Some of the ideas contained in the minister's statement are good. Some of them are not so good. A great many of them are rather vague. I do not say this in an unkind way, and I am sure the minister does not take it in an unkind way. Many of his comments must necessarily be vague, as he is not dealing with this matter in a unilateral sense but in an area of conversation and discussions with the native Indian people and with the provinces. Naturally he cannot have any predetermined position to outline to them.
For years we have advocated the necessity of discussion, conversation and consultation with the Indian people. We hope this will now be acted upon. The minister talked about transferring certain of the activities of his department to the provinces so that services

provided by provincial governments will be available to Indian people on the same basis as they are available to other people in Canada. This follows the concept of equality of treatment within the law which we have been advocating for a long period of time. We assume this will include educational matters, health matters, social welfare matters and similar types of services.
I submit it is extremely important that in the negotiations, discussions, or whatever they may be that the minister will have with the provincial governments, the negotiations or discussions proceed only at a speed commensurate with the desires of the Indian people in the provinces concerned. I hope they will not be conducted in such a manner as to provide straight bilateral agreement at the governmental level without regard for the feelings of the native Indian people. This is something which has gone on previously, and if I am not mistaken the minister himself participated in such conversations with the provinces without regard to the feelings of Indian people, and without consulting them.
According to the statement, the minister will seek to appoint a commissioner to work with the Indian people on matters with respect to treaties. I maintain it is extremely important that this commissioner, if it is to be one person-and I take it from the minister's statement that it is-or if it is to be more than one person, have an orientation towards international law, and not the domestic law that exists within Canada. I hope that these people or this commissioner will be people who have an understanding of the relationships between nations of people, because after all this is what existed at the time the treaties were signed. The native Indian people were grouped into nations. With regard to treaties I think the minister should resist any proposal to take those treaties to our internal domestic courts, because he would be bound to receive decisions that would not be based on a full concept of equity in international law.
The government makes passing reference to the very fundamental question of land in British Columbia, in respect of which only a few treaties and land conveyances are involved. Passing reference is also made to land as it relates to the great bulk of the native people in the province of Quebec, and the Indian and Eskimo people in the Territories. I think it is fundamental that some solution should be provided in this regard before
June 25, 1969	COMMONS
many of the other programs which are dealt with can be settled satisfactorily Unless this is mutually agreeable, the perpetuation of the difficulties will go on.
An amount of $50 million has been announced as being available for the development of the Indian people. I would caution anyone about accepting this at its face value because, as the minister knows, $50 million over a five year period is not a very large amount of money in any event. His predecessor in office a few years ago announced a $112 million five year housing program. This was fine on paper, but the previous minister of finance got hold of that $112 million program and, because of subsequent budgetary matters, sliced it until the $112 million program did not exist. Unless the minister can guarantee absolutely that he has this money to be used for this purpose over the next five years it is a meaningless declaration, because any minister of finance in any subsequent budgetary year can stretch it, reduce it or cut back on it.
The policy statement is a step in the right direction, but the old adage of the proof of the pudding being in the eating is applicable here. I think the success of this program depends upon two factors: It depends upon the continued acceptance by the government of the views of the native Indian people themselves because they are of primary importance; it also depends upon the speed with which the government puts into effect those accepted views.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abiiibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like also to thank most sincerely the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for sending us, a little beforehand, a copy of the statement we have just heard with pleasure, so that we could study it briefly.
We are glad that the federal government is willing to transfer its administrative powers to the provinces since we have been requesting for a long time that the Indians be recognized as true Canadians and I feel that the federal government is now taking an important step in that direction.
After having for a long time attempted to administer Indian affairs, the federal government now realizes its helplessness, its incompetence and it is now asking the provinces to see to the administration of the affairs of Canada's first inhabitants.
Committee Consideration of Interest Rates
I do not know how far those negotiations between the provincial and federal governments concerning the transfer of powers have progressed, but I would ask the minister and the government to be quite firm during the negotiations, in order that the Indians may obtain all the rights to which they are entitled.
I have reason to believe that some Indian bands are not too satisfied with the administration of a certain province, and we should be assured that the transfer of funds proposed by the minister would really be used for the administration of Indian affairs and not to fill gaps in provincial budgets. Therefore, I ask the minister to see to it that the funds transferred to the provinces will be used for the administration of Indian affairs.
Mr. Speaker, I hope the decision of liquidating Indian affairs at the federal level will benefit the Indians, so that they may become real Canadians, acquire the same rights and privileges as other Canadians, and have the opportunity to improve themselves, to get an education and to own something, according to their initiative, competence and wishes.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)



FINANCE, TRADE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS AGREEMENT THAT INTEREST RATES BE CONSIDERED BY STANDING COMMITTEE

Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions about the suggestion of my colleague, the Minister of Finance, to refer the question of interest rates to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. If the house would give its consent I wonder whether the following could be made an order of the house:
That the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs be empowered to consider the present level of interest rates in Canada and their relation both to rates in other countries and to economic conditions in Canada and elsewhere.
If there is unanimous agreement perhaps that could be made an order of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the suggestion proposed by the hon. President of the Privy Council. Is it so agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.

June 25, 1969
Privileges and Elections PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS



AGREEMENT TO REFER TO STANDING COMMITTEE PRIVATE MEMBERS BILLS DEALING WITH ELECTION MATTERS

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recall that earlier in the session certain private members bills which referred to the general subject matter of elections were not proceeded with, but that the subject matter thereof was referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. It seems equitable that other private members' public bills in the names of hon. members that did not have the opportunity of such reference should also be referred to the committee. If the house is generally agreeable perhaps an order could be made in the following terms:
That, the order for second reading of Bills C-33, C-52, C-77, C-80, C-90, C-92, C-107, C-117, C-127, C-133, C-145 and C-181 be discharged and that the subject matter of the said bills be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could have the general consent of the house to revert to motions in order to make another consent order? I believe that subject to the approbation of the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe there would be general agreement to make government order No. 93 a consent order of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-Si. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker I welcome the government motion that the report of the committee to survey the organization and work of the Canadian Pension Commission be referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. It is our intention to dispense with debate. It is unfortunate that this was not done before, because a great deal of progress could have been made. We regret that the white paper is

not ready. This is one of the reasons for the delay. However, it is likely that the white paper will be available by the time the committee is ready to deal with the report in September. I wish to assure the minister that the members of the committee from my party-*


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am wondering under what standing order the hon. member is now addressing the house. There was no statement made by the minister. The hon. member cannot have the floor at this time unless he has the consent of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member has the consent of the house, I understand that other hon. members may want to take part in the debate which would be initiated by the hon. member's statement. I suggest to hon. members that perhaps we should go on with the business of the house.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order Your Honour has raised, I understand that the President of the Privy Council used the word approbation and approbation has this type of wide interpretation.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There are negative responses; therefore, the proposal of the President of the Privy Council is not acceptable.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Caouelte: 1.	At what stage are the plans for building a parking lot on or beside Parliament Hill, construction of which was scheduled for the winter of 1967-68?
2.	Has there been any delay in this project and, if so, for what reasons?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: 1. A study for estimating purposes has been made for a parking garage located
June 25, 1969

on the slope west of the Centre Block. Feasibility studies are being conducted on two other sites, one immediately west of the West Block and the other at the end of Bank Street where a parking lot is now located.
Construction is not planned for 1969-70.
2. Yes. It was deferred from 1967-68 Estimates in relation to priorities for other projects in order to curtail capital expenditures.


RIVERS, MAN.-C.N.R. MISHAP INVESTIGATION
Mr. Skoberg: Has the Canadian Transport Commission completed their investigation into the mishap on the C.N.R. Rivers subdivision on April 28, 1968, where three employees were killed when the engine went through the bridge and, if so, what were the findings of the investigation?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: The Canadian Transport Commission has not yet completed its investigation into the accident.


NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many nuclear power plants are there in Canada (a) where is each located (b) what is the present power output of each, and (c) what is the power potential of each?
2.	How many additional nuclear power plants are proposed during the next five, ten and fifteen years, where will they be located and what power potential is anticipated from each?
3.	Is it the intention of the federal government to provide nuclear power for export purposes?
4.	Is it the intention of the federal government to provide nuclear power to take the place of coal?
5.	What is Canada's capacity, at the present time, to provide heavy water?
6.	What is the government's program to increase the production of heavy water?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Atomic Energy of Canada Limited advises as follows: 1. (a) (b) (c): The following nuclear power plants are in operation with the power output and power potential indicated: (i) Nuclear Power Demonstration Station; Rolphton, Ontario, 25 megawatts, 25 megawatts; (ii) Douglas Point Generating Station, Douglas Point, Ontario, 210 megawatts, 210 megawatts (This Station is shut down at the present time for annual maintenance.)
2. The following nuclear power plants are committed: (i) AECL's 250 megawatt nuclear
Questions
generating station being constructed in cooperation with Hydro-Quebec at Gentilly, Quebec; (ii) Ontario Hydro's 2,000 megawatt station being constructed at Pickering, Ontario; (iii) Ontario Hydro's 3,000 megawatt generating station being constructed at Douglas Point, Ontario.
3.	No. (If by this question is meant the export of power plants, AECL is engaged in an export marketing program.)
4.	No.
5.	Nil.
6.	(i) The government, through AECL, has contractually undertaken to underwrite the sale of all heavy water produced; (a) by the Deuterium of Canada Limited 400-ton per annum plant under construction at Glace Bay, Nova Scotia; and (b) by the Canadian General Electric Company Limited 400-ton per annum plant under construction at Port Hawkesbury, Nova Scotia; (ii) The government, through AECL, is constructing an 800-ton per annum heavy water production plant at Douglas Point, Ontario.


LOCATIONS OF HEAD OFFICES OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Mr. Robinson: How many government agencies and/or corporations have their head offices in (a) Montreal (b) Toronto (c) Vancouver (d) Winnipeg and, what are their names and where are they located?
Mr. Yves Fores! (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: (a) Air
Canada, Place Ville Marie, Montreal 113, Que.; Canadian Film Development Corporation, 800 Place Victoria, Suite 910, Montreal, Que.; Canadian Livestock Feed Board, Place Decaire Building, 5250 Ferrier Street, Montreal, Que.; Canadian National Railways, P.O. Box 8100, Montreal 101, Que.; Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation, 625 Belmont Street, Montreal 101, Que.; Industrial Development Bank, 901 Victoria Square, Montreal, Que.; National Film Board, 3155 Cote de Liesse, St. Laurent 379, Que.; (b) Nil; (c) Nil; (d) Board of Grain Commissioners, Grain Exchange Building, Winnipeg, Man.; The Canadian Wheat Board, 423 Main Street, Winnipeg 2, Man.


NICKEL BELT, ONT., POST OFFICES
Mr. Serre: 1.	How many post offices have been built in the constituency of Nickel Belt since 1960, and (a) where was each located (b) what was the cost of each?

June 25, 1969
Questions
2.	How many post offices in that constituency have been closed since 1960?
3.	Which post offices in the constituency of Nickel Belt does the department intend to close in the next two years?
4.	Where in the constituency of Nickel Belt does the department intend to build post offices between 1969 and 1972?
Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: I am informed by the Departments of Public Works and Post Office as follows: 1. Five post offices and one addition
(a) Location	(b) Cost
Azilda Chelmsford Noelville St. Charles Yal Caron Hanmer (1964) addition
$21,651 including land 84,985 including land 22,026 including land 26,498 including land 33,562 including land
16,350 including land
2.	Four.
3.	At this time the Department does not intend to close any post offices in the Nickel Belt constituency.
4.	The Department of Public Works intends to construct post offices during 1969-70 at Rutter and Wanapitei, subject to funds being available. From now until 1972 the Department's preliminary planning includes the provision of accommodation at Capreol, Dowling, Garson and Onaping, subject to confirmation of requirements by the Post Office Department at the time of construction and to approval of funds by Parliament.


'SELLING PRICE, FORD &quot;MAVERICK&quot;
Mr. Sallsman: 1.	What were the results of the meeting between the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and representatives of Ford of Canada regarding the selling price of the new "Maverick" car in Canada?
2.	After making allowances for exchange rates and sales tax, will this new car be made available at the same price in Canada and the United States and, if not, for what reason?
3.	If the price of the "Maverick" will be higher in Canada than in the United States, will Canadian manufactured "Maverick" cars exporting to the United States at lower prices be violating GATT anti-dumping regulations?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, as the answer to this question is quite long would the house agree that it be printed and the answer considered as read?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Mr. Serre.l


Yves Forest: Mr. Scott, president of the Ford Motor Company of Canada noted that the price differential between Canadian and United States produced cars had steadily diminished since the inception of the auto agreement. He expressed confidence that despite certain higher business costs experienced in Canada, the price gap would continue to narrow as the economics of industry rationalization were more fully realized.
The suggested retail prices for the "Maverick" are United States $1,995 for sales in the United States and Canada $2,375 for sales in Canada. After making allowances for exchange and the higher federal sales tax in Canada, and allowing for the effect of dealer mark-up, a difference of about Canadian $100 or 5 per cent still remains.
For Maverick sales to be made in volume in the U.S. market the car must be priced competitively with other cars in the Ford range and competitive cars of other makers. Since the general level of prices is still lower in the U.S. than in Canada this results in a differential pricing situation between the two countries.
If the selling price of the "Maverick" in Canada were higher than in the United States, this would not in itself be dumping. Under the GATT code to which both Canada and the United States subscribed, dumping would only occur if the export price of the Canadian car, following adjustments for exchange and differences in quantities and other circumstances of sale, were found to be lower and, furthermore, if material injury to the United States industry resulted. Both the elements of lower adjusted price and injury must be present to constitute dumping.


PUBLIC SERVICE REHABILITATION TRAINING
Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands): 1.	With reference to certain "lay-off" procedures designated in the Canada Gazette, Part 2, Volume 10 Extra, pertaining to the Public Service Employment Act, is it the intention of the government to provide members of the Public Service declared "surplus to staff" with (a) rehabilitation training (b) rehabilitation grants?
2.	If the answer to any part of paragraph 1 is no, what are the reasons for not doing so?
3.	Is the government considering the advisability of revising the legislation governing the payment of Unemployment Insurance so as to permit voluntary participation by Public Servants?


Yves Forest: I am in-
June 25, 1969

formed by the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Unemployment Insurance Commission as follows: 1. With reference to "lay-off' procedures pertaining to the Public Service Employment Act: (a) An employee laid off from the Public Service is entitled to all the benefits of the Adult Occupational Training that apply to any unemployed person. These include occupational training; (b) The Adult Occupational Training Act provides for training allowances. Furthermore, Public Service employees when laid off, depending upon their status under collective bargaining, are entitled to either severance pay or retiring leave. Most collective agreements signed to date provide for severance pay equivalent to up to 28 weeks' pay, depending on length of service. For other employees, there is provision for up to 26 weeks' retiring leave on full pay under the Public Service Terms and Conditions of Employment Regulations.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	The coverage of employment in the federal public service is now permitted, under Unemployment Insurance Regulation No. 70, for employees who have not been declared permanent. The advisability of revising the unemployment insurance program is being studied, and the status of employments now excluded from the Act will be reviewed as part of this study.


CLOSING OF ONTARIO POST OFFICES
Mr. Rynard: 1.	How many post offices were closed in Ontario?
2.	What number had rural routes emanating from each post office?
3.	What was the average cost per patron?
4.	What is the average cost for city delivery per patron?
5.	What was the cost per patron when added to other rural mail routes?
6.	How many postmasters were not notified of the closing of the post office and how much severance pay was required?
7.	How many rural mail carriers received severance pay and what was the amount?


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, this question is also quite long and I wonder whether the house would agree that it be printed and the answer considered as read.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Yves Forest: In so far as the post office department is concerned-
1. 144 since 1 April. 1967.
Questions
2. There were 32 routes emanating from the following 31 post offices: Clontarf, Cork-ery, Dorland, Fairfield East, Fallbrook, Halloway (R.R.l & R.R. 2), Lonsdale, Rankin, South Monaghan, Wemyss, Anten Mills, Cresswell, Duncan, Dunedin, Rathburn, River-view, Aberfeldy, Belton, Crinan, Eden Grove, Greenock, North Bruce, Ostrander, Pinkerton, Science Hill, Walkers, Alderdale, Eau Claire, Ice Lake, Ophir, Rydal Bank.
$28.03 per annum was the average cost per rural route patron for the 31 offices concerned.
$24.27 per annum is the national average cost for offices where letter carrier delivery service is provided.
$26.18 per annum was the average cost per rural route patron for the offices concerned.
All postmasters were notified of the closing of their offices and no severance pay was required.
Nine contractors received severance pay totalling $1,028.03.


CHILCOTIN, B.C., FORESTRY STATION
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 2,338
Mr. Howard (Skeena):: 1 Has any department or agency of government built or otherwise acquired a forestry station or similar structure in the Chilcotin area of British Columbia?
2. If so, when was this built or acquired, what is its location, what costs were incurred, and what is its purpose?


Yves Forest: 1. No.
2. Not applicable.


DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR PUBLIC RELATIONS PERSONNEL
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of Labour have a public relations staff and, if so, how many?
2.	What was the total cost of public relations for the Department for each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?


Mr. Jim McNulty (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: 1. No, Department of Labour staff are designated specifically for public relations responsibilities which activities are carried out within the general program of the Public Relations and Information Services Branch made up of 22 officers and 34 support staff.
2. It is not possible to specifically identify public relations expenditures.

June 25, 1969
Questions


MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION PUBLIC RELATIONS PERSONNEL
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of Manpower and Immigration have a public relations staff and, if so, how many?
2.	What was the total cost of the public relations for the Department for each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. The Department of Manpower and Immigration does not employ public relations officers as such. It employs Information Service Officers some of whom perform public relations activities as part of their duties.
2. 1966-67,	$100,496;	1967-68,	$149,156;
1968-69, $142,912.


COST OF NORTHUMBERLAND STRAIT CROSSING
Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): 1.	Is it considered the construction of the Northumberland Strait Crossing would be more expensive than the continuation of the present ferry system and the maintenance or improvement of present levels of service?
2.	Was this view held by the government in 1965?
3.	If not, what factors have changed the opinion of the government in this regard?
4.	What plans are there for the future use of the Causeway approaches already constructed, how much did they cost, have they been completed and, if not, when is it expected they will be completed?
5.	Will technical information, engineering studies, models, etc., be made available to the Government of Prince Edward Island with respect to the Northumberland Strait Crossing?


Arthur Laing: 1. Yes, on the basis of discounted cash flows to 1968 for a 30-year period.
2.	No, in 1965 the estimated cost of the crossing for rail and highway traffic was substantially less than present estimates.
3.	Answered in 2.
4.	The crossing approaches have cost $5.5 million. The construction on the Prince Edward Island side will be used to carry traffic to the ferry and will be completed in 1969. The construction in New Brunswick will not be used.
5.	Technical information will be made available if requested by the government of Prince Edward Island.
IMr. McNulty.1


USE OF UNEMPLOYED IN AREA DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Is it the governments intention to initiate a policy of using the unemployed for the development of certain areas of Canada?
2.	If so, what is such policy?
3.	How many unemployed people would the government expect to employ?
4 If this policy is already being carried out, what regions have received benefits from such policy and how many unemployed people have benefitted from such policy?


Yves Forest: 1. and
2. No. However, the Government maintains Canada Manpower Centres throughout Canada which provide general counselling, placement, training, mobility and other employment related services to employed and unemployed workers.
3. and 4. Not applicable.


GRANTS TO CANADIAN VICKERS
Mr. Skoberg: For each of the fiscal years 1955-56,	1953-59,
1961-62, 1962-63, 1963-64, 1964-65, 1965-66,	1966-67,
1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70, what have been the federal government's financial grants, subsidies or incentives to Canadian Vickers Limited of Montreal regarding the construction of marine vessels?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: The following subsidies were paid to Canadian Vickers Limited under the Ship Construction Assistance Regulations and the Ship Construction Subsidy Regulations: 1955-56, Nil; 1958-59, Nil; 1961-62, Nil; 1962-63, $253,361.71; 1963-64, $1,099,100.00; 1964-65, $1,125,467.99; 1965-66, $2,303,671.96; 1966-67, $5,258,327.20; 1967-68, $2,850,537.80; 1968-69, $532,739.00; 1969-70, Nil; Total, $13,423,205.66.


TRADE WITH MAINLAND CHINA
Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): 1.	What amount of import and export trade did Canada have with the Peoples' Republic of China in each of the years from 1958 to 1968?
2.	What amount of cultural contact or exchange has Canada had with the Peoples' Republic of China in each of the years from 1958 to 1968?
June 25, 1969

3.	What immediate programmes are presently being planned or implemented with regard to cultural exchange and contact with the Peoples' Republic of China?


Yves Forest: I am in-
Questions
formed by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and the Department of the Secretary of State for External Affairs as follows: 1. Canada's import and export trade with the Peoples' Republic of China in each of the years from 1958 to 1968 is shown in the following statement:
	Domestic		Total	
Year	Exports	Re-exports	Exports	Imports$'000	$'000	$'000	$'0001958	7,809	1	7,810	5,3701959	1,720	-	1,720	4,8401960	8,737	173	8,910	5,6381961	125,448	-	125,448	3,2331962	147,438	1	147,439	4,5211963	104,738	-	104,738	5,1471964	136,263	2	136,265	9,4201965	105,131	16	105,147	14,4451966	184,879	1	184,880	20,5941967	91,306	1	91,307	25,0741968	163,243	6	163,249	23,4392.	Since all contacts and exchanges in the fields of culture and education have been organized under non-governmental auspices, complete records on a year-by-year basis are not available. Contacts of this kind have, however, included a tour of Canada by the Peking Opera in 1964, an exchange program between the Faculty of Medicine at McGill University and the Chinese Medical Association, and numerous visits to China by Canadian individuals and groups.3.	In discussions with Chinese representatives on the subject of mutual recognition and diplomatic relations, the Canadian side has formally proposed that the further development of cultural exchanges on a basis of reciprocity should be one of the subjects for discussion. So far as the Canadian Government is concerned, no specific programs are yet being planned, although the Government is aware of some plans by groups and individuals in Canada for further activity in cultural relations with China, and is prepared to give any appropriate co-operation to such projects. Should diplomatic relations be established with the Peoples' Republic of China, the Government would hope that there might be opportunities for the further expansion and development of cultural and educational exchanges between Canada and China.


LANDING RIGHTS FOR U.S. MILITARY AIRCRAFT
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	Where in Canada do United States military aircraft have landing rights?
2.	How many U.S. military personnel are stationed at these locations?
3.	What is the total number of U.S. military personnel in Canada?
4.	Are any members of the U.S. Armed Forces being trained in any way in Canada and, if so, what is the nature of the training?


Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1. Under the the authority of P.C. 2307 dated April 17, 1952, United States military aircraft may land in and take off from Canada and its territorial waters by making prior arrangements with the Department of National Defence.
2.	With the exception of Goose Bay and Argentia, which are used by United States forces under other agreements, no United States military personnel are stationed in Canada to accommodate visiting United States military aircraft. However, such aircraft may land where some United States military personnel are located.
3.	Approximately 3,800.
4.	Yes, vacancies on Canadian Forces courses are offered to U.S. Armed Forces personnel as follows: National Defence College,
10592

June 25, 1969
Questions
Canadian Forces Staff College, Canadian Land Forces Command and Staff College, Basic Survival Course, Midshipman Exchange Program, Maritime Warfare School (Standard and Advanced Courses), Aerospace Systems Course and an Instrument Check Pilot Course.


WHEAT STORAGE EXPENDITURES
Mr. Diefenbaker: How much has been expended for storage of wheat in all the facilities for storage, month by month, since the first day of January 1967?
Hon, Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce): Storage payments by the Canadian Wheat Board are not paid on a regular monthly basis and therefore it is not possible to answer the question in exactly the way it is asked. Total storage costs incurred on wheat by the Canadian Wheat Board in the 1966/67 and 1967/68 crop years were $29,583,697 and $44,389,454. Of these amounts the government paid $24,294,357 in 1966/67 and $34,979,633 in 1967/68 under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. The amount of storage costs incurred by the Board on wheat in the 1968/69 crop year is not yet available.


PUBLIC WORKS INFORMATION SERVICE
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of Public Works provide an information service and, if so, what was the cost for each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?
2.	How many publications and/or periodicals and/or information sheets and/or public releases were provided by the Department for each of the years 1960-68 inclusive, and what was the cost for each publication for each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?
3.	How many copies of each publication are provided and to whom are they distributed and how is the distribution effected?


Arthur Laing: 1. Yes, expenditures detailed below:
Year	Cost
1959-60	$ 50,520
1960-61	52,306
1961-62	61,209
1962-63	78,239
1963-64	78,961
1964-65	73,943
1965-66	94,318
1966-67	126,512
1967-68	133,661
1968-69	111,813
Year	Number of information sheets and press releases	Number of publications	Annual cost of publications1959-60	543	5	$6,8031960-61	477	7	4,4941961-62	371	7	5,7271962-63	308	5	5,7571963-64	249	8	5,2311964-65	285	4	5,2431965-66	372	4	4,1461966-67	424	4	5,1711967-68	400	5	7,0701968-69	442	4	5,738
Cost of individual publications is not available.
3. The staff magazine, "Dispatch": a copy is provided to each employee, with additional copies for libraries, students, etc. mailed on request-total press run each issue, 10,000.
The Department of Public Works Annual Report and the Trans-Canada Highway Annual Report: 450 copies for tabling in Parlia-
IMr. Groos.]
ment; additional copies to interested organizations, students and libraries on request- total press run of each 1,000 copies.
A booklet "Seven Rideau Gate" was produced in 1967 for visiting guests-press run 1,500 copies. This and a number of other booklets, produced several years ago, are distributed on request, chiefly to students.
June 25, 1969


YUKON TERRITORY-RAILWAY TO WATSON LAKE
Mr. Beaudoin: 1 Does the government intend to build a railway to Watson Lake, Yukon Territory, in the near future?
2. If so (a) when will the work begin (b) when will it be completed?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: 1. No plans exist to build a railway to Watson Lake at this time.
2. An economic feasibility study and technical feasibility studies are currently being undertaken which will indicate when or if the railroad should be built to the Yukon.


FLYING PAY TO PILOTS
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Is it the federal government's intention to continue to pay pilots "flying pay" when they perform administrative duties primarily?
2.	Is it the federal government's intention that those in the Canadian Forces performing the same function with the same rank receive the same pay regardless of qualifications?
3.	How many officers formerly RCAF aircrew, without university degrees, are there in the Canadian Forces and how many are there in each Officer rank and how many of them are not on flying duty per se?


David Walter Groos: 1. See
reply to your question number 1554, Hansard dated 10 March, 1969, page 6388.
2.	It is difficult to determine what is meant by qualification and its relation to entitlement to a specific rate of pay and the function being performed. Circumstances of employment must also be considered. Where the employment is to gain further experience and a wider knowledge of administration and organization, then it is possible that although of the same rank and performing the same function, the rate of pay may not be the same because of qualification. However, where qualification is not a determining factor for entitlement to a specific rate of pay, the pay is the same for the same rank performing the same function.
3.	3114 as follows: LGEN, 1; MGEN, 5; BGEN, 16; COL, 67; LCOL, 182; MAJ, 479; CAPT, 2168; LT, 196.
Of this number, 689 are not on flying duties per se.
Questions


SURVEY RESPECTING DEMAND FOR UNIVERSITY TEACHERS
Mr. Rose: 1.	With reference to the statement of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration recorded at page 8783 of Hansard that "We do not believe that Canada itself will be able until 1972 to supply the demand for university teachers in this country", what surveys or projections led to such a conclusion?
2.	If copies of any such surveys, statistics or projections are in the possession of the government, will they be Tabled in the House?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. My statement of May 16 regarding the ability of Canada itself to fill the demand for university teachers was based on an initial evaluation made by officers of my Department of data produced by the National Research Council. This material originally appeared some time ago, but recently was reproduced in the Macdonald Report to the Science Council, Graduate Students and Faculty Resources of Canadian Universities and Colleges.
The data to which I refer appears in Tables 4 and 5 of the report. These Tables projected the demand for, and supply of, new university teachers in Canada and show us as meeting the demand from our own resources by 197071 on the basis of an assumed 4 per cent turnover of academic staff.
The initial view of my officers, to which they still hold, was that the estimated supply was somewhat overstated because it included a large number of doctoral candidates who are neither Canadians nor landed immigrants and who would not normally obtain academic posts in Canada.
At the same time, it was felt that the projected size of the Ph. D. graduating class was somewhat high; this too would affect the predicted number of new doctorates available to enter university teaching. It has turned out, for example, that whereas the report estimated the 1967-68 Ph.D. graduating class at 1,245, the actual figure as subsequently reported by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics was 1,006.
2. See first paragraph of "1" above.


VETERANS AFFAIRS PUBLIC RELATIONS PERSONNEL
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of Veterans Affairs have a public relations staff and, if so, how many?

June 25, 1969
Questions
2.	What was the total cost of public relations for the Department for each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. Yes; twelve.
2. 1960-61, $29,571; 1961-62, $34,435; 196263, $65,848; 1963-64, $95,329; 1964-65, $69,567; 1965-66, $69,419; 1966-67, $103,947; 1967-68, $327,798; 1968-69, $117,427.


PARTICIPANTS IN BUDGET PREPARATION
Mr. Saltsman: 1.	Were there any individuals not in the Public Service of Canada who participated in the preparation of the June Budget brought down by the Minister of Finance?
2.	If so, who are these individuals and what was their remuneration?
3.	When did these individuals participate in the preparation for the Budget?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: 1. No.
2 and 3. Not applicable.


LIVE TURKEY IMPORTS
Mr. McKinley: 1.	What is the total, in pounds, of live poultry, including turkey imported into Canada in the
Chicken, cut-up fresh or
Month	frozen
ewt.
1968-	January	 1,805
February	 1,459
March	 1,049
April	 1,449
May	 1,496
June	 2,156
July	 1,819
August	 943
September	 1,777
October	 885
November	 436
December	 1,862
1969-	January	 729
February	 1,027
March	 1,039
April	 731
Total	   20,662
period from January 1, 1968 until May 31, 1969 inclusive?
2.	(a) What was the total, in pounds, of broilers imported in this period (b) what was the total, in pounds, of fowl imported in this period (c) what was the total, in pounds, of turkeys imported in this period (d) what was the total, in pounds, of dressed or eviscerated poultry, including turkey imported into Canada, in the period from January 1, 1968 until May 31, 1969 inclusive?
3.	What was the total pounds imported by months?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports that: 1. The number of live poultry, including turkey, imported into Canada, January 1, 1968 to April 30, 1969 inclusive was 2,701,307. Statistics on number of pounds of live poultry imported are not available.
2.	Import statistics, January 1, 1968 to May 31, 1969 inclusive are as follows: Poultry, fresh or frozen N.E.S., 1,399,700 lbs.; Turkeys, fresh or frozen, 896,100 lbs.; Chicken, cut-up, fresh or frozen, 2,066,200 lbs.; Chickens eviscerated fresh or frozen N.E.S., 3,868,500 lbs.
Note: No breakdown for broilers. N.E.S.- not elsewhere specified.
3.	Import statistics, by months (see attached table).
Chickens eviscerated fresh or frozen n.e.s.	Turkeys fresh or frozen	Poultry fresh or frozen	Totalcwt.	cwt.	cwt.	cwt.818	2,760	-	5,383920	1,275	340	3,9942,531	366	120	4,0664,068	277	78	5,87211,643	1,369	14,5084,903	520	1,326	8,9051,847	480	2,220	6,3661,970	372	3,153	6,438564	510	684	3,5351,760	161	2,199	5,005528	60	1,197	2,2211,097	195	435	3,5893,174	746	49	4,698784	390	295	2,496860	75	317	2,2911,218	774	215	2,93838,685	8,961	13,997	82,305

June 25, 1969


CAPACITY PLATE ON POWER BOATS
Mr. Robinson: Is it the intention of the federal government to require power boats and power pleasure craft to carry an official capacity plate indicating horsepower and load capacity?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The Small Vessel Regulations, P.C. 1969-436, administered by the Department of Transport, now require that small pleasure craft, powered by an outboard motor or motors of 10 H.P. or more, carry official plates showing recommended maximum horsepower and load capacity.


CANADIAN FORCES ORDER RESPECTING PHARMACISTS
Mr. Marshall: Does Canadian Forces Administrative Order (CFA03-1) and specifically Serial 4 of Appendix 1 for pharmacists apply equally for all provinces of Canada for direct entry as officers in the Canadian Forces?


David Walter Groos: The academic/professional qualifications for pharmacists outlined in Annex A, Appendix 1, Serial 4 of CFA06-1, apply equally for all provinces of Canada. It was the intent of this order that all direct entry pharmacists must hold a degree in pharmacy granted by a university or recognized school of pharmacy. To clarify this intent, an amendment to this order has been prepared to specify the requirement for a degree. Applicants who do not hold a degree, but are eligible to join the ROTP, are encouraged to consider this plan for university training in pharmacy.


TAX RECEIPTS FROM QUEBEC
Mr. Laniel: 1.	What amounts has the federal government collected through all forms of direct and indirect taxation from residents of the Province of Quebec during the last five years?
2.	What has been the overall total of federal government expenditures in the Province of Quebec over the same period?
3.	How is that total distributed by categories; equalization payments, direct social security expenditures, etc.?


Edgar John Benson: 1.
This information cannot be provided owing to the fact that there is no acceptable statistical data or technique for reporting the amount of indirect taxation paid by residents of a province.
Questions
2 and 3. Information is not now available to provide an accurate answer to this question and the necessary expert staff is not available to undertake the large amount of work which would be required to gather the necessary information.


INSURANCE FEES ON APPROVED LOANS
Mr. Robinson: 1.	What is the total amount received on account of insurance fee on approved loans made by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in each year since its inception?
2.	What amount, if any, has been paid out of this fund in each year since the fee has been collected?
3.	What is the aggregate amount of all N.H.A. loans covered by the insurance fee?
4.	To what use is the insurance fee fund put to by the federal government and what income is derived from it?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: 1. and 2. Total fees received		
Year	Mortgage Insurance fund	Claims paid1954	$ 2,389,850	$ -1955	9,237,250	-1956	9,839,746	-1957	7,278,911	38,1851958	13,816,071	62,1301959	13,146,403	275,3361960	8,456,279	1,496,5961961	10,970,952	6,729,8241962	11,576,518	11,619,1611963	9,868,797	14,014,3011964	2,063,480	14,731,4881965	13,483,365	15,400,7701966	14,290,873	10,372,9771967	16,491,251	4,643,8301968	14,640,563	2,101,6553. Gross contingent liability	to December
31, 1968, $9,429,745,000.
4. Surplus funds are invested in obligations of or guaranteed by Canada from which income of $44,059,673 has been received since inception of the fund to December 31, 1968.


TREATMENT AT NATIONAL DEFENCE MEDICAL CENTRE
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	What categories of persons are eligible for medical treatment at the National Defence Medical Centre?
2.	What is the capacity of the hospital, and how close to capacity does it operate?

June 25, 1969
Questions


David Walter Groos: 1. Members of the Canadian Armed Forces, individuals with Department of Veterans' Affairs entitlement, and others who may be authorized by the Minister of National Defence. The latter are responsible for making payment for services rendered in accordance with Ontario Hospital Commission rates.
2. 326 beds. The hospital operates at 80-90 per cent of this capacity (85 per cent is considered full capacity).


LENGTH AND COST OF TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY
Mr. Robinson: 1.	What is the total length of the Trans-Canada Highway in each of the provinces?
2.	What is the total cost of construction of the Trans-Canada Highway to date?
3.	What is the proposed expenditure to complete the highway to required width, with asphalt and/or hard surface topping?
4 Does the federal government intend to construct any additional links to the Trans-Canada Highway and, if so, where will each be constructed and what is the estimated cost of each link?
amount will be contributed to the provinces for work to December 31, 1970, the construction termination date under the legislation.
4.	No.


CANSO, N.S., POST OFFICE
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to construct a post office at Canso, Nova Scotia during the present fiscal year?
2.	If not, for what reason?
3.	If so, when will tenders be called?


Arthur Laing: 1. The Post Office will be accommodated in the federal building to be constructed at Canso this fiscal year.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	It is anticipated tenders will be called this fall.


CHATEAU LAURIER-CENTENNIAL CENTRE TUNNEL
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 2,549-Mr. Harding:
Arthur Laing: 1.
Province	Mileage
Newfoundland	5651
Prince Edward Island	71
Nova Scotia	278
New Brunswick	376
Quebec	388
Ontario	1,453
Manitoba	310
Saskatchewan	406
Alberta	3332
British Columbia	6163
Total	4,796
Notes: 1 includes 25 miles through Terra Nova National Park. 2 includes 51 miles through Banff National Park, "includes 64 miles through Yoho, Glacier, and Revelstoke National Parks.
2.	As of March 31, 1969, the total value of work approved is $1,192 million of which Canada's share is estimated at $802.9 million. Canada's contributions to the provinces at this date were $756.3 million.
3.	The Trans-Canada Highway legislation sets a ceiling of $825 million as Canada's contribution to the provinces. It is estimated this

What was the cost of opening up the tunnel between the Chateau Laurier Hotel and the Ottawa Centennial Centre for the Federal-Provincial Conference?


Arthur Laing: Cleaning, washing of walls, ceiling and floor, $290; Removal and replacement of temporary partitions, $7; Total Cost, $297.


COST OF LIVING INDEX
Mr. Diefenbaker: On the basis of a cost-of-living Index of 100 in May 1949, what would the index number be in the same month in each of the years 1962, 1967, 1968 and 1969?


Yves Forest: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports that:
The movement of the Consumer Price Index since May 1949, with the indexes on a base of May 1949 = 100, would be as follows:
Index Percentage change Month (May 1949=100) since May 1949
May 1962 131.1 31.1 May 1967 149.2 49.2 May 1968 155.3 55.3 May 1969 162.6 62.6
June 25, 1969


ILLNESS-ANIMAL RESEARCH DIVISION
Mr. Rynard: 1.	How many people working in the Animal Research Division of the Department of Agriculture were ill during the years 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969 and what was the total number of days taken off work to date?
2.	Were any of the diseases related to the employee's work with the animals?
3.	How many animals were involved in research and how many animals died in the years 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969 to date?


Mr. Florian Cote (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture):: 1. Related to Animal Diseases Research Institute:
Fiscal Year	People 111	Days taken off1966-67	121	1,5291967-68	126	1,6611968-69	143	1,3951969-70	82	340
The above days taken oil were associated with injuries, sickness and leave without pay because of sickness.
2.	Yes. In 1967-68 two people contracted illness related to their work with animals.
3.	In each of the past four years, approximately 11,500 animals were involved in research at the Animal Diseases Research Institute. All animals used in research projects are either sacrificed at the termination of the research project or used in other work at the Institute.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Skoberg: 1.	What outside consultant studies have been undertaken or are presently in progress sponsored by the Department of Industry for the fiscal years 1963-64, 1964-65, 1965-66, 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1968-69?
2.	What was the cost for each outside consultant study prepared for the department and was the contract awarded by competitive tendering and, if not, for what reason?
Return tabled.


INDUSTRIES SUBSIDIZED BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Mr. Robinson: 1. What industries are subsidized by the federal government?
Orders for Returns
2. What was the total amount of subsidy paid to each industry, by province, in each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?
Return tabled.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order in respect of question No. 1323. There have been discussions with the hon. member for Moose Jaw and I understand that he is agreeable to that order on the basis that the Department of Transport will not be included in the question, and that the question will be answered otherwise by a return to be tabled. If that is agreeable we can make that order on that condition.


CONSULTANT STUDIES-GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS
Mr. Skoberg: 1.	For the fiscal years 1963-64, 1964-65, 1965-66, 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1968-69, what outside consultant studies have been undertaken or are presently in progress sponsored by the following Departments and Agencies (a) Agriculture (b) Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation (c) Consumer and Corporate Affairs (d) Defence Production (e) Energy, Mines and Resources (f) External Affairs (g) Fisheries (h) Forestry and Rural Development (i) Indian Affairs and Northern Development (j) Justice (k) Labour (1) Manpower and Immigration (m) National Defence (n) National Health and Welfare (o) National Revenue (p) Post Office (q) Prime Minister's Office (r) Privy Council Office (s) Secretary of State (t) Solicitor General (u) Trade and Commerce (v) Transport (w) Treasury Board (x) Veterans Affairs?
2.	What was the cost for each outside consultant study prepared for each department and agency and were the contracts from each department or agency awarded by competitive tendering and, if not, for what reason?
Return tabled.


GRAIN-SHIPMENTS FROM PORT OF VANCOUVER
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	What were the total demurrage costs in relation to shipment of various grades of Canadian wheat to overseas buyers from the Port of Vancouver in (a) January and February 1967	(b)
January and February 1968 (c) January and February 1969?
2.	What was the total amount of wheat of various grades shipped from the Port of Vancouver in (a) January and February 1967 (b) January and February 1968 (c) January and February 1969?
3.	What were the amounts of barley, oats, flour and oilseeds shipped from the same Port for the same periods as above?

June 25. 1969
Orders for Returns
4.	What were the totals for box-car deliveries of wheat to the Port of Vancouver for the months of January and February respectively in the years 1967, 1968 and 1969?
5.	How many bushels of damp grain were dried at terminal facilities situated at the Port of Vancouver during January and February 1969?
Return tabled.


FERRY SERVICES
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many ships does the federal government have in ferry service in each of the provinces and territories of Canada and where is each ship located?
2.	What is the age, speed and tonnage of each ship?
3.	How many passengers have used each ship during the years 1960-68 inclusive?
4.	What is the profit or loss on the operation of each ship since it was incorporated into the ferry service?
5.	What is the total loss and/or subsidy paid by the federal government towards ferry service in each of the operations where ferry service is provided for each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?
Return tabled.


MUTUAL DEFENCE ARRANGEMENTS
Mr. Forreslall: 1. With which countries does Canada have mutual defence arrangements?
2 How many separate defence arrangements are presently in force and what is the nature and duration of each?
Return tabled.


HIGHER EDUCATION-FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys): 1.	What was the federal contribution to each Canadian university and educational institution in 1968 and what was the total federal contribution to higher education, by province, in 1968?
2.	What was the federal contribution to higher education per capita, in each province, in 1968?
3.	What was the federal contribution per capita in each institution of higher learning, in 1968?
Return tabled.


VIET NAM-DIPLOMATIC RECOGNITION
Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): 1 Does Canada give diplomatic recognition to any government in Viet Nam and, if so, which ones? 
2.	Are communications or other forms of contact maintained with any government in Viet Nam and, if so, indicate which ones and on what basis?
3.	Which governments in Viet Nam does Canada not give diplomatic recognition to and for what reason?
4.	Through which governments in Viet Nam has Canada directed its external aid and for what reasons?
5.	What percentage of the civilian population of Viet Nam is estimated to have been served by Canada's External Aid Programme?
Return tabled.


INFORMATION SERVICE-SOLICITOR GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of the Solicitor General provide an information service and, if so, what is the cost for each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?
2.	How many publications and/or periodicals and/or information sheets and/or public releases were provided by the Department for each of the years 1960-68 inclusive, and what was the cost for each publication for each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?
3.	How many copies of each publication are provided and to whom are they distributed and how is the distribution effected?
Return tabled.


REVENUE FROM NATIONAL MUSEUMS, NATIONAL PARKS, ETC.
Mr. Robinson: What amount of revenue does the federal government receive from (a) national museums (b) concessions in national museums (c) national parks (d) concessions in national parks (e) historic sites (f) concessions in historic sites (g) concessions in airports (h) concessions in railway stations (i) concessions in federal public buildings (j) tolls on bridges (k) toHs on roads (1) tolls on waterways, except the St. Lawrence Seaway?
Return tabled.


HOMES FOR AGED-LOANS APPROVED BY C.M.H.C.
Mr. Rodrigue: 1.	What was the amount of the loans approved by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the construction of homes for the aged during the years 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968 (a) in the Province of Quebec (b) in the constituency of Beauce?
2.	What were the amounts of such loans approved for (a) L'Accueil de St-Georges Inc., East, in the Beauce County (b) Le Foyer St-Georges, West, Beauce County (c) Le Foyer St-Gedeon, Beauce County (d) Le Foyer St. Joseph, Beauce County?
Return tabled.
June 25. 1969



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions Nos. 192, 213, 215 and 216 are acceptable to the government.



OCCUPATIONAL TRAINING PILOT PROJECT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 192-Mr. Broadbent:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the pilot project on the Occupational Training for Adults Program showing the results of 2,700 ex-trainees under the Program, as stated by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration in his address to the Canadian Vocational Association on May 23, 1969.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 213-Mr. Barneit:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence received by the government, other than from the Government of British Columbia, on the subject-matter of federal government sharing of the construction costs of a highway between Nanaimo and/or Kelsey Bay and Northern Vancouver Island, and of replies thereto, since May 31, 1968.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 215-Mr. Thomson:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence between the Government of Canada and Gulf Oil Canada Limited regarding offshore oil development near St. Pierre-Miquelon Islands.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 216-Mr. Thomson:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence between the Government of Canada and Mobil Oil Canada Limited regarding offshore oil development near St. Pierre-Miquelon Islands.
Motion agreed to.
Motions for Papers
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions Nos. 190, 191 and 212 are acceptable to the government, subject to the usual reservations concerning privileged papers and authorization of the government authorities concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations or conditions expressed by the parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the house that notices of motions numbered 190, 191 and 212 be deemed to have been adopted.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CANADIAN VICKERS LIMITED CORRESPONDENCE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 190-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence between the Government of Canada and Canadian Vickers Limited regarding the closing of its shipbuilding division in Montreal.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 191-Mr. MacDonald (Egmonl):
That an Humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence between the Government of Canada and the Government of Prince Edward Island with respect to amendments to the National Housing Act since July 1, 1968.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 212-Mr. Barnett:
That an Humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence between the federal government and the Government of British Columbia subsequent to June 3, 1964 on the subject-matter of "a Trans-Canada Highway connection from Nanaimo to Port Hardy" referred to in the letter dated May 26, 1964, from the Premier of British Columbia to the Prime Minister, tabled in the House July 29, 1964.
Motion agreed to.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions Nos. 119, 138, 177, 180, 181, 185, 186, 202, 205 and 208?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.
Motions for Papers

June 25, 1968

CONSULTANT STUDIES ON SCIENCE POLICY Motion No. 119-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the five consultant studies referred to by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, in their submission to the Senate Special Committee on Science Policy, April 30, 1969, Appendix "K", Page 50, of that Department's submission.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps this notice of motion could stand. I believe the document is not quite complete.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion stands.



CANADA-U.S. CORRESPONDENCE ON SHUSWAP DIVERSION

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 138-Mr. Rose:
That an Humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all information, studies, correspondence and other documents exchanged between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America, related to the proposed Shuswap River diversion project, dated since January 1, 1969.
Mr. R. J. Orange (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, with reference to motion No. 138 for the production of papers dated since January 1, 1969, exchanged between the government of Canada and the government of the United States in relation to a study of the possibilities of diversion of water from the Shuswap River, I wish to advise that there has been no exchange of papers of the nature referred to by the hon. member, either through the Department of External Affairs or through the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. Under the circumstances I would ask that the hon. member withdraw his motion.


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley Wesi):: Agreed, Mr. Speaker.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
CANADA CORPORATIONS ACT REPORTS Motion No. 177-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a list of all existing companies that were, on April 18, 1969, in default of filing their annual report under the provisions of the Canada Corporation Act, due [Mr. Porest.l
on June 1, 1968, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,918, reported in Hansard of April 28, 1969, page 8039.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I
believe the hon. member is agreeable that the list to be produced under this motion be a list of companies which were one year in default and did not file a report by May 31, 1969, rather than April 18, 1969. If this amendment to the motion is acceptable to the hon. member, I am prepared to have the list produced forthwith.


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Agreed, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations or conditions expressed by the Minister, is it the pleasure of the house that notice of motion numbered 177 be deemed to have been adopted?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 180-Mr. Benjamin:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the report on amendments to the Canada Corporations Act by a Task Force under the direction of Professor Robert Dickerson of the University of British Columbia.
Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the material called for by this motion is of a confidential nature, never intended for other than internal use by my department in the preparation of amendments to the Canada Corporations Act. In view of this I would ask the hon. member to agree to withdraw the motion.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Agreed, Mr. Speaker.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



MERGER REGISTER

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 181-Mr. Benjamin:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the merger register of all corporate mergers in Canadian industry that have been undertaken by the Combines Investigation Branch of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the material asked for in this motion consists of a very large number of documents which fill an
June 25, 1969

entire filing cabinet. The cost of reproducing these documents would be very substantial. I believe the hon. member has been informed that he is free to examine at his leisure the documents in my department. On that condition I would ask him to withdraw the motion.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Agreed, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: The hon. member could spend his summer holidays over there.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
CHEMICAL INDUSTRY STUDIES Motion No. 185-Mr. Gilbert:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all reports and studies related to the chemical industry as reported in the Annual Report of the Department of Industry, April 1, 1967-March 31, 1968, on page 51.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is not able to accept this motion as the work referred to by the hon. member for Broadview is:
(a)	based largely on confidential information supplied by industrial chemical firms, and
(b)	is now only partially complete.
There is an agreement by the department and the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association not to release this comprehensive study. The minister hopes the hon. member will withdraw his motion.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Transferred for debate, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate under Standing Order 48.
CANADIAN APPLIANCE INDUSTRY STUDY Motin No. 186-Mr. Gilbert:
That an Order of the House do Issue for a copy of the study by the University of Toronto School of Business Studies on the Canadian appliance industry as reported in the Annual Report of the Department of Industry, April 1, 1967-March 31, 1968, on page 51.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce wishes to inform the hon. member for Broadview that the study referred to in this motion has not been completed as yet.
Motions for Papers
There is an agreement between the University of Toronto and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce that a report, not including commercial confidential material, will be published within one year of the completion of data collection and analysis. It is expected that data collection and analysis will be concluded some time in 1970. In view of this, the minister hopes the hon. member will withdraw his motion.


John Gilbert: Agreed, Mr. Speaker.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



TRADE PROMOTION STUDY BY MR. P. SCHUTTE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 202-Mr. Broadbent:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study on the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce trade promotion policies showing a 12:1 cost-sales ratio as stated by Mr. P. Schutte, Chief of the Trade Fairs Abroad Division of the Department.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce that this study contains confidential information provided to the department by Canadian firms on the understanding that such information was not to be released. In view of this, the minister hopes the hon. member will withdraw his motion.


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Transferred for debate, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate, pursuant to Standing Order 48.



ENERGY BOARD STUDY OF REFINERY CAPACITY

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 205-Mr. Saltsman:
That an Order of the House do Issue for a copy of the National Energy Board studies assessing refinery capacity and market demand for refined petroleum products in Regions I, II and ni, referred to by the Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources before the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Public Works on May 8, 1969, page 361 of the Proceedings.
Robert John (Bud) Orange: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the National Energy Board that the Studies regarding regions I and II have not yet been completed. The study concerning region III is a classified

June 25, 1969
Motions for Papers
document since it contains confidential information supplied to the board by individual refineries. However, the board has prepared "A Summary of National Energy Board Survey of Ontario Refinery Capacity" which is unclassified. If the hon. member would consent to withdraw his motion, I would be prepared to table this document now.


Mr. Max Sallsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the request that I withdraw I and II because those studies have not yet been completed. But I ask that III be transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate, pursuant to Standing Order 48.



STUDIES ON PROGRAM TO ENHANCE PRODUCTIVITY

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 208-Mr. Saltsman:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the preliminary cost-benefit study on the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce's new program to enhance productivity (PEP) as stated in reply to Question No. 1,955 as reported in Hansard of June 4, 1969.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce wishes to inform the hon. member that this study will not be tabled. This was also stated in written question No. 1,955, tabled on June 4. The reason is that it would not be in the public interest to table an analysis of a program still under development. The minister hopes the member will withdraw his motion.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, the reason is not acceptable. I ask that the motion be transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate, pursuant to Standing Order 48.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, since it has not been possible for almost two months to deal with my notice of motion for the production of papers No. 140, is the government prepared to take action on it next Wednesday?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would hope so, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The remaining notices of motion shall stand.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the statement made this week by the United States Secretary of the Interior to the effect that the United States can absorb
500,000	barrels a day more crude oil than is at present permitted to be shipped from Canada to that country, has the delegation of ministers who are at present conferring with their counterparts in Washington been urged to strongly press that case for very substantial and immediate increases in shipments of Canadian crude oil to the United States until the level of 800,000 barrels a day has been reached?


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I am sure the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings never had so much applause for a question.
I will merely say that the ministers who are in Washington are very much aware of the situation and that they are discussing with their United States counterparts the best possible oil policy for Canadians.


George Harris Hees: I sincerely hope they do better than those who negotiated the somewhat disastrous secret treaty in 1967.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: My supplementary question is as follows, Mr. Speaker. Has the delegation of Canadian ministers been instructed to advise the United States representatives at these meetings of the Canadian position with regard to Canadian troop withdrawals from NATO?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understand the hon. member for Calgary North has a supplementary question. Perhaps we ought to stay with the same subject for the time being. This is why the Chair is now recognizing the hon. member for Calgary North.


George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary question.
I know the hon. member for Calgary North has an excellent supplementary question-
June 25, 1969


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary-North.



INQUIRY AS TO CANADA-U.S. SECRET AGREEMENT ON EXPORTS OF CRUDE

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My supplementary is directed to the Prime Minister. Last week I asked whether there was a secret agreement in existence between the United States and Canada with reference to the export of crude petroleum. Is there such a secret agreement in existence at this time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As the hon. member has told us, he asked this question previously. There has been no development since he did so.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I put the question in a different way? With the greatest respect to the Prime Minister, the only answer I got last week from the right hon. gentleman was silence. I am putting it to him again: Is there in fact a secret agreement in existence like the one signed in 1967 between Canada and the United States?


Some hon. Members:: Answer.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is typical of the attitude the Prime Minister adopts in the house toward the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: His arrogance today is showing right through into the industry.


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


George Harris Hees: May I ask my supplementary now, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: The question the hon. member indicated he wished to ask a few moments ago was not a supplementary. I recognize the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. I will return shortly to the hon, member for Prince Edward-Hastings.


George Harris Hees: A question supplementary to the one posed by the hon. member for Calgary North. Did the Prime Minister refuse to answer that question because he is sulking, or because he is ashamed of the answer, which is that there is another secret agreement in existence,, and he knows it?


An hon. Member:: Foolish.
Inquiries of the Ministry



UNITED NATIONS


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Namaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister? In view of the fact that Rhodesia has now severed its final connection with the United Kingdom, what changes does the Canadian government intend to make with regard to both its diplomatic and trading relations with that country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We shall continue the policy we have followed in the past, that of supporting the Security Council and its boycott of Rhodesia.


George Harris Hees: Now, Mr. Speaker, may I-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask whether economic sanctions are still being applied, and whether the Canadian government intends to step up economic sanctions by including a restriction of telegraphic and postal communications, or any other intensification of economic pressure against Rhodesia?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We shall comply with the sanctions which are decided upon by the Security Council.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Would the government be prepared to participate in military sanctions against Rhodesia?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I know of no such proposition having been made by the United Nations and it would not be our intention to act unilaterally in this regard.



AIR CANADA


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport.
Is the minister aware of the fact that Air Canada is at the present time supplying at the Montreal International airport an almost exclusively unilingual English service, to passengers or would-be passengers, and does he intend to have the matter looked into?

Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of
Transport): I will be glad to look into the matter.
June 25, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: My question arises out of a statement made by the Minister of Indian Affairs. It was complete and comprehensive and I am sure it will be appreciated by members of the house and by the country as well. However, there is one matter I should like to draw to his attention, namely, the extremely strong opposition which many Indians have to the idea that jurisdiction over them, or the responsibility for providing services to them, be turned over to the provinces. This feeling seems widespread.
In view of their strong disapproval to being subject to nine different concepts across Canada, in addition to the federal authority, would the minister consider making available to each of the Indian tribes across Canada a plebiscite on whether or not they desire to be under provincial jurisdiction in their particular provinces?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I said today that I intended to consult the Indians and the provinces with regard to this policy, and I shall do so. When I said that the provinces would extend their services to Indians, I did so because the Indians are citizens of a province, in the same way as they are citizens of Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: I am asking whether or not the objection of Indians to being under provincial jurisdiction in any way will be respected? I think that by and large what he has produced will bring about a distinct improvement in Indian affairs, and I pass on the suggestion I have just made by way of a question in order to be helpful.
Since he has opened up this subject, I ask him now whether or not the government has decided to place before parliament any amendments to the law, any changes in the legislation so that Indian treaties which were made prior to 1867 will become part of the law of the land, rather than unrespected arrangements sacredly entered into between the Crown and the Indian tribes?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I said in the statement I made earlier that the government intends to respect the treaties which the Crown has signed with the Indians in the past.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour.
The employees of the Iron Ore Company on the north shore and in the province of Newfoundland have been on strike for a long time and they have asked the federal Minister of Labour to act as mediator, subject to the agreement of the governments of Quebec and Newfoundland. We were informed last week that the government of Quebec was agreeable to an intervention by the federal Minister of Labour. Could the minister tell us whether he has approached the government of Newfoundland in order to obtain authorization to intervene in the dispute?


Hon. Bryce S. Mackasey (Minisier of Labour):: As I mentioned Monday, Mr. Speaker, the suggestion was made that the federal government and the provinces of Newfoundland and Quebec try to solve on a joint basis the problem the Iron Ore Company is having with its employees in northern Quebec. The province of Quebec has expressed willingness; the province of Newfoundland has asked for a little more time to go into the arrangements. But progress has been made. Yesterday I received the first conciliation board report from the board set up to deal with the maintenance of way employees in federal jurisdiction, which I promptly sent back because I thought the report was not as complete as it should be.



WATER RESOURCES


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and arises from the reports of serious pollution of the Rhine River and the implications this has for Canada in relation to international and interprovincial waters. Is the government taking any special action to prevent a similar accident occurring in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in so far as this matter could concern Canada, the action that we propose to take will be demonstrated in the Canada water act.
June 25, 1969


Gordon Harvey Aiken: A supplementary question
which arises from the Prime Minister's appearance on television last night. Can we assume from his comments on television that in relation to pollution we are starting to get through to him on the need for pollution control?


Max Saltsman: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but since I do not see him in the house perhaps the Prime Minister would look into the matter. May I ask the Prime Minister to find out, when he is looking into the other matter, whether the Department of Health and Welfare is in touch with health departments in Europe regarding studies on the insecticide endosulvan, to see whether it is being used in Canada and what its effects might be on our waterways?



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport.
Would he advise the house whether he intends to take steps in the near future in order to improve the retirement plan of the C.N.R.'s non-operating employees?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter for the Canadian National Railways in negotiation with its employees. I do not see that there is a role for me in this particular matter.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. What action is being taken with regard to retired employees of the national railways which were incorporated into the C.N.R.? I think the government has a subsidiary responsibility here.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will refer to the late show of about four nights ago, he will see that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and I had quite an exchange on the matter. I will spare the house the prospect of my reading it all over again.
Inquiries of the Ministry



UNITED NATIONS


Mr. Walter Deakon (High Park):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct this question to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the new wave of persecutions perpetrated by the government of the U.S.S.R. against Ukrainians, Czechoslovakians and other minority groups behind the iron curtain, and because the Soviet Union is one of the signatories to the United Nations declaration of human rights, would the government consider requesting that this subject matter be placed in the agenda of the United Nations?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, this is a longstanding and difficult problem to which continuous attention has been given, but in the light of the representations made by the hon. member we will look into it again.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION

[Stage Direction]
POSSIBILITY OF FREEZE ON EXPENDITURES Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether it is government policy to put a freeze on the budget of the C.B.C. for the next five years?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In the temporary absence of the chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, would the minister use his good offices to make arrangements to have the committee meet as soon as possible, since a number of undertakings were made with which the committee should deal, as well as a number of reports, and we may be getting close to the end of the session?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I assume that committee decisions as to meeting times are pretty much a matter for the committee itself, but any help that I can give I shall be more than pleased to give.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A supplementary question. Perhaps the minister misunderstood the first

June 25, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry part of my question. In the unfortunate temporary absence of the chairman of the committee, who is the only one who can call the committee, would the minister make appropriate arrangements?



AIR TRANSPORT


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport whether he now has an answer ready to the question 1 asked him last Friday, dealing with the hours that airline pilots are permitted to travel per month?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no; but I hope to have the answer for the hon. member in a day or so. We are making a complete investigation.



PUBLIC SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
SUPERANNUATED FEDERAL EMPLOYEES_______

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the national assembly of Quebec has passed through all stages its bill 45, which increases the pensions of all retired civil servants of Quebec who retired up to the beginning of this year and provides for the automatic escalation of pensions of retired civil servants from now on, will the government of Canada study this bill in the hope that Canada may at least do as well for its retired civil servants?


Mr. Speaker:: L'honorable depute de
Lafontaine.


Stanley Howard Knowles: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the Prime Minister did not get to his feet to answer my question, I wonder whether the Prime Minister and the President of the Treasury Board will accept with my compliments copies of Quebec's bill 45 so they may study it? I shall send copies over to them.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION

[Stage Direction]
COMMENTS OF FRENCH BROADCASTERS RESPECTING ST. JEAN BAPTISTE PARADE [Translation]
Mr.   Georges-C. Lachance@Lafontaine: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State.

Does he intend to inquire into or to refer to the Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts the matter of the responsibility given to Messrs. Pierre Perreault and Bernard Gosselin, with regard to the St. Jean Baptiste Day celebrations in Montreal? I suggest their comments made on the public network were a proof of incompetence and impudence, besides being foolish and insignificant.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



EDMONTON, ALTA-POSSIBLE DELAY IN INTRODUCING FRENCH LANGUAGE STATION

Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. In view of the government's freeze with respect to the C.B.C. budget over the next five years, will the minister say whether it is the government's expectation that the proposed French language television station in Edmonton will be postponed?


Hon. Gerard Pellelier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, there is no-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not know whether this is a matter of urgency. If it is of urgency it can be debated at the time of adjournment.



WHEAT-INQUIRY AS TO ACCEPTANCE BY CANADA OF LOWER INTERNATIONAL PRICE-GUARANTEED FLOOR

Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr
Speaker, in view of the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture, may I direct my question to the Prime Minister. In light of the discussions now being carried on with other wheat producing countries of the world in regard to the international price of wheat is the report that Canada's representatives have been authorized to accept a lowering of the current agreed price correct?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. According to the rules the hon. member cannot ask a minister to confirm or deny a report.


Robert Norman Thompson: May I reword my question, Mr. Speaker?
June 25. 1869


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member might ask a related question or another question.


Robert Norman Thompson: Is Canada prepared to accept a lowering of the international price of wheat at the conference now being held?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, both these departments are answering questions in the house on a day other than today.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister related to the question asked by the hon. member for Red Deer. In view of reports that a cut in world wheat prices is being considered by the International Wheat Council, can the Prime Minister inform the house if the cabinet is giving or will give serious consideration to establishing a guaranteed floor price to the farmer of $1.95i cents a bushel, the present minimum under the International Grains Arrangement?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You had better sell that wheat.



NATIONAL HOLIDAYS


Mr. Andre Foriin (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
In view of the deplorable incidents that have taken place recently in Quebec, on the occasion of a certain political carnival and on St. Jean Baptiste Day, does the Prime Minister intend to suggest that special security measures be taken on Confederation Day?



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince
Albert): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the serious effect that lack of transportation facilities has on those who use our tourist facilities and on Canadians as a whole, will he communicate with Canadian National Railways to ascertain whether it is now its policy to keep at minimum levels available transportation facilities? Do they intend to reduce the necessity of passenger service across Canada? At the same time, when asking that question
[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry will he use his influence to ensure that extra trains and railway cars are provided during the summer on transcontinental routes?
Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to discuss the first part of the right hon. gentleman's question with the railway. As for the provision of additional facilities for those who may wish to go west, we will be glad to do that as rapidly as possible, particularly for members of the opposition.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I was talking about transcontinental trains that go all the way across Canada. Although I was not thinking about the members of the opposition and thinking only of visitors who come to Canada, needless to say I appreciate the minister's solicitude for the opposition.



HARBOURS


Mr. Hyl Chappell (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the urgency of this matter to the port authority of the city of Toronto and in view of its key importance to the plan for development of the whole Toronto waterfront, will the minister now agree to co-operate and participate in the construction of the port, in conjunction with the development of the new harbour there?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the hon. member's question is of very wide import. If there is special urgency about the details of the question the matter might be considered at the time of adjournment.


Hyliard G. Chappell: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker. PUBLIC WORKS



OTTAWA, ONT.-PARTICIPATION IN DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT

Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Will the government participate in the multi million dollar development scheduled for downtown Ottawa despite so-called cut-backs and attempts to freeze private construction in other cities?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question is of a similar nature to that asked by the hon. member for Peel South. It is a matter of very wide import and that type of question ought to be placed on the order paper or discussed at the time of adjournment.

June 25. 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
development committee
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence arising from his statement on Monday that a number of bases may be closed in Canada. In view of the implications the minister's statement raised for areas suffering from economic difficulties, will he refrain from taking action on such possible closures until there has been full and sufficient consultation with the Standing Committee on Regional Development?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, in my statement I think I made the commitment that no such decision will be taken until we have consulted the appropriate departments of government primarily concerned with regional development and manpower. We will do that.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could I direct the minister's attention to that part of my original question having to do with the Standing Committee on Regional Development? Will he study the effect such closures might have on economically depressed areas of the country?


Jack Marshall: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister of National Defence assure the house, in view of his recent statement respecting the closing of certain military bases, that the government's consideration of the brief from the Newfoundland Canadian Legion supporting the establishment of a Canadian Forces base in Newfoundland will not be affected?



HEALTH AND WELFARE


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare and his parliamentary secretary, may I direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the importance of the decision of the government of Ontario to enter the national medicare plan, can the Prime Minister indicate to the house whether there was a change in government policy regarding the participation of insurance companies as carriers in the medicare plan in Ontario?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question ought to be placed on the order paper.



HOUSING


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister in charge of housing and arises from the action taken by Ontario with relation to second mortgages. Will the minister examine this program to see whether such a combined mortgage program can be extended to other provinces which have fewer resources than Ontario?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, we welcome the announcement made yesterday by the minister of the Ontario government. I understand it was made after a considerable degree of recommendation by the Leader of the Opposition in that province. However, we will be glad to take a look at the implications of the announcement and see what can be done by other provinces. That will depend on the degree to which we are involved.



PUBLIC WORKS


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the minister's statement that his department is reviewing its programs and projects for the current fiscal year, will he inform the house whether this review is now completed? If not, when will it be completed? If it has been completed, can he indicate in general terms the results of the review in regard to the programs and expenditures of his department?
Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, we have a pretty good idea what we are going to spend this coming year and in the two or three following years.
A question has already been asked in the house about the propriety of government spending at this time, when we are asking other people to hold back on their expenditures. My reply is that we are undertaking expenditures only in those areas where we think it is good business to do so. Instead of paying out in the city of Ottawa, as we are doing at the present time, $18 million a year in rent we would much rather provide our own accommodation.


John Stratford Burton: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
June 25, 1969	COMMONS


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member for Edmonton Centre might be allowed to ask a supplementary question. I had the impression that in his reply the minister to some extent was replying to an earlier question asked by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre. Perhaps he might be allowed to ask a supplementary, even though I said that his question ought to be placed on the order paper or asked at the time of adjournment.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, by way of a supplementary question, if the minister has any more chewing gum, will he please pass it up this way?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must remind hon. members that we are running out of time. Many hon. members are still anxious to ask questions. Perhaps we should not have too many supplementaries.



NATIONAL CAPITAL


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Following publication of a document requested by the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, pointing out that the Ottawa municipal administration has considered language and culture issues from an essentially provincial standpoint, would the Prime Minister tell the house whether or not he intends to have talks with municipal officers in order to change the federal capital's tarnished image?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we have already entered into discussions with Quebec and Ontario provincial authorities and we reached an agreement to the effect that the whole capital area should truly mirror Canada's distinctive features, but needless to say we must proceed through provincial governments since municipalities come essentially under their jurisdiction.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Andre Ouellei (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. Will he at last agree that a clean-up is required at all levels of the C.B.C., and tell
Inquiries of the Ministry us that he is prepared to do his utmost so that the C.B.C. will no longer be used as a medium for separatist propaganda?



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Peace River. Will the request of the C.B.C. for an additional $43 million to build facilities necessary to enable it to use Telesat Canada be subject to review, or is the government firmly committed to provide these funds?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I stated a moment ago, in answer to another question, that the policy concerning the C.B.C. and its budget for the next five years is not yet drawn up, in spite of rumours which may have appeared in the press in that connection.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands asked me about notice given to employees being laid off by Canadair Limited, particularly because some of this company's work is under contract with the government.
The government is, of course, concerned about the fair treatment of all employees who work in plants with which the government has contracts. Our contract with Canadair requires that the company "shall comply with all labour conditions and with all health conditions and requirements applicable to the work". However, specific and detailed matters such as length of notice, or pay in lieu of notice, are matters of negotiation and agreement between the company and the local unit of the union and do not form part of the government's contract with the company.
I have been advised by Canadair Limited that all employees who were laid off received
June 25, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry notice, or pay in lieu ol notice, as provided in the agreement between the company and the local unit of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister, first, how much notice they received and, second, if he will discuss with his colleague the Minister of Labour whether it would be advisable to have inserted in all government contracts a provision that in any government contract the employer must at least comply with the minimum standards set out in the Canada Labour Code?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the minimum notice was three days. Notice was longer than that for salaried employees who had longer service. The length of notice varied with the length of service. I have already discussed this matter with my colleague the Minister of Labour.



TRANSPORT


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister say whether the new railway costing formula report will be ready for distribution before the recess?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, I cannot say, Mr. Speaker.



FISHERIES


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the Minister of Fisheries is not here I will direct my question to his parliamentary secretary. On June 18 I asked the Minister of Fisheries a question relating to the dragger operation in northwestern Newfoundland which is interfering with the operations of the Newfoundland fishermen. The minister stated he had asked for a report. Has the parliamentary secretary a report to disclose to the house?


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Parliamentary Secreiary io Minister of Fisheries):: I do not have the report, Mr. Speaker. I know there is to be one, but I do not have it here today.
[Mr. Richardson.!



EXTERNAL AID


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would normally direct this question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but as he is not available and because of the importance of the question I will direct it to the Prime Minister. Earlier this year the government indicated that if Biafra were prepared to accept daylight flights this would substantially alter the government's position with regard to its willingness to participate in an air relief effort. Now that the authorities have indicated they are prepared to use the Uli airstrip for daylight purposes, will the Prime Minister advise what action the government is prepared to take? Has the Prime Minister or the government been in contact with the Nigerian authorities to see whether they will give clearance to the operation of a daylight relief effort?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I obtained a copy of the statement of the Biafran leader, Colonel Ojukwu. It is not very clear that the rebels are prepared to have daylight flights. As I read this statement, there are five conditions attached to it. I may remind the house that General Gowon offered to allow daylight flights on the sole condition that they not be used to bring in arms. This offer was made eight or nine months ago following negotiations by the Canadian government with General Gowon.
The statement made eight months later by Colonel Ojukwu contains the following conditions: (1) Should it become absolutely necessary; (2) while work on the exclusively relief airport is in progress; (3) the government is willing to consider the use of the Uli airport for combined day and night relief operations; (4) for a limited period; (5) subject to effective international or other third party guarantees.
This, Mr. Speaker, is in response to the Nigerian offer which has been outstanding for eight months and which is subject to only a single condition. It is not very encouraging. Our Canadian representatives in Lagos have repeatedly stated we want this daylight flight arrangement to be made. We still hope there will be a clear arrangement between the two governments that will permit it.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the uncertainty that even the Prime Minister has expressed with regard to the conditions to be imposed
June 25. 1969	COMMONS
both by Biafra and Nigeria and the importance of a neutral third party to supervise such distribution, is the government taking steps now, perhaps in concert with the United Nations relief effort, to see whether third party mediation and assistance might be provided?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As the hon. member knows, Mr. Speaker, there have been several volunteer offers from third parties-African states and United States officials-to arrange for relief operations to that part of Nigeria called Biafra. There is nothing the Canadian government can announce to the house at this time regarding its further actions.



FINANCE, TRADE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS INTEREST RATES-APPEARANCE OF MINISTER BEFORE STANDING COMMITTEE

John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Now that the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs is going to study high interest rates in Canada, will the minister appear before the committee and give his views with regard to high interest rates charged by banks, the impropriety of their advertising techniques and also-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is referring to the course of proceedings in a committee. To that extent the question is not in order.



TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. Ambrose Huberi Peddle (Grand Falls-While Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. On what day this week will the standing committee visit Labrador in line with the committee's commitment of many months standing to do so?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member he is also dealing with internal matters of a committee. I doubt very much whether that question can be asked of the minister at this time.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, a point of order or a point of something: This is a very serious matter. In the
Alleged Failure to Cope With Urban Growth absence of the chairman of the committee I ask that the minister answer, if possible.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated that so far as I am concerned, and the extent of my responsibility in the matter, the committee can go to-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr, Jamieson:: -Labrador any time they wish. If it is appropriate at this time-I do not know at just what point in the proceedings it would be or if agreement of the house is required-I certainly have no objection.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


John Edward Broadbent: Presuming on your tolerance, Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the Ontario government's decision, the importance of medicare and the fact that the Prime Minister was looking for an answer in his files, would he care to answer my question on medicare?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I was not actually looking for an answer in my files. I was looking to see which day a representative of the department answers in the house, and I find that today is one such day.
I am afraid I do not have the answer to the question, Mr. Speaker.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West) moved:: That for the purpose of dealing particularly with the failure of the Prime Minister and the government to provide leadership in relation to the challenge of rapid urban growth as dealt with in the reports of the Economic Council of Canada and generally with the Privy Council estimates, consideration be given to the 1969-70 Privy Council estimates contained in the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates presented to the house on May 29, 1969.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to present my party's submissions
10612	COMMONS
Alleged Failure to Cope With Urban Growth regarding this motion. It is extremely unfortunate that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has seen fit to leave the chamber because I was going to wish him a happy birthday in terms of his first year in office, but as he is not here I will not do so. However, I think it is in order that we in the opposition congratulate hon. members on the other side, particularly new members who have completed their first year in parliament. As a new member myself I cannot say I am too happy with the progress that has been made. In any event, in my own charitable way I would like to wish this house a happy birthday.
In thinking of the date June 25 I recall that I was sent here as a representative of a portion of the great city of Hamilton, and I know that city sent me here to project the urban image, to be concerned about the need for leadership in regard to housing, pollution, the plight of old age pensioners and the problems of transportation. I must be concerned about the poor, and about how inflation and the high cost of living have drastically affected those on fixed incomes.
This past year has been very enlightening to me as a new member. I am very proud to have the opportunity to stand in this hallowed chamber in order to give some encouragement to the government and, as a matter of fact, some leadership. The government has failed to give leadership in the whole sphere of urban problems. In fact I suggest that during the past year the government became concerned about matters about which the Canadian people could not care less.


An hon. Member:: Damp wheat?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: 
Gerald William Baldwin: They have no compassion.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Did I hear someone use the word "compassion"? This government has no compassion; it is complacent and indifferent. Yet it is in the great cities that its members got their votes. They have talked about Trudeaumania but let me tell them that even if they have 151 seats we have three and a half more years to go and things are starting to look tough over there already.


An hon. Member:: Come on over, Line.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Don't worry, I will never go over there because the price is not right, nor do I need the formal friendship. On an informal basis we can always get together.
Where will Canada get the direction it needs? The answer to that question is that it will have to come from this side under the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), who has continually requested the government to accept responsibility regarding the priorities required by the people of Canada.
I was not here when the motion concerning air and water pollution was debated. The fact is that the government has also failed in this field. Since the house has received a full account of the policy sins of the government in that regard as recently as Monday last I will not go into that sorry tale in any depth today.
What I have been trying to do is to outline some areas of federal responsibility which have a real impact on the quality of urban living and in respect of which the federal government has blatantly refused to exercise its responsibility. This list could be extended, but of course other hon.. members want to take part in this debate and may mention more.
The federal government has become more involved in programs related to human resources. Manpower retraining, unemployment insurance and assistance to the needy are programs which are basically urban oriented. They are attempts to help people cope with and adapt to the real and crippling
29180-671 j
Alleged Failure to Cope With Urban Growth problems which face the disadvantaged in our cities.
My main point, and I want to re-emphasize this, is that the federal government is very deeply involved in the cities. The fate of millions of Canadians is in its hands. The government cannot refer its problems to the constitutional limbo, the constitutional strait-jacket, the constitutional smokescreen. It cannot cover up its failure to meet its responsibilities to provide effective leadership.
The chorus of demands is rising and becoming more blatant. In case the Prime Minister and his accomplices have just not got around to reading the report of the Task Force on Housing and Urban Development, perhaps I should read a few examples of the type of action requested by the little people of this country. For instance:
The federal government, in co-operation with a provincial government, should seriously consider the construction of a "new city" as a pilot project where proposed urban solutions should be tested in an actual environment.
I hope the minister heard that and is considering the construction of a new city as a pilot project where these proposed urban solutions could be tested in an actual environment.
The task force also recommended that the federal government "should give early priority to the creation of a central information bank to collect, organize and disseminate available data on the subject to other governments, agencies and Canadians generally."
This report has been gathering dust while Canadians suffer. Somehow we must prick the conscience of the ministers of the government and of the Prime Minister especially. It is so easy to miss and not to see the problems and the deterioration of our cities. We could learn from the experience of the United States. I just want to touch on two points.
As a result of neglect and unconcern, as a result of the attitude that things will get better on the part of governments to the south, we have witnessed an eruption in that country the like of which we have never seen before. This is because some people there did not learn a lesson. We have to be concerned and we have to learn from experiences that are continually brought to our eyes and ears as a result of the United States social revolution. Surely we cannot be this close and not learn the lesson. Surely we cannot be this close and not realize that somebody over there is trying to tell us something. Why will the Prime Minister not take real action to
10616	COMMONS
Alleged Failure to Cope With Urban Growth prevent the erosion of our cities, to prevent the type of development we are witnessing at the present time in the United States of America? What a confrontation that is. It is not only black versus white; the whole society is in an uproar.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
What is needed is a federal model of the ideal city. What is needed is a well thought-out conception of what Canadian urban life should be like during the 1970's and 1980's. Only when the federal government has developed a carefully articulated model of city life, of what the total environment of the majority of citizens might be, can the present contradictory and self-defeating bumblings of the various departments be replaced by a coordinated, planned federal effort in Canadian cities.
Only if such a conception is developed will the other levels of government know what the federal government is likely to do that affects them. Only then will they be able to develop over-all plans tied directly to federal transportation plans, for example. Only then will they be able to plan total city development without the constant fear that now exists of the whole applecart being upset by sudden and sporadic federal intervention. Only in this way will we be able to eliminate squabbles and hassles such as those surrounding the selection of the site for the new Montreal airport. Only in this way will residents of the golden horseshoe of Oshawa, Toronto, Burlington and Hamilton be able to obtain an effective, co-ordinated transportation system involving rapid surface transit, regional jetports, local urban city airports, and so on.
Let me emphasize once again, Mr. Speaker, that the people of our provinces and cities have a right to know-indeed they have an absolute need to know-exactly what the federal government has in mind for our cities of the future and what the quality of life is expected to be, if we are to have effective government and political participation at local and provincial levels. We still have a chance in Canada. I am not pessimistic in this regard; in fact, I am optimistic because we have a very potent opposition. That is the only reason I am optimistic. We have a chance which is denied to many unfortunate souls locked into many American cities. We have a chance to save our cities. We are in a battle against time. But most of all, we in this house are in a battle against massive federal indifference to the fate of our cities.

DEBATES	June 25. 1969
Here I am making a major speech on the problems of urban expansion and I am speaking to only four members on the government side of the house. Can you beat that, Mr. Speaker? This is the type of participatory democracy we are going to have.


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


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I shall be only about 30 seconds more, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I say that the price of failure in these battles is disaster. I refer to the battles we face in connection with the problems that exist in our urban centres. If the federal government refuses to take up the challenge of the cities, it and millions of us along with it will suffer the fate of all those who remain in clouds of smoke, whether they be constitutional or otherwise. All will suffer a fatal cancer, in this instance a terminal case of cancer of the cities.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the federal government has a significant and pervasive stake in the future of the urban environment of Canada. There is no doubt about that. Its decisions and activities touch communities all across this country. Its record shows it is aware of the responsibilities inherent in that fact. The role of the government has been an effective one, one that has been largely accepted by provincial, and municipal governments and authorities throughout Canada. This effectiveness and acceptability arise in large part out of the influence of the National Housing Act.
The National Housing Act has financed or guaranteed the financing of a substantial portion of new residential construction. The size of this contribution, to get the facts on the record, can be seen in the fact that half of Canada's existing stock of 5.4 million dwellings has been built since world war II. Forty per cent of these, many of them in urban centres, were aided under one or another of the provisions of the National Housing Act. That act has influenced not only the number
June 25, 1969	COMMONS
of new dwellings, their manner of financing, their architectural design and communityplanning; it has also encouraged anti-pollution measures, urban renewal and slum clearance. It has assisted particularly in meeting the special needs of students, low income families, the aged, the handicapped and the disadvantaged.
Increasingly over the past few years direct federal financial aid has been allocated to the area of social housing. More than $300 million has been invested in the production of limited dividend housing for low income families, some $125 million in loans to non-profit corporations, mainly for housing for the elderly.


Mr. Lewis:: Over what period?


Robert Knight Andras: 
John Gilbert: Give us the figures.


Robert Knight Andras: Nevertheless, while there is some satisfaction in the consideration that things are better than they were, I will be the first to agree that we need still more houses in our cities and elsewhere. We need to replace the obsolete ones and to rehabilitate the substandard ones that are salvageable. As I said in the house during the debate on the housing act amendments, the remaining shortage is still too large. The government is particularly concerned about the special plight of the poor, the old and the dependent who endure the main brunt of the suffering that this kind of burden entails.
On the subject of housing for low income people in this country, it is fair to say that the federal government has represented the principal source of funds for virtually all such housing. While we do not deny to the provinces their prerogative of initiating many of these projects, and while they do not deny to themselves a large share of the kudos for this kind of activity, I would remind hon. members that the lion's share of capital costs and operating subsidies is borne by the federal government.
We hope this year in the field of housing for low income people to undertake a program larger than ever before. The scale of this acceleration will be appreciated better if it is put in an historical perspective. To the end of 1968, under the housing act funds had been committed for the provision of 82,000 housing units specifically intended for low income and elderly people. Of these, 34,000 have been sponsored by limited dividend
in one way or another under the terms of the companies and 6,000 by non-profit companies. National Housing Act.	Federal-provincial partnerships have been
This represents a major indicator of the responsible for the initiation of 17,000 units, scale of the federal presence in the growth Federal loans to provincial and local housing and development of urban Canada. It is in no authorities account for 25,000 units. It has small part due to the role of federal housing taken 20 years to achieve this total of 82,000 legislation that Canada has been able to sus- units in the field of low income housing. This tain rates of house building over the post-war year alone we hope to make commitments for
10620	COMMONS DEBATES	June 25, 1969
Alleged Failure to Cope With Urban Growth
over 20,000 units under these programs, which I am sure you will agree is a serious indication of our purpose in this area.
Closely related to the issue of housing for low income people is the problem of blight that characterizes the areas where many of them live in our cities-the problem of urban renewal. Successive amendments to the National Housing Act have made available generous grants and loans to provinces and municipalities to enable them to tackle the problems of urban blight and functional obsolescence. The availability of federal funds has generated a great deal of interest across Canada in these important questions.
The federal government has made available grants to municipalities for city-wide urban renewal studies. One hundred and eighty municipalities have taken advantage of the 75 per cent federal grants for this purpose and have completed or are in the process of completing such studies. Those municipalities will have available to them information on the social, economic and physical problems related to old neighbourhoods and to those areas of the city where the urban pattern is no longer functional. This program of urban renewal studies has served as more than an instrument of renewal. It has also triggered and been useful in one of the most important, broad urban planning ventures ever undertaken on a national scale.
In addition, the federal government has assisted 132 municipalities to prepare schemes for areas determined and identified as in need of renewal by these city-wide studies. Grants totalling $3.5 million have been committed for this purpose.
Finally, the federal government has committed $168 million to assist municipalities to implement urban renewal schemes.
This program has grown quite rapidly, from relatively insignificant proportions to one of the most important areas of concern, in the short span of the last half a dozen years. Perhaps because of its very rapid growth we find today serious questions being asked from many directions about urban renewal, such as questions about citizen participation. During the last two or three weeks some very interesting delegations have come to see me about this matter. For example, a delegation from Chinese communities across Canada came to see me to express their concern. Here is a kinship group, an ethnic group that looks after its own and stands together. It has cohesive unity and is to be respected. In North America, in the name of 
urban renewal policies and under other policies, hundreds of so-called Chinatowns have been eliminated to the extent that today there are 16 or less.
In addition, the Kensington market people came to see me four or five weeks ago at a time when I was immersing myself in the jargon of housing, and I was able to recognize the alienation of this group. Nobody has talked to this group or consulted them about bulldozing their home and demolishing this area, the very place where they have felt safe and secure. Surely this sort of feeling among people must be recognized, and certainly it has been put before me. This is one of the dilemmas that is facing me in so many of the urban renewal projects that are put before me for final approval. I want to consult such groups before we move blithely ahead in the name of progress.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Would the minister permit one question in this regard?


Robert Knight Andras: Yes.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Will the minister advise us whether he is going to make a tour of the 12 cities that happen to be involved in urban renewal before he comes to a decision? Many of us would like to know whether this is the case and it is a suggestion the minister might pursue. Certainly I should like to know whether the minister intends to visit these cities, including Hamilton, before he comes to a decision on federal government involvement.


Robert Knight Andras: I assure the hon. member I have no program that would deliberately delay action in this respect. I do not think the hon. member would want me to be a rubberstamp.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Oh no.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Robert Knight Andras: I think the hon. member would want me conscientiously to examine the problems and to find out whether I have the whole story from those who are affected. But I assure the hon. member I have no intention of making marks on a map or headlines in a paper. I do not have all the answers today but I think that a systematic tour may perhaps be helpful. I think some of these problems I have alluded to can be resolved fairly quickly. Although the hon. member who proposed this motion labours under pressures, I hope he will support me. I
June 25, 1969	COMMONS
wish to do a rational job in this field because the implications of first decisions are apt to be far-reaching.
In that context, Mr. Speaker, may I say that when I assumed responsibility for housing at the federal level I felt it was important that we should examine carefully priorities and objectives in the field of urban renewal. We learned much. I learned a great deal from those people I talked to. Nevertheless, we have a lot more to learn about urban renewal. We do not wish to rush ahead with any programs without giving full consideration to those kinds of representations. Some things have already become clear.
As I said a short time ago, the participation of citizens who are affected by urban renewal is essential to the success of that operation. In my opinion that participation must cut in at a very much lower level than it has in many of the urban renewal projects of the past. Careful consideration must be given to the rehabilitation of structures which must be saved. Municipalities should be prepared, surely, to adopt and enforce bylaws of maintenance and occupancy standards. Those bylaws are necessary if we are to get on with the job; otherwise renewed areas may deteriorate and fall back into the condition they were in originally. We will need to introduce new urban renewal programs all over again in that case. May I say that the cities of Toronto and Ottawa have made considerable strides in this field, as have many other centres in Canada.
In recent weeks I have talked to a number of mayors and their officials about their programs. I had the honour to address the mayors of Canada when they were gathered here in conference a few weeks ago and to explain to them the process of the study we have undertaken. All I can say in the face of all questions that have been asked is that I fully recognize the urgent necessity for decisions to be made on urban renewal projects. There have been long periods of planning, and we must act on commitments that have been made over the last few years. We have behind us about 148 plans that have to be acted on pretty quickly. We must bring in decisions on those as quickly as possible. I hope to proceed as quickly as possible to visit actual sites which are slated for renewal. I am sure that hon. members feel that the wisest course for me to follow is for me to visit these sites as quickly as possible. I may undertake another tour and do some on the spot examination of conditions.
Alleged Failure to Cope With Urban Growth
There is much more that I could say on the subject but I will limit my remarks since I am sure other hon. members wish to take part in this debate. Much that I have to say would be a repetition of what I said on second reading of Bill C-192. As hon. members know, something has been done about land costs. We have widened the provisions with respect to land assembly to make land available for all housing purposes, and this program is being supported by other and further means of financing. I confess that I know of no simple solution to the complex problem of land costs; neither does anyone else with whom I have discussed this subject so far. It seems to me, however, that some headway can be made if the provinces and municipalities will themselves assume responsibility to a much greater extent than heretofore for the acquisition, planning, subdividing and servicing of residential land. Considerable progress could be made if that responsibility were assumed. After all, the next decade or two will be the decisive period in the planning of Canadian cities and, indeed, of our great urban regions. It has been said before, and I repeat it again, that the building of great cities cannot be measured simply in terms of size or efficiency. There is also the quality of the environment they provide for a healthy and satisfying life for the people.
The challenge of the city will call for the highest degree of co-operation between departments within government, between different levels of government and between all these and the building industry-the lenders, planners, architects, social scientists, as well as between all those and all other interested groups and professions. And more crucial than all this is the participation of the people directly affected. This participation I think will take diverse forms-forms which range from obstruction to zealous support, from special pleading to genuine community involvement and from widespread concurrence to, I suppose, painful conflicts of interest. It is only through the expression-


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


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I shall be
finished in a couple of minutes.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the minister unanimous consent to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Alleged Failure to Cope With Urban Growth


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I emphasize that it is only through the expression and resolution of these creative tensions that the urban artifacts we create will be given authentic vitality. As I have said in the house previously, it is my intention to do all I can to foster this spirit of co-operation which will be so vitally required.


Mrs. Maclnnis:: Mr. Speaker, will the
minister permit a question before he sits down? Officials in Vancouver and various groups have expressed the urgent hope that the minister will visit urban renewal projects in that area. Has he decided to go to Vancouver?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I am very keen to do this because of representations made directly by the Chinese. There are other considerations prompting me to do this having to do with the Strathcona project and the A-l project. I must consult my time schedule because I do not wish to delay too long. The hon. member's area is one of the areas I should prefer to see before any final decision is made.


John Gilbert: Will the minister permit
another question, Mr. Speaker? Can he tell us how many public housing units are to be built in Canada this year and what moneys the government has allocated for this purpose?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I have not at my fingertips a breakdown of the C.M.H.C. capital budget. I am looking at the combination of that program which we know as "16". There is limited dividend housing under what we know as "16A". There are also non-profit programs and the two direct assistance projects which involve 75 per cent federal and 25 per cent provincial participation. There is also our 35D program with respect to federal loans to provincial housing authorities. Altogether, and I hope the hon. member will bear with me as I look at the figures, current programs for low income housing needs are set at $395 million this year. I shall have to do some addition in order to arrive at more accurate figures. Last year we put into public housing the sum of $149 million. This year I have allocated for that purpose directly the sum of $180 million. It should be remembered in that context that the limited dividend figure for last year was $27 million; for this year it is to be $80 million. For nonprofit, 16A housing, the figure in this area last year was $59 million. This year it is to be $80 million. I will obtain a breakdown later [Mr. Deputy Speaker.!
June 25, 1969
on, but these figures indicate that we shall be building 20,000 units.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) for placing the motion we are now discussing on the order paper and for his very excellent introduction of the motion.
I suggest the speech to which we have just listened by the amiable Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Andras) in charge of housing was the very best illustration possible of the fact that he and his colleagues in the government do not even understand the language of the motion and the problems about which most of us are concerned. I was rather surprised to hear him indulge in a kind of sophistry that really was depressing to me, a sophistry that says everything we do has to do with urban people; our manpower programs, hospital commitments, contributions to universities and all these things are helping the urban problem. I was surprised the minister did not mention the fact that our expenditures in the realm of national defence are also for the defence of our cities as well as our countryside. I say to the minister this is not the problem at all.
The minister should not indulge in the kind of sophistry which says the federal government spends money that is of benefit to the Canadian people and since 70 per cent of the Canadian people live in cities, obviously they are beneficiaries of the policies of the federal government. This is not the issue. It is not the problem put before the minister. He has not dealt with the problem at all. He has not even shown that he understands what the problem is about.
The problem in my opinion is as stated by the hon. member for Hamilton West and the Economic Council of Canada. It is precisely because of our constitutional division of power, because the municipalities are the creatures of the provincial legislatures under our constitution, because the authority is divided, and because the municipalities do not have the funds to deal with the problem, that it is essential in all areas of urban concern for the federal government, speaking for all the people of Canada, to take the initiative and leadership in getting the provinces and municipalities to discuss and, if possible, to solve the municipal problems.
No one is arguing with the minister or the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) about the constitution. Every hon. member in this house.

June 25, 1969	COMMONS
lawyer, non-lawyer, whether he has been here one year or ten years, knows what is obvious. The minister does not have to spend time underlining the fact that this is the prerogative of the provinces and municipalities and that he does not have the authority to plan municipal growth. We know that.
What the people of Canada, 70 per cent of them living in the urban regions of Canada, are saying to this government is that decades of neglect have resulted in intractable problems in our cities. They say the federal government has a duty to take the initiative in leadership to seek a solution to these problems because if this is not done in time we will have the same kind of violent reaction on the streets of our cities as the United States has had on the streets of its cities. This is the issue to which we want the government to address itself.
The minister does not have to spend time persuading hon. members that no matter what authority they belong to, these problems are difficult and cannot be solved overnight, that there are many differences of opinion as to what should be done about public housing, urban renewal, the size of cities and that many countries of the world have found these problems very difficult and heavy. The minister does not have to waste his time telling us that. Everyone in this house knows this problem will not be solved overnight, but they and all Canadians know the problem will never be solved unless a start is made in organizing the agencies for its solution. This is where the failure of the government comes in.
If one analyses the election of the Prime Minister and this government exactly a year ago, one sees that in no area has the Prime Minister and his government so blatantly betrayed the expectations they raised in the minds of the Canadian people than in their failure to provide leadership toward a solution of the urban problems in Canada today. I watched the election which ended exactly a year ago today. I visited constituents in my riding. I also visited other ridings and spoke in a good many other places. The one thing that struck me about the reaction of the people who said they would support Mr. Trudeau and his colleagues at that time-permit me to use the name of the Prime Minister in this context-was that he gave the impression he had some kind of feel for the fact the urban people were being oppressed by a lack of transportation, crowded streets, lack of recreational facilities for the children, lack of
Alleged Failure to Cope With Urban Growth day-care nurseries for the children of working mothers and the alienation of people in apartment houses. They believed this man who led the Liberal party had some sense in dealing with all these problems. They thought he had a feeling for the fact there was change in the community and for the realization that the centre of that change in a modern industrial society was the metropolitan area, necessarily and inevitably. These people voted for this man and his party a year ago today because of the expectation they had that the Prime Minister had some kind of sensitivity about the problems of people living in the large metropolitan areas of Canada as well as the smaller urban communities. How wrong they were!
I say not only as a member of an opposition party but as a Canadian that the Prime Minister, the minister in charge of housing and all the other members of this government ought to look at themselves in the mirror, if they can stand it, to see what they have done to betray the expectations they raised exactly a year ago. There is still time for them to correct the situation.
The issue, as stated by the hon. member for Hamilton West, is where the government should direct its attention and its initiative. I cannot suggest a blueprint in the 20 minutes I am allowed; however, I will make two concrete suggestions in a moment. The Economic Council of Canada in its fourth annual review stated the problem as follows:
-there has long been widespread concern about the mounting deficiencies of our cities and the heavy backlogs of essential improvements. Shortages and inadequacy of urban housing, traffic and transport problems, air and water pollution, the confused jumble of conflicting land uses, decaying neighbourhoods and monotonous suburbs, urban poverty and social disturbance, steadily rising property tax burdens and the frustrations of municipal administration-these are familiar problems to the average Canadian city dweller today.
We ask the government to direct its attention to these issues outlined by the Economic Council of Canada. In their report they also state these issues have become so important for all the people of Canada that they are national problems requiring national attention and solution.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
What the minister has to face is not the fact that he is at last doing a little bit more for public housing, but the criminality of having stopped public housing for most of the past winter. This is what he has to face. He has to face not the excuse that he is at last
29180-672a
Alleged Failure to Cope With Urban Growth doing something about urban redevelopment but the criminality of having frozen those programs, and having raised the freeze on only 12, leaving 148 requests-I think that was the number he gave-waiting for his attention, let alone his action. It is not sufficient for him to boast that he is putting extra money into housing programs. There is the fact that over the years we have dealt so inadequately with housing problems altogether.
Above all, the minister has to explain to the people of Canada what kind of arid, legalistic mind could have thought up the idea that we cannot have a minister of housing and urban affairs but we can have a Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing. What kind of arid, legalistic mind could satisfy itself with that kind of interpretation of the constitution, with the result that instead of leaving a department of housing and urban affairs, instead of having adequate staff to deal with the things that 1 am sure the minister is anxious to deal with, he is hemmed in through lack of adequate staff, not to mention the fact that he takes a cut in his salary, undeservedly, Mr. Speaker? However, I am not offering to negotiate that for him. He ought to do that himself. He ought to refuse to be treated this way. That is his business, not mine. He does not have the department he requires in order to deal with the problems with which I am sure he would like to deal.
The minister has to explain what kind of arid, legalistic mind can refuse to set up a national council for urban affairs, as requested by the Economic Council of Canada, to deal precisely with the kind of problems that the minister has outlined.
The minister quite rightly said, "We in the federal government cannot deal with the size of the cities, the bylaws regarding land use, the problems of where to go, in what direction, and so on. These are provincial-municipal matters that the federal government cannot do anything about by itself." But what the Economic Council indicated, what we suggested a year ago, and what has been suggested many times from this side of the house is that the federal government take the initiative to call the provinces together, and the major municipal regions of Canada, to discuss some of these problems, and not merely to discuss them but to make some kind of plan. But for that is necessary a ministry or department of housing and urban affairs.

June 25, 1969
They should also discuss the establishment of a national council of urban affairs, on which would be represented not only the federal and provincial governments but also the major municipal regions of Canada, as well as organizations such as the Federation oi Mayors and Municipalities. It is for the absence of any of these agencies, and it is for its refusal to accept any responsibility for leadership in all of these areas that we condemn the government.
We do not condemn the government for not performing miracles or solving the problems overnight. We know the problems are difficult and will take time to solve. We do not condemn it for not passing municipal bylaws; we know it has no authority to do so. But we do condemn it for its refusal to recognize that its role is not and must not be merely the role of the largest treasury in Canada, making money available for housing or urban renewal, for its refusal to recognize that the role of the central government of Canada must be a deliberate, determined and conscious attempt to find solutions for the urban problems facing Canadians from coast to coast. I say it is a good thing that the federal government-


Robert Knight Andras: Would the hon. member permit a question?


David Lewis: Sure.


Robert Knight Andras: This is purely for contribution to the debate and for clarification. Is the hon. member aware that in December, 1967, and I think subsequently in the spring of 1968 at the federal-provincial housing conference the government did in fact suggest the establishment of a national council almost identical to that referred to by the hon. member, and found a less than enthusiastic response from the provincial governments? Further, I would like the advice of the hon. member as to what action he would take in such a case. Would he ignore the stated objections of the provincial ministers who attended that conference?


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am not questioning the minister's veracity but all I can say in answer to him is that my memory, from watching the conference and reading about it, does not gibe with what he has said. It is my impression that the proposal for a national urban council was not made with very much heat or enthusiasm, that it received some pro forma brief discussion and then the matter was let go. I think my memory is right, and if that is what happened then I am not the least bit surprised that the provincial governments

June 25, 1969	COMMONS
threw out the proposal. This is not the way to give leadership.
The minister's reference to the housing conference reminds me to remind him that all the studies we have indulged in on these problems of housing and urban affairs should have given someone some knowledge about them. In addition to numerous books and articles, there were the Nicholson symposia held right across the country in 1966, and then there was the federal-provincial conference on housing to which the minister has referred. There were the studies by the Economic Council, and then a task force report. Yet despite all these studies the minister stands up and says, "I don't know what to do about urban renewal; I have to study this some more. I don't know what to do about public housing; I have to go back and study it more. I don't know what my policies ought to be in various directions; I still need some more study." This is a farcical excuse.
Since my time is about up, Mr. Speaker, let me add that I am convinced that all this is also the result of the attitude which the Prime Minister takes toward the constitution.
I am convinced there are many members on the Liberal side of the house who, even though their language of criticism of the government would necessarily be a great deal more temperate than mine, are just as concerned about the problems to which the hon. member for Hamilton West and I have referred as we are, and are as dissatisfied with the performance of their government as we are.
To them I say, as I say to this house and to the people of Canada, if lack of leadership is still to be seen, in my opinion it is in large measure due to the legalistic, strait-jacketey approach which the Prime Minister takes to the Canadian constitution. It is the concept which he indicated in the working papers which he tabled the other day, and which I have only had a chance to glance through, a concept of an attempt to compartmentalize certain of the powers and of an attempt to make the provinces all-powerful in the exercise of certain other powers. It is this attitude which has resulted in the arid and legalistic nonsense of our not having a minister of housing and urban affairs.
There is nothing in modern society that is as important as the problem of urban living. All the speeches made a year ago by the Prime Minister, by the leaders of other parties, and by members of all parties in this house about the quality of life and improving
Alleged Failure to Cope With Urban Growth the quality of life-all that stuff that was talked about during the election campaign a year ago has no meaning and is utterly dishonest unless related to the life of the city dweller in a modern industrial society.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I think I see you, Mr. Speaker, edging to the edge of your seat. I am completing my remarks. It is because of the importance of this problem that I welcome the motion of the hon. member for Hamilton West and say to the minister, with much more sorrow than pleasure, that his defensive mincing kind of excuse was a revelation of his inability and the inability of the government even to appreciate the nature of the problem which faces 70 per cent of the Canadian people today and which will face 80 per cent of the Canadian people in a few years' time.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion proposed by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). I must also concur in some of the remarks made by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis). I do so as a member representing an urban area. While I fully appreciate the problems faced by my colleagues from the rural constituencies of Canada, it is my convinction that the greatest and most urgent problems facing the nation today arise out of the general problem of urban development. I am equally convinced that in no other area has this government so obviously shirked its responsibility or failed so dismally by avoiding meaningful action.
Since taking office a year ago the government has done nothing but talk about the need to do something. We have had promises from ministers and pleas for action from backbenchers on the government side. But the real issue has been obscured in a screen of words. I am sure that a scholarly man such as the Prime Minister is reputed to be will appreciate my borrowing Macbeth's well known words to describe this verbal camouflage: "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." And "nothing" is the only word to describe what this government has accomplished in finding a solution to Canada's No. 1 continuing crisis.
When we consider that close to three-quarters of our people already live jammed into cites and towns occupying less than one one-hundredth of our total area, we can see something of the size of the problem. In spite of
10626	COMMONS
Alleged Failure to Cope With Urban Growth the minister's remarks, the cities of this country have problems, lots of them. And they will get much worse in the near future unless the federal government stops its constitutional shilly-shallying. The government's hiding behind the British North America Act can have only one result. It means that the people of this country's urban areas will suffer. They will enjoy a much poorer kind of life as a direct result of the government's lack of leadership, its lack of action, its lack of foresight and in fact its absolute lack of almost any kind of common horse sense when it comes to doing something about the problems faced by our cities and their people. It is time the government stopped horsing around with this constitutional bit so far as our cities are concerned. That is all they are doing-horsing around trying to hitch up 19th century horse and buggy ideas to get our jet age cities ready for the 21st century.
Constitutionally the government is involved in the problems of the cities up to its neck. It just will not recognize it. It pays no attention to the good advice and all the startling facts that were laid before it by the Economic Council of Canada in its fourth report. What do we have to do to wake them up? The time of the walled city is gone, Mr. Speaker. There was only one real walled city in Canada- Quebec-and it has long since burst those bonds to expand far beyond its original boundaries, as has virtually every city in my part of Canada. The only walled city left in this country is the walled city of the government's closed mind, the walled city of the limited concepts of the night watchman state which this government uses to try to deal with what is essentially and primarily an urban and urbanizing culture.
We of the big cities need, indeed demand, a constitutional breakthrough. We demand that the government recognize the close connections between all of its policies and the way our cities develop. We insist that it see, that it realize, and that it act on the intimate relationships which bind our cities to our rural areas. Everything the government does for the farmer, everything it does against the farmer too-and here I am speaking as much or more about the modern agricultural industrialist as I am about the family farm-all federal policies relating to wheat surpluses, to the oil and gas industry, to the potash business, all their policies relating to construction, mining exploration, and so on, have very direct and immediate effects on our cities and their people.

DEBATES	June 25, 1969
The federal government's failure to sell Canadian wheat has meant commercial depression in some of our prairie cities and trading centres. The government's feeble-hearted attempts to persuade inflation to go away are felt with agonizing effects in our cities. Consumers in Edmonton, Calgary, Toronto, Montreal, in fact in all our cities, are completely at the mercy of the booming rise in food prices which the government permits by its inaction. No longer can the government deny its responsibility for our cities and their problems. They like passing the buck to the provinces on this question, but no longer. It is time they stopped trying to pass on these inflated Benson bucks to somebody else and tackled the problems themselves.
It hardly seems necessary to emphasize the rapid growth in our urban areas and the undesirable developments that accompany such unco-ordinated growth. In only five years, from 1961 to 1966, the populations of our large urban centres increased by almost 20 per cent. The smaller towns, with populations between 2,500 and 100,000, increased only 11.4 per cent, and the rural population actually went down. My own province of Alberta, as most of you know, is one of the most rapidly growing. Our capital city, part of which I have the honour to represent, increased in population from 337,500 in 1961 to 400,000 plus in 1966 and is now well over that. Calgary's population is booming as well and the favourite eastern image of our province as a land of farmers must disappear at once if the west and its problems are to be properly understood here. I must confess, however, there seems little hope that the inward-looking, walled city mentality of the present administration will ever make an honest effort to look west to understand us.
If our major cities were already working models of efficiency and high quality living, urban growth of the proportions I have indicated would not tax their existing facilities very much. But our metropolitan areas are conglomerations of mounting deficiencies and heavy backlogs of essential works still to be done. The government has been warned about the problems often enough. The Economic Council of Canada, which it appointed, outlined the situation with great clarity in its fourth report. But let me give a quotation from another government document:
As each year thousands more Canadians seek city space and service to work and live and play and drive, one must wonder whether the existing
June 25, 1969	COMMONS
metropolitan structure in some areas at least can even meet the existing pressure, let alone make any noticeable inroads in the backlog of problems confronting it.
This report goes on to state that even in cities where the powers and problems of urbanization are less there is an urgent need for quick, decisive and imaginative action. These quotations, Mr. Speaker, are from the report of the Task Force on Housing and Urban Development, led by the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer). In light of this government's indifference to the cities, it is no wonder he felt impelled to resign.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
The paradox of modern living in our cities is that while the consumer's money income seems to go up, and sometimes even his standard of living, although that is difficult these days with the inflation the government encourages, the opportunities to enjoy many important features of the good life which we associate with the cities are rapidly disappearing. We know that this government is obsessed with abstract constitutional theorizing, that it cares more about what it can write into dusty legal documents than about the kind of lives real people live. But is it totally unconcerned about the quality of life our people are able to enjoy? It would seem so.
The quality of life in our urban centres depends on many things, but not least on the following in addition to matters economic: housing and slum clearance, safety of the individual in his person and property, attractiveness of the city environment, and the basic hospitality of the neighbourhood. The government can and should be doing something about all of these matters. Let me say something briefly about each.
Let us first take housing and construction. Some time soon the minister responsible may be thawing out the slum deep freeze the government has imposed. But when he does eventually announce approval of urban renewal projects he had better make good and sure he does not discriminate against this country's growth centres again. The blows which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) aimed at the urban centres of my own province and those of British Columbia and Ontario are splendid examples of the government's completely negative approach toward the west and toward the problems of the cities. Urban unconcern of this order is a hallmark of the present administration, and it is time it stopped.
Alleged Failure to Cope With Urban Growth
In respect of safety of the individual, we are lucky in this country that organized crime has not really developed very much yet. That only means the government has an opportunity, not a guarantee. Strong and imaginative action by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) could do much to inspire the forces of law and order in this country to save our expanding, crowded urban centres from the metropolitan criminal horrors endured by our friends to the south. Will there be leadership and imaginative help by the R.C.M.P? Will the police forces get the assistance they need from the federal government?
Let me refer to a clean environment. We have already belaboured the house with our serious concern about the cleanliness and attractiveness of the environment. I can only repeat my colleagues' remarks of a previous day to emphasize the necessity of the government taking very firm steps and of exerting significant leadership to end the growing pollution of our cities and countryside.
The next subject is hospitality. I prefer the word hospitality but its opposite, the one this government prefers, is alienation. As our urban areas continue to grow, so too does the problem of alienation. Purely and simply this means that too many of our people are becoming detached and uncaring about one another. The problem is a very serious social phenomenon about which action is required.
What can the federal government do? It can help our people take pride in their communities and particularly in their country. This is especially the case with regard to new immigrants to our country, and even with some established members of the non-British and non-French groups. The problem of alienation confronts these people far more than any other. Many immigrants speak neither English nor French. Unable to communicate with others they feel lonely and afraid.
The number of immigrants has increased by nearly 40 per cent since 1961, some 184,000 people last year alone. These people are flooding into our cities and the federal government must go all out to welcome them, to help them identify, to encourage them to take out citizenship with meaningful, heart-stretching steps-in short, to make them feel like real Canadians. The so-called citizenship part of our immigration program is woefully lagging in imagination, in national pride and in human concern.
I have taken enough time. I have not dealt with the necessity of federal development of
10628	COMMONS
Alleged Failure to Cope With Urban Growth a new model for Canadian cities of the 1970's, but this is urgently needed. Many things are urgently needed for the future. There are many problems. Will this government do its share? I doubt it.
I want to refer to one of the special features of life in Canada, the invisible city. You can touch it, walk around it, breathe its polluted air, get caught in its traffic jams, and once upon a time you could even buy a house in it. But so far as this government is concerned, the city does not exist. Most of the people of Canada live in cities but the municipal officials they elect cannot sit in on discussions about the future of the country, and too often cannot get the information they need about programs which directly affect their own development. Most of the problems of Canada are in the cities, but the government refuses to contemplate direct programs.
My colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton West, has referred to the constitution as a smokescreen. It is that. No one denies the difficulties which the constitution creates, but they can be overcome. The real problem is that the Prime Minister is not inclined to overcome them. That was the message of the resignation of the hon. member for Trinity. The Liberal government apologists can try to disguise it in any way they want, but the fact stands out that he wanted to act. He wanted to make the cities and their problems visible and the Prime Minister preferred to hide behind the constitution.
This government is committing many crimes against the people who live in the cities. Its basic crime is that it pretends the cities do not exist. That is bad enough in that it provides the government with an excuse for failure to act on distinctive urban problems, but it has another important effect. It hides several major problems which the country cannot continue to hide. One of them is poverty. The fifth annual review of the Economic Council of Canada emphasized the proportions of poverty in Canada and the degree to which it is an urban problem. It pointed out that serious poverty is only "a subway ride away" for residents of our major metropolitan areas.
The problem of the Indian people, of which the minister should be well aware and which was discussed earlier today, has become an urban problem as more and more people from reserves, or with official status under the Indian Act, are moving into the cities, particularly on the prairies. The mayor of Winnipeg, for instance, has said he is the mayor of "The

DEBATES	June 25, 1969
largest Indian reserve in Canada". To a smaller degree a similar kind of thing is happening in Edmonton. The problem is that many native people, out of work, are attracted to the city where they constitute a major expense and problem and there is, as usual, confusion about which level of government is to help them.
The problem of immigration is such that if the government had a policy that policy could not overlook the problem of integration of new Canadians into their communities which in most cases are urban communities. These are serious Canadian problems which we cannot afford to ignore. Yet we are ignoring them now because the federal government continues to treat the cities as though they were invisible. The Prime Minister came to office promising change.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Badanai):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


An hon. Member:: All he needs is another minute.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Steve Eugene Paproski: There has been a great deal of talk about participatory democracy. But look at the record. Time after time federal and provincial governments discuss major matters which are vital to the plans and expansion of various cities. City officials are not apprised; they are kept in the dark and the progress and plans for their cities are held up. A constitutional conference is held, and municipal officials request the right to attend. The Prime Minister claims that he cleared the way for them to attend. He cleared the way as he usually does, by passing the buck to the provinces. Certainly he did not encourage the attendance or participation of municipal officials.
So far as the cities are concerned, participatory democracy seems to mean the right to protest after something harmful has been done. Any positive steps in terms of solving urban problems in the last year in Canada have been taken by the cities themselves. The Canadian Federation of Mayors. and Municipalities in particular has shown outstanding initiative and deserves to be recognized. Several of the provinces have also been active. But it is a fact that the contribution of the Trudeau government to urban development in Canada has been entirely negative. They cut back the winter works program;
June 25, 1969	COMMONS
they imposed, through the recent budget, a freeze on development in major cities; they put forward the pretence that there is no housing crisis in Canada; they have played around with urban renewal so much that nobody, not even the minister, knows what the policy of the government is.
This government, which sits in office because it was able to win seats in the cities, has virtually ignored urban problems in the year it has been in office. There is no indication that they intend to change their practice. We have a right to ask questions and demand answers. What steps is the government taking to follow the lead of the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities on the question of urban transport? What studies is the government conducting on urban development projects and related projects in United States' cities and those of other countries? What attention is it giving to the particular urban aspect of problems like poverty, immigration and Indian Affairs? What understanding is the government prepared to give now regarding the involvement of municipal officials, and people informed about the cities, in constitutional and other relevant discussions?
The election was a year ago. The Prime Minister spent a great deal of his time in the cities. Apparently he has had enough of them. If he continues to treat the cities of Canada as invisible, they will soon have had enough of him.


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew North):: Mr. Speaker, we have heard this afternoon many spokesmen for the urban areas of Canada. The arguments we heard could be used perfectly well against the further rapid growth of particular areas in Canada which prejudice rural areas and small communities across Canada.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Stamp out Toronto!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: We have heard in the house many arguments advanced about the constitutional conflict. We had a debate all day last Monday in connection with a motion on pollution when we were considering vote No. 1 of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. The committee report was an excellent one. I see that the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) is smiling. I am sure he agrees with me on that point.
We cannot overlook the constitutional conflict. The tack taken in many parts of the house is to the effect that we should just bulldoze through in respect of our national programs and forget about the provinces and
Alleged Failure to Cope With Urban Growth those people who are supporters of provincial autonomy. Hon. members have been telling the government to go ahead and bulldoze over the top of the provinces.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What about medicare?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: The other day the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) said that the Ottawa River stinks. That was when I was mentioning the constitutional conflict that exists in connection with that river. I agree with the hon. member but I say to him through you, Mr. Speaker, that it does not stink any more than do the motions placed before the house on Monday and today which try to lay the full blame on the federal government for the pollution which exists.
There is an obvious purpose in trying to lay total responsibility on the federal government at a time when the government does not by any means have total constitutional responsibility in this field. Comments were made to the effect that great legislation to combat pollution had been brought forward in the United States. Anyone in the house who makes that kind of comment should visit the United States and look into the problem of pollution they have there. If they did, I do not think they would praise to the extent they have the work that has been done in that country.
I reiterate what I said the other day. If the federal government had exclusive powers in this field, such as the United States government has, it would be giving more direction. I say to members of the opposition that when they make these statements they are in effect demanding more constitutional power for the federal government. I wholeheartedly agree- perhaps I should not go quite that far.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Oh, go ahead.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I am very much in agreement with the first prime minister of this country, Sir John A. Macdonald, who wanted the federal government to be strong. We would be in a better position today if we had a strong federal government constitutionally. Then we could go ahead and solve some of the problems facing us. If the federal government defaulted in respect of the work that needed to be done in this area, and had the constitutional power to do it, the government could be blamed. But I ask members of the opposition not to drag in this red herring of bestowing on the federal government all the powers that are jealously guarded by provincial administrations.
10630	COMMONS DEBATES	June 25. 1969
Alleged Failure to Cope With Urban Growth
If the provincial governments do not want this responsibility, I suggest we should hold one of those very congenial federal-provincial conferences and the provinces should, hand over the powers they have in respect of pollution control and economic development. We cannot talk about controlling pollution here, there and everywhere else without realizing that it must go hand in hand with the economic development of this nation.
The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) introduced a bill which would have the effect of spreading out the economic development of Canada. What must the minister do to see that the program is effectively carried out? He must obtain agreement from the provinces because the hands of the federal government are tied.
I hope many hon. members believe as I do that the day the federal government is given extensive powers in the field of economic development and pollution control we will be able to improve the economic development of this country and create a nation which does not have large areas of poverty and areas of great wealth. When the federal government is given these powers the nation will be pollution free wherever industry is to be found. These things must go hand in hand.
I mentioned the legislation regarding regional development. We are talking today about areas in which there is great industrial development. It is in these areas that we have pollution. If we do not spread out our industries across Canada into the smaller communities-I am not for a moment forgetting the Ottawa Valley, because we have not had enough industry in the Upper Ottawa Valley in the last few years to drive out the mosquitoes that we have in the springtime-


John Gilbert: We have had a Liberal government.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: The hon. member for Broadview says we have had a Liberal government. If the federal government has sole responsibility for the state of our economy, why did the government of Ontario introduce its Ontario Development Corporation to promote industry in other areas? Surely this is an admission that economic development is the responsibility of the provinces. I tell the hon. member for Broadview that so much money has been put into the large, growing industrial complexes in certain areas of the country that rural development has suffered. This is why I want to see greater control exercised at the federal level.

Multilane highways have been built in Toronto. Hon. members have been demanding, and rightly so, urban renewal in certain areas. That this need exists cannot be denied. The problem is there and it has to be solved. But if we continue to let the large urban areas grow we will create more pollution problems for the future. A rural area such as mine does not have good roads into the large urban centres. We do not have enough money for agricultural development in eastern Canada. We hear a great deal about the western farmer. Far too much emphasis has been placed upon the urban areas of Canada. It is time we from the rural areas spoke up at the provincial and federal levels and asked for a square deal for all of Canada.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What about Toronto and those who come from that city?
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I am not saying anything about voters in Toronto. I heard a comment from the hon. member for-I hope I name him correctly-Calgary East-


An hon. Member:: No.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Calgary North. I am sure the voters in Toronto want to see a cure for this problem. I do not think they are so greedy that they will demand everything in Canada. I know them better than that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I am glad the minister in charge of housing is here. I appreciate the effort and the time he is spending on the development of housing in rural areas. I think it is a great injustice that an area such as mine in Renfrew County or the district of Nipissing must abide by what are in effect urban rules if it is to get housing at all. Towns like Petawawa and Pembroke which are largely dormitory towns. There is little industrial base there by comparison with wealthier cities in this country. The cost of all the services needed for the development of housing in a town like Pembroke rests largely on the shoulders of the residential community, imposing a heavy burden. This again is a matter for the provincial administration, because that is where control of municipal taxation lies.
I hope the minister responsible for housing comes up with a constructive program to include housing in areas which do not have sewer and water lines combined. Laws which
June 25, 1969
are basically laid down for urban communities are a deterrent to the development of communities in rural areas. For my part, I have faith in the ability of the minister to come up with constructive suggestions in this regard. One suggestion I might make to him is that in areas such as I have mentioned, where services must be supplied and where no industrial base exists to support the necessary taxation, larger grants, additional grants, should be made so as to assist these communities in their development. It would be a good idea to give authority in the bill itself for the minister to consider the situation of these communities and areas on an individual basis, using his own good judgment, rather than letting the legislation become a strait-jacket of rules.
A word about the regional development legislation. I hope it will succeed in bringing industry into many areas of slow economic growth, including my own. When a community ceases to grow a certain amount of depression is created and many of the people who live in the area feel discouraged. It is, basically, of great importance that from this day onward we should try to get more and more industry out of the large complexes which already exist and begin to develop smaller regions in an effort to give this country greater depth beyond the borderline between Canada and the United States, as well as to provide employment for people who prefer to live in rural areas.
Many of those living in our cities today face a housing crisis. They would not do so if the federal government had the right to develop this country on an economic basis from coast to coast instead of the responsibility being divided among ten provinces. We cannot afford to continue as we are doing. If we build a New York city around the urban complex in Ontario we shall run into the same problems as New York which is already approaching bankruptcy through its efforts to fight pollution.
It would be far cheaper in the long run to spread industry across this country even if this entailed making amendments to the constitution to give the federal government authority to do so, as well as authority to combat pollution. These debates on pollution, these endeavours to pass the buck, are useless.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Then why are you talking about it?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Why was it brought up?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
COMMONS DEBATES	10631
Alleged Failure to Cope With Urban Growth Mr. Hopkins: We have spent Monday and today debating problems of pollution for which responsibility is divided between the provincial and federal authorities. The field of the federal authority is that of research. What does this amount to, if it is not trying to pass the buck to Ottawa instead of laying it squarely on the shoulders where it belongs? Those provinces which are really concerned with this matter should adopt an aggressive policy toward pollution in Canada or place the responsibility right here where it should be.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I would prefer that the hon. member wait until the end.
It would be much cheaper for taxpayers who live in the years to come were we to hold a constitutional conference today, one which faced up to the realization that economic development should be the responsibility of one authority in Canada, namely, the federal government, which would have power to spread this development in order that we might not be called upon to combat pollution in one particular area or in a few areas of this country. Along with that should go extensive measures to control the pollution that is caused by industry wherever industry is sited, in order to see to it that industry toes the line from the beginning. This would mean that we would not all of a sudden be called upon to spend large amounts of the taxpayers' money to combat a problem that would already be well on its way to solution.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I commend these measures to the house and I hope that the legislation being brought in by the Minister of Regional Economic Development will be successful. I also trust that the minister in charge of housing will note my remarks concerning housing in rural areas, small communities or towns that do not have a wealthy industrial base. I trust he will take those remarks into consideration and reimburse those communities for needed services and update those they already have.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May
I now ask the hon. member for Renfrew North my question? In view of the strong stand he has taken, with which I agree, for greater economic powers for the federal government, may I ask him whether he has

June 25, 1969
Motions for Concurrence pressed this point upon his Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and called upon the federal government to seek these broader powers?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: He is not just my Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker; he is the Prime Minister of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Gilbert: Don't brag about it.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Envy will get you nowhere. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has asked a very pertinent question. May I assure him that we in the Liberal party are liberal thinkers. We have the opportunity of expressing our views to our leader because he is a reasonable man.
May I conclude by saying that if my recommendations are not accepted, then I am not going to go away angry. I am going to come back and fight another day. That is the way democracy should work, and it is the way in which our democratic Prime Minister works.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Broadview has 30 seconds.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speak-ern it would take me 30 minutes to reply not only to the hon. member for Renfrew North (Mr. Hopkins) but also to the speech made by the minister in charge of housing. I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) for the very fine speech he made which underlined the lack of leadership to deal with the problem of urban growth in Canada. I should also like to condemn the weak-kneed speech by the minister in charge of housing on this very important problem.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to section 10 of Standing Order 58, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings on the motion now before the house and to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the two motions to concur in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1970, and the supply bill based thereon.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That vote L20 (revised), Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1970, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: That the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1970, except vote L10, Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation, and vote L20, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, and less the amounts voted in interim supply, be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that the said estimates be concurred in?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Macdonald  Rosedale@for Mr. Drury: that Bill C-210, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1970, be now read the first time and printed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the second time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Mr. Speaker:: Now, agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may we have copies of the bill?


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that copies are being distributed for the enlightenment of hon. members.


Mr. Macdonald  Rosedale@for Mr. Drury: that Bill C-210, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1970, be now read the second time and referred to the committee of the whole.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
division.
Bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Faulkner in the chair.


James Hugh Faulkner: Order. House in committee of the whole on Bill C-210.
Clauses 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
June 25, 1969	COMMONS
James Hugh Faulkner: Shall I report the bill?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
division.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Bill reported.


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


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


Mr. Macdonald  Rosedale@for Mr. Drury: the third reading of the bill.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this
Motions for Concurrence House that the Senate have passed the following bills, without any amendment: Bill C-192, an act to amend the National Housing Act, 1954; Bill C-201, an act to amend the National Housing Act, 1954; Bill C-191, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, and Bill C-197, an act to amend the Criminal Code.


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that the joint committee on the Library of Parliament has tabled a report on the regulations of the library.
[Editor's Note: The aforementioned committee report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Is it the wish of the house that we call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, June 26, 1969