1970-02-02

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the capital budget of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the calendar year 1970 which for the first time is being tabled this early in the year. The approved capital budget authorizes CMHC to make loans under the various sections of the National Housing Act in a total amount of $854 million. This represents an increase of $174 million over the 1969 commitment level of $680 million. As in 1969, and in accordance with the undertaking given in the Speech from the Throne at the opening of this session, the largest part of the corporation's budget will be devoted to the provision of housing for low-income families and persons. A total of $570 million has been reserved for this purpose.
An amount of $265 million has been allocated to the provincial housing authorities for the public housing program under section 35 of the National Housing Act. They were so informed last week. In almost all cases, this matches provincial requests. An amount of $105 million will be directed immediately to section 16 loans to sponsoring groups who will supply low-rental housing in limited-return, non-profit and co-operative projects. The sum of $200 million is being reserved temporarily for new innovations and a balancing of distribution based on need. It is my hope that a substantial portion of this $200 million can be used to bolster efforts in those areas where poverty is most acute and to employ new or revised techniques for reaching low-income families where the present arrangements under the National Housing Act may not be fully effective. In any event, these funds will permit the corporation
to arrange in 1970 for the construction of
35.000	housing units specifically for low-income families.
So that hon. members will have some idea of the magnitude of this allocation it should be noted that during the 20 years prior to 1969, 82,000 homes for low-income families were built in Canada through the CMHC loan budget. In 1969, in line with government policy, provision was made for 27,000 units of low-rental, low-income housing in that year, a number that will be increased to not less than
35.000	units in 1970.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Knight Andras: The total allocation of capital funds for low-income housing in 1969 and 1970 at 62,000 units therefore represents 75 per cent of the previous 20 years' performance. In addition to the specific low-income housing sections, $110 million will be for direct loans under section 40 to home owners for new and existing housing in small towns, rural areas and the remote parts of Canada where new communities are emerging as a result of the development of resource industries. It is my intention, Mr. Speaker, that the direct lending activities of CMHC under section 40 shall also be devoted to the needs of families in the lower income brackets.
An allocation of $45 million has been made for student housing, which will provide 6,500 dormitory beds on university campuses. Unfortunately, this allocation will not meet all of the demand for student housing in 1970. But in view of the pressing and greater need for housing for low-income families and because of the large amount of capital funds directed to student housing in recent years, it is my opinion that a modest decline from $55 million to $45 million this year is appropriate. In this regard hon. members will recall that $340 million has been devoted to student housing in the last nine years, an amount that has produced more than 56,000 hostel beds and nearly 5,000 units of fully served accommodation on university campuses.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
In view of the increasing concern with ground and water pollution, the CMHC budget provides for loans to assist in financ-

February 2, 1970
CMHC 1970 Budget
ing sewage treatment plants and major trunk sewers in an amount of $75 million. This is an increase of 50 per cent over the 1969 figure of $50 million and represents the only major increase in the non-housing portion of the corporation's 1970 capital budget. The funds allocated for land assembly and urban renewal loans have been set at approximately the 1969 level.
Hon. members will note that, of the total budget, $724 million is being directed to housing purposes, mainly for low income families and persons, including the elderly, while $130 million has been reserved for infrastructure programs, such as sewage treatment, land assembly and urban renewal.
The 1970 CMHC capital budget is being tabled concurrently with these few remarks. May I conclude by reminding hon. members that, in addition to the large sums to which I have already referred, there is an amount of $53.7 million in the annual estimates covering grants, subsidies and losses under part V, sections 23 A and 23B and 36G of the National Housing Act, as well as losses on public housing projects. I should like to add that, as I have stated on previous occasions, we, in cooperation with the provinces, are seeking to encourage and establish long-range budgeting for all NHA programs.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamillon West):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the statement by the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing. It certainly shows some awareness of housing problems as they affect the poor. But I must state at the outset that we on this side of the House are extremely disturbed and gravely disappointed that the minister has made no mention of guidelines for public housing, which are extremely important to all. Therefore it appears that uncertainty still remains regarding size and design. I hope that the minister, in his wisdom, will look into this matter inasmuch as several questions have been directed to him over the past months as to when these guidelines would be available.
One very important point regarding the minister's statement which gives those on this side of the House some concern is the fact that, as has been said on many occasions, tenants in public housing are trapped by high rents. We must remember that public housing was never intended to be permanent but rather only a temporary means of providing housing for those at the bottom of the economic ladder until such time as they are able to move into more substantial housing on a permanent basis.

I should like to point out at this time that those living in public housing who earn approximately $560 a month pay rent of approximately $160 a month. As their income increases we find that those making approximately $600 a month pay $180 a month for rent. Yet studies have shown that people living in our larger metropolitan areas where the same circumstances exist who earn $14,000 a year pay approximately $176 per month for rent. Therefore I point out to the minister that the public housing rental scale is far too high. Changes must be made to take account of differences in projects, in construction costs and in the quality of services. In this regard we have to pay specific attention to the tenant associations which are deeply involved in this matter.
I notice the Minister mentioned that some emphasis is to be placed on limited dividend housing. I point out that with $105 million to be devoted to this field we must have some regard for priority. In effect I do not think this type of home is geared to meet the needs of those in the lower income bracket but rather the needs of those in the $6,000 to $8,000 bracket. Therefore I say we should be concerned to see that at the expiration of 15 years these limited dividend housing projects will have no further governmental supervision. Charges of $100 a month for a one-bedroom apartment could conceivably increase to $200 a month.
With regard to limited dividend housing we must also be concerned about the high cost of land. In order for this type of project to be successful it is important that the government realize that we must be concerned about acquiring serviced land upon which this type of housing can be erected. We have to realize that public housing is designed to meet the needs of the poor. Therefore our policies with respect to public housing should be directed to assisting those people whom I have described as being locked in.
The amount of money now going into direct loans is of some significance in terms of the interest shown, but I would like to remind the minister that in the past-and here the only figures we have are for 1968-apparently 75 per cent of this money was directed to people who on average were making between $8,000 and $10,000 per year.
There were certain unwarranted inconsistencies in the minister's speech which I would like to bring to his attention. One concerns the fact that the government does not have an acceptable urban renewal policy. The vast
February 2, 1970

majority of poor people in this land live within areas now designated for urban renewal projects. The minister's statement on this aspect is unacceptable to many people, particularly to those on this side of the House who are concerned about helping the poor. I say with all respect to the minister that he should try to issue a policy statement at least once a year.
I believe that the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Andras) should get together with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). It appears to me there is not too much rapport between them, if that is now the acceptable word rather than dialogue, because the Minister of Finance wants to bring homes under a new capital gains tax structure, while at the same time he is talking about taxing the small businessman at the rate of 50 per cent on his profits, a step which will certainly discourage home ownership.
I must also point out that student housing is a unique problem calling for special consideration. It has been reported that there will be some 500,000 students needing accommodation by 1975. If this be true, then we must be very concerned because student housing affects the intellectual and emotional development of students. A sum of $45 million is neither practical nor adequate.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member-will the hon. member kindly resume his seat. I appreciate that the matter now under consideration is of great importance but at the same time the Standing Order requires that comments on ministerial statements should be brief. I would invite the hon. member to come to a conclusion as early as possible.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The matter is so complex and calls for so much involvement that perhaps I was carried away.
I welcome the statement of the minister. I point out, however, that successful public housing is not only dependent on the number of projects but also on the inter-related effect of general housing policy. Unless we begin to produce homes at reasonable cost and with a reasonable rental scale, people with rising incomes will remain locked in and dependent on public housing.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, the amiable and courteous minister read his statement with a great deal of pride, I
CMHC 1970 Budget
thought. I suppose he ought to be congratulated that he did make the statement today. I remind him, however, that this is the beginning of February and that the Ontario government found it necessary to freeze its public housing program until he had tabled the CMHC budget. I see no reason in the world why he could not have done so before the end of last year instead of in the second month of the year to which the budget is intended to apply.
Everyone in this House and in the country must be glad that the minister has increased the money available for public housing in view of the fact that this is the major concern in the generally difficult field of housing. But I cannot help but be distressed and saddened by the fact that after some years of study of the problem of housing, after task forces, reports and housing conferences across the country, all we have today is the provision of a little more money in the realm of housing. Have any guidelines for public housing, any of those programs necessary to make it effective, any of the details, been made known to this Parliament, the provincial governments or the municipal authorities? What in heaven's name are we going to do for the poor people who have no housing? That is where the problem lies.
I happened to be present last Saturday, as was my leader, the hon. member for Nanai-mo-Cowichan-The Islands, at a meeting at Trefann Court in Toronto where people concerned with urban renewal and threatened with the demolition of their houses, and people from existing public housing projects such as Regent Park, met with us and spoke of their worries. It was an experience to sit and listen to these Canadians speak of the kind of life they sire forced to live in these public housing projects. Apparently the attention paid to garbage collection in these large apartments is inadequate and in some cases garbage is piled up at elevators to within two feet of the ceiling. Apparently, too, the people cannot always get adequate maintenance service and have to chase around for days to get plumbing or electrical repairs made. They complain too that the rents are much too high for people with families to support.
One cannot feel satisfied that the public housing program up to this time has accomplished anything except to provide a roof over heads that might otherwise not have had one. Surely, Mr. Speaker, that is not what we are after. Surely what we are after is to build communities into which Canadians who

February 2, 1970
CMHC 1970 Budget
cannot afford high-price homes can move and live in decency and with some sort of personal fulfilment rather than having to live in a new form of degradation, a new form of inferiority such as accompanies these public housing projects.
These people told us that they have no recreation facilities, no chance of participating in what takes place in the projects and that there is bad management. I am just reporting what they told us. I appreciate that the federal minister does not do the managing. That is done through the Ontario Housing Corporation or similar bodies in the other provinces. I am not saying it is directly his fault but I am saying that it is his fault to some extent because the government has failed to bring down guidelines for public housing demanding that there be recreational facilities and good management and laying down as a condition governing the advancing of any money the requirement that the environment be such that Canadian children can be brought up in decency. That is the main point I wished to make.
I do not wish to speak at such length that Your Honour will have to remind me to be brief. I say to the minister that what he has presented today is really no solution to those concerned about the problem of public housing. The problem is a social one. It is of concern to those living in our present public housing projects who cannot live in decency and have to pay too high a rent. Many of these people are not given any chance to make decisions which will affect their lives in these apartments.
I submit that the minister is doing only one-tenth of his job when he brings to our attention the slight and inadequate increase in the allocation of funds for public housing.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I will be quite brief. I merely wish to point out some gaps in the government proposal on housing. Each time that the government announces that it is granting some kind of assistance, I wonder what it really means for Quebec. We already know that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation provides very few loans to Quebec compared to Ontario. This depends on the fact that standards in a country as vast as Canada cannot be the same for all provinces. In the housing field, some provisions are closely related to the individual himself.
Due to the presence of various ethnic groups in Quebec, in comparison with other

Canadian provinces, the government should have realized that there was already a housing corporation in that province which cannot have the necessary scope to serve the people, on account of its lack of funds. In order to solve the problem, should the government not have provided more money to the Quebec housing corporation, and thus by decentralizing the problem, it could more easily have met the needs of the population of Canada in general and that of Quebec in particular.



PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF BELGIAN MINISTER OF SCIENTIFIC AFFAIRS

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in your gallery of Mr. Theo Lefevre, Minister of Scientific Affairs of Belgium.



AIR TRANSPORT


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent of the House-


Mr. Barnett:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are we still on motions?


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Co-mox-Albemi rising on a point of order?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I wanted at this time to ask leave to make a correction in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Brandon-Souris has the floor.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent of the House to move a motion under Standing Order 43 on the following grounds: On Friday last the Air Transport Committee of the Canadian Transport Commission brought down a decision which makes fundamental changes in regional air policy. Under licence No. 502/50(s), in accordance with the principles of regional policy Transair Limited has been providing a prairie regional class I air service including major centres on the western lateral such as Winnipeg, Brandon, Regina, Saskatoon and Prince Albert, emphasizing centres not served by Air Canada. The decision has amended con-
February 2, 1970

Questions
dition four of the licence which prohibits direct non-stop service between Winnipeg-Regina and Winnipeg-Saskatoon. This introduces a new element in regional air policy providing for competitive service with Air Canada and Canadian Pacific Airlines on main line routes rather than supplementary service to major communities off the main routes.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
As a result of the decision, Brandon and western Manitoba have been downgraded from class I to class II service at a critical juncture when industry is developing to offset the decline in the agricultural industry on the Prairies. The change in policy runs counter to, and in fact works against, the government's regional development program.
Because of the serious implications of this ad hoc decision for all regions of Canada labouring under problems of regional disparity, I ask unanimous consent to have the whole question of regional air policy referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications for urgent consideration and confirmation.


Mr. Speaker:: As hon. members know, this motion cannot be put unless there is unanimous agreement. Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous
agreement.



BROADCASTING OF DEBATES BY RADIO AND TELEVISION

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day: Government Notices of Motions:
January 30, 1970-The President of the Privy Council:
That the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, in consultation with Mr. Speaker, be directed to study the question of radio and television broadcasting of the proceedings of the House and its Committees, including the legal, procedural, and technical aspects thereof, and the question of arrangements made for reporters for the electronic media in the parliament buildings.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 21 (2), the government notice of motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders in the same sitting of the House later today.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Caouetie: Among the persons earning $17,000 or more per year, and for each branch, in the Department of National Health and Welfare, how many are (a) Canadians whose mother tongue is French (b) Canadians whose mother tongue is English (c) others (d) bilingual?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Staff statistics for the Department of National Health and Welfare are maintained in a manner which would not provide the information requested. However information on bilingualism within the department is being prepared but will not be complete until early in 1970.


ECONOMIC COUNCIL COMBINES REPORT
Mr. Barnett: 1.	How many briefs and letters were received by mid-October in response to the Economic Council's report on combines?
2.	What organizations or individuals have submitted briefs or letters?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: 1. 7.
2.	Warren Allmand, M.P.; Canadian Chiropractic Association; Ivey & Dowler, London, Ontario; Imperial Oil Limited; Retail Council of Canada; Dominion Stores Ltd.; Eric B. Appleby of Fredericton, N.B.


GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES IN UNITED KINGDOM
Mr. Stewart (Cochrane): What was the total number of people, both Canadian and non-Canadian, employed by the Canadian Government within the United Kingdom, excluding military personnel, in 1965 and 1969?


Yves Forest: 1965: 607; 1969: 545.


WHITE PAPER ON TAXATION
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many copies of the White Paper on Taxation were printed?
2.	What was the cost of printing the White Paper on Taxation?
3.	Were copies of the White Paper on Taxation distributed to political parties and, if so, how many to each party?

February 2, 1970
Questions
4.	Were copies of the White Paper on Taxation distributed to organizations and, if so, to which organizations and in what quantities?
5.	Were copies of the White Paper on Taxation distributed by the Department to Members of Parliament and, if so, how many received (a) 1-10 copies (b) 10-25 copies (c) 25-100 copies (d) more than 100 copies?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: 1.
Two printings of the White Paper, each totalling 50,000, have been received and a further order for 25,000 is being processed by The Queen's Printer.
2.	Printing costs for the 125,000 copies are expected to total about $44,000.
3.	Since tabling of the document, requests have been received from political parties for varying amounts and these requests have been met. The numbers involved have not been recorded.
4.	In most cases copies of the White Paper were sent to individual members of organizations, e.g. labor organizations, members of the Federation of Mayors and Municipalities, members of the Canadian Consumer Council, etc. A supply of 230 was provided directly to the Canadian Manufacturers' Association for its own distribution to members. Two commercial tax reporting services, CCH Canadian Limited and Richard De Boo Limited, received 7,000 and 1,500 copies respectively and were charged printing costs. Accounting and law firms, schools, universities and similar bodies requesting large supplies of the White Paper are billed 25 cents per copy to cover printing costs.
5.	At the time of release approximately 1,800 copies were made available for Members at a special briefing and in the House of Commons post office. Since then Members' requests for copies for constituents have been met on a one-per-person basis; where possible, mailing has been handled by the Department of Finance to ensure rapid distribution. No precise record has been kept of the numbers received by individual Members, or mailed on their behalf to constituents.


NUMBER OF AMERICANS IN CYC
Mr. Saltsman: 1.	How many Americans are in the Company of Young Canadians?
2.	Have any Americans in the Company of Young Canadians policy-making jobs?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Company of Young Canadians as follows: 1. There are seven
Americans having landed immigrant status in the Company of Young Canadians.
2.	There are no Americans holding policymaking jobs in the Company of Young Canadians at the present time.


CBC FREE TELEVISION TIME FOR QUEBEC PARTIES
Mr. Rondeau: 1.	Does CBC make available to Quebec provincial parties free television periods between elections and, if so, what Quebec provincial parties were granted such free time in 1969?
2.	How many periods and how many minutes per period has CBC granted to (a) the Quebec Liberal Party (b) the Union Nationale Party of Quebec (c) the Parti Qu&becois?
3.	What criteria are used by CBC in recognizing political parties?
4.	Was Dr. Gaston Tremblay, Ralliement Cr6di-tiste Party member representing Montmorency in the Quebec National Assembly, given pro-rated free television time and, if not, for what reason and does CBC intend to correct this situation?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1 and 2. Yes. CBC made available 28 periods of 5-minutes duration for free-time political telecasts by Quebec provincial political parties for the 1969-70 Fall-Winter season as follows: Union Nationale, 14 periods; Parti Liberal, 12 periods; Parti Quebecois, 2 periods.
3.	The Corporation has established certain guidelines to determine the eligibility of a party for free time periods. Under these guidelines it is expected that a provincial party has a program relating to a large number of questions of provincial interest and, as a result of a political convention, has a recognized provincial leader and province-wide organization which includes province-wide representation. Another consideration is the number of candidates fielded by a party during the previous provincial elections.
4.	Dr. Gaston Tremblay, as a Ralliement creditiste member, was not given pro-rated free television time because of the criteria outlined in part 3 above.


LANGUAGE AND CITIZENSHIP COURSES FOR IMMIGRANTS
Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West): 1.	Have there been any negotiations with and, if so, have any agreements been signed with any of the governments of the provinces of Canada, other

February 2, 1970

than Quebec, respecting Language and Citizenship courses for immigrants to Canada?
2.	If in the affirmative, with what provinces?
3.	If in the affirmative, do such agreements differ materially from that reached with the Province of Quebec on December 15, 1969, and in what respect?


Gérard Pelletier: 1.	Yes.
2.	British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland.
3.	No.


CONVENTION AND ENTERTAINMENT EXPENSES -REVENUE FROM PROPOSED ELIMINATION OF DEDUCTION
Mr. Mather: What, in dollars, is the estimated annual amount of revenue to be gained by the federal Treasury through implementation of the White Paper proposal to end convention and entertainment expenses as tax deductible business expenditures?


Edgar John Benson: Tables 15 and 16 of White Paper show revenue gain in first year from cancellation of deduction for club dues, entertainment expenses, and conventions as from personal income tax, $12 million; from corporation income tax, $5 million; total: $17 million.
This includes provincial revenue gain. It is estimated that federal revenue gain would be $13 million.


LOANS IDB FOR CATV SYSTEMS
Mr. Rose: For each year from 1960 to 1969 (a) how many loans (b) what size of loans have been provided by the Industrial Development Bank for the establishment or furthering of CATV systems?


Edgar John Benson: The Annual Report of the Industrial Development Bank for the fiscal year ended September 30th, 1969 contains information regarding loan approvals by types of business, by number and amount for the years 1964-69 inclusive on pages 18 and 19; the Annual Report for the year ended September 30, 1965 contains similar information for the years 1960-63 on pages 20 and 21. Information on the number and amount of loans to CATV systems is not published as a separate classification.
Questions


REPRESENTATION ON WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES
Mr. McBride: 1.	Does the Government of Canada have any official who at any time represents the Government of Canada at the Geneva headquarters of the World Council of Churches and, if so, who is/are the person (s) involved?
2.	Do they report through the Canadian Ambassador to Switzerland?
3.	If the Government of Canada has no such representative, are there any plans to establish such an office?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. Yes. The Permanent Representative of Canada to the Office of the United Nations at Geneva is also the authorized representative of the Government of Canada to the specialized agencies and other international organizations in Geneva. In this capacity, he is called upon to maintain close ties with the World Council of Churches and other non-governmental organizations located in Geneva whose activities present an interest to Canada.
2.	No. The Permanent Representative reports direct to the Department of External Affairs.
3.	Answered by No. 1.


INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OF GRAIN BOOTLEGGING
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	How many investigations have taken place since the 1st of November to date by the RCMP in connection with alleged grain bootlegging in each of the Prairie Provinces?
2.	How many charges in respect of such alleged bootlegging have been laid in each of said provinces during said period?
3.	Were these prosecutions taken at the instance of the Honourable Member for Saskatoon-Hum-boldt, the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and, if not, at whose request?
4.	From how many farmers were Quota Books removed by the RCMP during said period?


Yves Forest: The
answer is as follows: 1. Manitoba, 3; Saskatchewan, 75; Alberta, 5.
2.	Manitoba, 2; Saskatchewan, 2; Alberta, 2.
3.	No. Prosecutions undertaken by the Canadian Wheat Board are instituted by the Board on the advice of Counsel.
4.	Manitoba, None; Saskatchewan, 42; Alberta, None.

February 2, 1970
Questions


CLOSURE OF POST OFFICE, RUPERT, P.Q.
Mr. La Salle: 1.	Has the Postmaster General received a petition protesting the closure of the Post Office in Rupert, in Gatineau County, that was opened more than ninety years ago?
2.	Does the Postmaster General intend to carry out the wish expressed in the petition and continue the operation of this Post Office serving both the permanent population of the area and a large number of summer visitors?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General and Minister of Communications):: 1. Yes.
2.	As the Rupert, P.Q., Post Office was eligible for closing under all three categories of the Department's program to close small unproductive post offices and as approximately $1,100 per annum savings could be realized, there was no alternative but to close the office.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES-MINESWEEPERS
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Do the Canadian Armed Forces have any minesweepers in commission and, if so, which are they?
2.	Do the Canadian Armed Forces have any capability of dealing with a mining campaign carried out by foreign submarines in Eastern Canadian waters or the approaches to Eastern Canadian harbours, including Belle Isle Strait, St. John's, St. Lawrence Gulf and River, Sydney, Port Hawkes-bury, Halifax and Saint John and, if so, what is it?
3.	When did Canadian minesweepers last carry out any minesweeping exercises or mine warfare training?
4.	If the approaches to Halifax Harbour were mined, how long would it take the Canadian Armed Forces to clear a safe channel?


Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliameniary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1. Yes, six Bay class minesweepers, Chaleur, Chignecto, Fundy, Thunder, Miramichi and Cowichan.
2 and 3. All of these vessels have a limited potential minesweeping capability although no minesweeping exercises as such have been carried out since December 1963. A portion of their minesweeping equipment has been landed for preservation and equipment aboard is not in an operative state. Over a period of time, varying from several days to several months, these ships could be readied to perform the type of tasks normally assigned to coastal minesweepers seven to ten years ago. Since 1963 several officers and senior non-commissioned personnel have attended courses with, and served in, mine counter measures forces of other allied nations. In addition, Canadian Forces clearance divers continue to train in
and practice mine hunting and disposal techniques.
4.	This is a hypothetical question; however, the time required to sweep a mined area depends upon many factors, some of which are, the number, location and degree of sophistication of the mines. When these factors and others are known they may be weighed against the effectiveness of the mine counter measures units and the period of time required to complete the task can then be estimated.


IMMIGRATION ACT-DELETION OF CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE AS REASON FOR NON-ADMISSION
Mr. Lambert (Edmonton: West):
1.	Is it proposed to amend section 5 (d) of the Immigration Act to delete the words "crime involving moral turpitude" as a reason for nonadmission to Canada of an applicant for entry in the light of the strictures and criticisms of this term by Monnin J. in Kings V Brooks (1960) 3 W.W.R. 673 and more recently by the Immigration Appeal Board in Turpin vs Minister of Manpower and Immigration decided February 12, 1968 (File 67-5006) reported September, 1969 and published December, 1969?
2.	Since the date of the decision in Turpin have the said grounds of "crime involving moral turpitude" been used by Immigration officials to deny admission of anyone to Canada in the absence of other valid reasons and, if so, how often?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. The Immigration Act is under review. However, until this review has been completed and a firm decision has been made concerning any amendments which may be considered advisable, it is not possible to say whether any change in subsection (d) of section 5 will be recommended for the approval of Parliament.
2. During the calendar year 1968, there were 90 aliens refused admission to Canada at ports of entry where the primary cause of refusal was based on subsection (d) of section 5 of the Immigration Act. Similar data for 1969 are not available.


BILINGUAL SIGN COST, RIDING MOUNTAIN PARK
Mr. Stewart (Marquette): 1.	What has been the cost to date of installing bilingual signs in Riding Mountain National Park including all bilingual descriptions of displays in the Museum at Clear Lake Townsite?
2.	Has this program been completed and, if not, what is the estimated cost to complete it?

February 2, 1970


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliameniary Secretary io Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. The cost including the normal annual replacement or refurnishing of older signs is $22,000.
2. This program will be completed during the fiscal year 1970-71 at an estimated cost of $8,000.00.


RETROACTIVE PAY INCREASES
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	As of January 1, 1970, how many government employees to whom retroactive pay increases had been granted still had not received these agreed upon increases?
2.	Of these employees, how many had not received their retroactive pay for (a) less than one month (b) one to two months (c) two to three months (d) three to four months (e) four to five months (f) five to six months (g) more than six months?
3.	Is the government giving consideration to making some adjustment for the increased income tax such employees will have to pay as a result of the delayed payments which will be made in 1970?
4.	Is the government giving consideration to extra expenses which may have been incurred by employees who, believing that they had been granted retroactive pay, made financial commitments which led to extra expenses such as bank loans because of the sometimes lengthy delay in making the retroactive payments?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: 1. As of January 1, 1970, the following collective agreements had passed the 90-day implementation period and as accurately as could be determined employees in the numbers indicated had not received retroactive adjustments: Physical Science, 20; Biological Sciences, 10; Economics, Sociology and Statistics, 77; Scientific Research, 82; Photography, 8; General Technical, 60.
As of January 1, 1970, collective agreements had been signed or arbitral awards rendered for the following groups but the 90 day implementation period or extensions where granted had not expired. Population of these groups is as shown: Communications, 923; Ships Officers, 1307; Engineering & Land Survey, 1673; Law, 41; Air Traffic Control, 1104; Electronics, 1886; Printing Operations (Supervisory), 70.
It is anticipated that these groups will be paid on or before their respective expiry dates.
2. To answer this part of the question would require the examination of each individual employee's file and entail thousands of hours of work by the very staff that is processing the retroactive pay documentation, and would delay the issuance of retroactive
Questions
cheques. It is considered that the continued processing of retroactive cheques should receive a higher priority than the preparation of the detailed reply required by this part of the question.
3.	No.
4.	No.


RCMP STRENGTH AND MAINTENANCE COST
Mr. Rodrigue: 1.	What will be the cost of maintaining the RCMP for the fiscal year 1969-70?
2.	What was the total strength of the RCMP at January 1, 1970?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Solicitor General):: 1. $113,576,995.
2. 11,669.


TRIPS BY DND EXECUTIVE AIRCRAFT
Mr. Schumacher: 1.	During the calendar year 1969, how many trips were made by Falcons and/or other executive type jet aircraft owned by the Department of National Defence?
2.	What were the dates of each such trip?
3.	What were the destinations in each case?
4.	What was the duration of each trip?
5.	Who were the passengers in each case?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. The fact that the functional Commands of the Canadian Forces are spread across Canada has created a great need for air transportation, and in the interests of service efficiency and flexibility it is important that Commanders and their staffs travel between Commands and Canadian Forces Headquarters or to conferences in all parts of North America in the shortest possible time. Accordingly the Falcon was selected as the most suitable type of aircraft to provide faster and more economical transportation to replace Cosmopolitan and Dakota aircraft being withdrawn from service. Seven of these aircraft were purchased and went into service in 1968. Because of the demands of regular aircraft maintenance, the need to train new pilots and to provide continuation training for squadron pilots, only four of the seven Falcon are available for tasking at any given time. Notwithstanding this, the four aircraft in use account for an average of 92 passenger flights per month which includes a total of 24 monthly scheduled flights. These flights account for approximately 320 flying hours out of an established monthly total of 420 hours, the remainder being utilized for

February 2, 1970
Questions
the training of new pilots, for continuation training of squadron pilots and the occasional ferry flight. To provide the information requested would require the perusal of over 1100 individual flight manifests, and the necessary expert staff to undertake this large amount of work is not available to gather the necessary information.


LANCASTER VETERANS HOSPITAL-PART-TIME PHYSICIANS, SURGEONS AND SPECIALISTS
Mr. MacRae: Who were the part-time physicians, surgeons and other specialists employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs Hospital, Lancaster, in the fiscal year 1968-69 and how much was paid to each?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Keyes, Dr. S.	9,600
Nixon, Dr. M.	2,400
Touchie, Dr. H.	2,640
Bewick, Dr. J. B.	4,800
Bonner, Dr. K. J.	4,800
Branch, Dr. E. A. G.	9,560
Dysart, Dr. H. E.	4,720
Fanjoy, Dr. R. W.	5,760
Finley, Dr. J. A.	9,480
Gregory, Dr. R. A.	720
Higgins, Dr. R. B.	5,760
Karrel, Dr. I. A.	4,680
Keddy, Dr. G. W. A.	7,200
Kelly, Dr. D. C.	4,800
Lee, Dr. W. R.	4,740
McLean, Dr. J. G.	4,320
McMillan, Dr. C. C.	5,040
Maddison, Dr. G. E.	1,440
Miller, Dr. W. D.	4,880
Milrod, Dr. S.	4,387
Morse, Dr. L. R.	8,640
Polowin, Dr. M. I.	4,800
Rodger, Dr. K. C.	4,800
Seamans, Dr. K. D.	4,320
Silver, Dr. S.	5,280
Simon, Dr. L. M.	120
Stephen, Dr. W.	4,800
Sullivan, Dr. H. A.	4,800
Taylor, Dr. C. R.	4,320
Theriault, Dr. J.C.	1,920
Tonning, Dr. H. O.	7,680
Lund, Dr. G. E.	560
Tien, Dr. H.	2,425
Walker, Dr. E. P.	3,720
Moir, Dr. J. D.	200
Walters, Dr. W. C.	640
Hayes, Dr. R.	3,600
George, Dr. F. H.	2,800
Flood, Dr. J.	120
[Mr. Cadieux (Labelle).l

Malcolm, Dr. D. A. C.	120
McLeese, Dr. R.	160
Simoa, Dr. B.	120
Rosen, Dr. H. J.	1,800
Stevenson, Dr. J.	120
Skinner, Dr. N. S.	120
Dalhousie Professors for Consultants in training programs	2,550
Total	$172,262


VETERANS AFFAIRS ECONOMY CUTBACKS
Mr. MacRae: In reference to the government's economy cutbacks in the Department of Veterans Affairs, has any consideration been given to a review of fees paid to physicians rather than the layoffs of Department of Veterans Affairs personnel?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: There is a constant review of fees paid to physicians when these are remunerated for part-time services. However, when physicians are remunerated on a fee for service basis, they are paid 90 per cent of the prevailing authorized provincial fee schedules issued by the provincial College of Physicians and Surgeons, and we do not consider there is any option open to vary the amounts paid for each type of service.


LANCASTER VETERANS HOSPITAL-PARTTIME ATTENDING STAFF
Mr. MacRae: Notwithstanding the government's economy measures, has an increase been recommended for parttime attending staff of the Department of Veterans Affairs Hospital, Lancaster, New Brunswick, and if so, by what percentage?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: The Medical Advisory Committee at Lancaster Hospital passed a recommendation to the Hospital Director which requested a 25 per cent increase for part-time medical staff. This recommendation has not been actioned either by the Hospital Director locally or at Head Office.


HOG CARCASS PREMIUMS
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	How much money was paid out for premium quality hog carcasses in the fiscal year 1967-68 and in 1968-69, and what rates were applicable?
2.	How much was paid in premiums from March 31 to December 31, 1969 and what rates were applicable?
3.	Does the federal government intend to completely discontinue payments for premium quality hog carcasses and, if so, on what date?
February 2, 1970


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. 1967-68, $10,250,577 paid in premiums; 1968-69, $6,438,418 paid in premiums.
Rate applicable fiscal 1967-68, $3 per grade "A" hog.
Rate applicable April 1, 1968 to December 30, 1968, $2 per grade "A" hog.
Rate applicable December 30, 1968 to March 30, 1969, $3 per hog grading Canada Index 103 or better.
2.	March 31 to December 31, 1969, $2,034,482 paid in premiums.
Rate applicable March 31 to December 31, 1969, $3 per hog grading Canada Index 105 or better.
3.	Yes. A date has not yet been determined.


VISIT TO CANADA BY KING HUSSEIN'S BROTHER
[Stage Direction]
Question 973-Mr. Nesbitt:
1.	Did the brother of His Majesty King Hussein of Jordan pay a visit to Canada in 1969 or to date during 1970?
2.	When did the visit take place and for how long?
3.	What was the purpose of the visit?
4.	How many government personnel were attached to the service of the royal personage during his Canadian visit?
5.	What was the nature of the duties of the government personnel?
6.	Was any announcement made of this visit to Canada?
7.	If the reply to Part 6 is in the negative, what was the reason for the secrecy?
Mitchell William Sharp: 1. Yes.
2.	January 1970. One week.
3.	To visit his brother-in-law and sister-inlaw who are Canadian citizens resident in Canada.
4.	None. Normal security precautions were taken by the competent authorities during the Prince's visit.
5.	Not applicable.
6.	No.
7.	The visit was private and unofficial.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Godin: During the period 1965-68 inclusive, did the federal government contribute financially to the construction of homes for the aged, through CMHC, in the Province of Quebec and, if so, how many such loans were granted each year in (a) the Province (b) the Constituency of Montmorency (c) 21611-55$
Orders for Returns
the Constituency of Champlain (d) the Constituency of Portneuf, showing the names and addresses of each of such institution in the latter.
Return tabled.


TRAINING OF ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL FOR OTHER COUNTRIES
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Canadian Government train members of the Armed Forces for any other country and, if so, which countries and how many have been trained and in what capacity in each of the years 1945 to 1969 to date?
2.	What has been the cost to Canada for the training provided in Part 1 for each of the years from 1945 to 1969 to date?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to continue to train personnel for other countries and, if so, what is the present policy?
Return tabled.


*CBC-DISPOSITION OF PROGRAM ON DRUG USE
Mr. Nesbiii: 1.	Did CBC provide radio and television facilities to record an "Open Forum" on drugs and drug abuse held at the Colonnade Theatre in Toronto on Thursday, November 6, 1969?
2.	Who were the panelists appearing at this "Forum"?
3.	Under whose auspices was this "Forum" arranged?
4.	Who initiated the move to offer CBC coverage for this "Forum"?
5.	What was the cost to the CBC of this project?
6.	What was the original intention for the disposition of the material recorded by CBC?
7.	Has this material been used by CBC?
8.	What is the ultimate intended disposition of this material?
9.	Did CBC hold any consultations or discussions with one Professor Stephen Clarkson, one of the candidates for Mayor in the recent mayoralty contest in the City of Toronto and, if so, what was the nature of such consultations or discussions?
10.	Were any other mayoralty candidates provided with similar facilities by CBC and, if so, which candidate or candidates?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, as the reply to this question is particularly lengthy-it includes ten paragraphs-I am afraid that Your Honour might interrupt me if I undertook to read it. Therefore, would the hon. member agree that the reply be simply taken as read and printed in Hansard?

[Editor's note: The above-mentioned reply reads as follows:]
February 2, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry
I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. No. However, on November 6, 1969, CBC Television did use a mobile television unit to videotape coverage of an open forum on drug addiction at the Colonnade Theatre, Toronto. Regular local television news coverage was also given to this event.
2.	Sydney Katz, June Callwood, Dr. Stephen Clarkson, Dr. Anna Keyl, R. Gaskin and Adrienne Clarkson.
3.	The Corporation understands that the forum was organized by Dr. Clarkson and the municipal Liberal party.
4.	CBC "Weekend" program for the videotape and the News assignment desk for news coverage.
5.	Approximately $950.
6.	The news film was intended for a local news broadcast. The videotape recorded material was for inclusion in a future "Weekend" program dealing with drug problems.
7.	The news film was used in a 90-second local news item; the videotape material has not yet been used.
8.	See 6 above.
9.	Discussions concerning arrangements for technical facilities and coverage were held with the organizers of the open forum on drug addiction. Discussions were held separately with Professor Clarkson and his agents in connection with the recent mayoralty contest, at which time the Corporation was asked to provide political free time on its local station. This was rejected.
10.	No free time was allotted to any of the candidates in the municipal election. Normal arrangements were made to ensure that all major candidates received adequate and equitable campaign coverage on local programming. The news report on the open forum on drug addiction was considered to be part of this local election coverage. However, the videotape recording made by "Weekend" related solely to a larger study concerning drug addiction in Canada which was not scheduled to be aired until after the municipal election.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: I wish to ask the Minister of IMr. Pelletier.]
Consumer and Corporate Affairs a question relating to an announced increase in the price of milk by one firm in the city of Toronto. Were there consultations with the government or the Prices and Incomes Commission prior to this announcement?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker. I have noted the press report to which the Leader of the Opposition referred. The reasons given in the press report for the increase in the price of milk by one dairy do not seem to be very sound reasons for an immediate price increase. I hope other dairies in that district will not see fit to raise their prices.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is this action contrary to the position announced by the Minister of Finance whereby all firms were being requested not to increase their prices at least until after the meeting arranged by the Prices and Incomes Commission to see whether a program of effective restraint can be achieved?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance and other members of the government have been endeavouring to get firms contemplating a price increase not to do so until March 1 or until such time as the Prices and Incomes Commission has had an opportunity of endeavouring to work out an agreed formula. We have been meeting with a fair amount of success in that endeavour, and I am appreciative of those firms which have agreed to roll back their prices. The price increase referred to by the Leader of the Opposition was announced in the press and we were not aware of it until this morning.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary. Is it the intention of the minister or the government to try to persuade the firm in question to hold the line until after the meeting arranged by the Prices and Incomes Commission or is it the position of the government that the increase is regrettable but it does not propose doing anything about it?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, as I have already indicated, only one firm has increased its price. I have asked the other firms in this market area not to increase their prices. If they do not, I anticipate the price increase will have to be rolled back.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: In view of the minister's expressed desire for consumers to ginger him up, has he
February 2, 1970

received enough ginger from the protest of the Consumers Association in Toronto to get busy and ensure that this one increase does not spread to all the dairies in the area, which it undoubtedly will if the minister does not take action?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, as I read the statement of the President of the Consumers Association of Toronto, it is that there should be price, wage and profit controls in Canada. That is the first time I have noted such a statement by the Consumers Association. It was not made by their national organization.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. It arises out of a statement by President Nixon that his administration now proposes to proceed with the second stage of the Safeguard ABM system. In view of the Prime Minister's statement of March 19 last that the Canadian government was reviewing the matter and would decide very soon whether they would condemn this ABM program or co-operate with it, I ask the Prime Minister whether the government has now reached a decision, whether it has conveyed any protest to the United States against the ABM system or whether it has indicated its intention of co-operating with them in the construction of the Safeguard system?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the House will recall that on that occasion we were concerned that the announcement by the United States of America would create an escalation of the arms race. I must say that to date our evidence has not shown that this has resulted. Therefore our main concern at that time does not appear to have been well founded thus far.
This does not mean that on over-all grounds we are happy to see the project proceed. As far as we are concerned, we have no deterrent to protect on our soil. However, in so far as it is important to protect not the deterrent but the civilian population, we feel-and I understand the fear felt by the United States is mostly coming from an Oriental direction-that our own approach to the People's Republic of China, the negotiations going on in Stockholm are certainly a better way in the long run to protect the world from war than is a continuance of the arms race.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that, as majority leader Mike Mansfield has said, this program will cost over $50 billion, which in itself is an escalation of the arms race, may I ask the Prime Minister whether we are to take his response as meaning that the Canadian government has now decided that this does not constitute any peril to the future peace of the world, and that the Canadian government does not propose to make any protest whatsoever with respect to the second phase of the Safeguard system being proceeded with?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am afraid the hon. member has unintentionally misinterpreted my statement. It seems to me, on the contrary, that there was some form of protest in what I said; if the hon. member prefers to look at it otherwise, that is up to him. So far as the figure produced by Senator Mansfield is concerned, we only heard it this morning on the news and we have not had an opportunity to look into it. I also take issue with the hon. member's logic. When we talk of escalation we talk of escalation between countries rather than in terms of dollars and cents spent in one country. When we were answering this question last spring, it had to do with the danger of a decision by the United States resulting in a decision by the Soviet Union which would lead to a series of escalations. We have not seen this follow from the original United States decision. The Canadian government remains rather unhappy, however, that a friend and ally of such importance should be seeing its way to peace in this direction rather than in the direction I have just mentioned.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the Prime Minister whether any member of the cabinet is at the present time carrying on any negotiations or discussions with the United States authorities with respect to the extension of the Safeguard system? If so, which ministers are concerned and what is the purpose of those discussions?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There has been no consultation on this item of news, which we learned about only this morning. To answer the hon. gentleman, there has been no consultation and there is no minister engaged in consultation. We have not, since this morning, made any decision.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darlmoulh-Halifax East):: May I direct this supplementary ques-
3074	COMMONS DEBATES	February 2. 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
tion to the Secretary of State for External We have a budgetary surplus precisely be-Affairs? Are we to infer from the reply just cause we want to combat inflation and this given that the presidential announcement in was done at the cost of great sacrifices. It the United States does not involve any co- would therefore not be a solution to transoperation on the part of Canada whatsoever?	fer-


Mitchell William Sharp: I can certainly give that assurance. This decision by the United States was made quite independently of any consultation with us.


PROPOSED U.S. NUCLEAR TESTS
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: My
supplementary question is also directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the announcement by the United States that further atomic explosions are to be set off in the Aleutians, reportedly three times as powerful as the one last October, does the Canadian government plan to make any formal protest regarding the continuation of these tests so close to Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: With regard to this item also may I say I have just read the bulletin in which the announcement appeared. Again, this announcement by the United States was not made after any consultation with us. In the course of the announcement the United States authorities said they had no reason to fear, on the basis of the tests made on Amchitka Island earlier, that there would be any untoward effects-for example, the creation of an earthquake or a tidal wave. They are satisfied in this regard on the basis of previous tests. We have not had the opportunity of seeing the results of those tests yet and therefore we have had no opportunity to decide whether to make a formal protest this time as we did before.


FINANCE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister a question.
Could he tell us if the government would consent to share its budget surplus with the provinces which are facing very serious financial problems at the present time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member does not understand why we have a surplus. If we did not want one, we could easily spend the money or reduce taxes.
(Mr. Forrestall.]


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
I may not have the same approach to the problem as the Prime Minister, but I know that certain provinces are beset with great difficulties.
This question will certainly come up at the conference of Finance Ministers this week. According to news reports, some provinces do not share the federal government's views on inflation.
My supplementary question is as follows: Will this issue be formally examined during the conference of Finance Ministers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, this matter is settled in our minds and if some provinces feel that way, their viewpoint is oversimplified. I repeat: We had to make great sacrifices in order to accumulate a surplus.
It led to lay-offs in the public service and reductions in certain programs. In brief, we have accumulated that surplus once again despite the opposition's encouragement to spend more.
This surplus was built up to fight inflation. This is an elementary rule of economics, and if the provinces, instead of reducing their own expenditures and building up a surplus, merely asked for a transfer of federal funds, they would be contributing to inflation rather than fighting it.
That matter has been settled. It should not be raised in Quebec City.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Would the Prime Minister tell us what is the use of a federal-provincial conference on this matter, if the federal government has made a unilateral decision?


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-lings):: I have a question to direct to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. As the government has been urging organized labour to limit wage demands to 5 per cent a year, thus indicating that wage demands of that magnitude can be reconciled with the government's inflation
February 2, 1970

control program, will the Prime Minister take the first opportunity on motions to explain why, during the last five years, the government has refused to grant yearly wage increases of this amount to workers on federal minimum wages, thus enabling them at least to keep level with the annual rise in the cost of living?


Mr. Speaker:: I have some doubt whether this question can be admitted; the hon. member appears to be making an argument. In its present form the question does not appear to be acceptable.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Prime Minister whether he would take the first opportunity on motions to explain this important matter. I did not ask him to take the time of the House to do so now. May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Since the Prime Minister obviously refuses to answer this question-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is out of order. I am not allowed to.


George Harris Hees: -and since it is reliably reported that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance are the two who have blocked minimum wage increases, how does the right hon. gentleman square this reactionary attitude-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -with the just society.


George Harris Hees: -with his promises to introduce a just society made during the last election?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Peace River.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the statement which I understand was made by the Deputy Solicitor General that we can expect a heavy influx of the Cosa Nostra from the United States following the recent crackdown there, could the Solicitor General advise whether new steps are being taken to deal with the expected heavy immigration of the Mafia to Canada?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the text of the speech referred to before me at the moment, but I presume it has been accurately summa-
Inquiries of the Ministry rized or quoted. In respect of this subject we are constantly seeking to be aware of exactly what activities are being conducted in this field. No special additional steps have been taken at this time but many regular steps are being taken in the ordinary course of watching this situation.


ACTION RESPECTING MARXISM-LENINISM MOVEMENT
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the remarkable answer just given by the minister, which indicates a desire to give the House full information, may I ask him whether the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are looking into the activities of the Canadian Communist Marxism-Leninism Movement, whose leader has said, according to the Vancouver Sun, that he is "conscientiously organizing and preparing for the armed overthrow of the Canadian government"?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member knows he cannot quote from a speech. Perhaps he might ask the question directly.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I ask but I am not sure that the scriptural conclusion, "and ye shall receive" will be realized. I ask the minister: What is being done about this movement? Is he giving it the same lack of action that he has indicated in connection with the organization referred to a moment ago?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, a great deal of action is being taken to watch both these situations. I do not propose to give the right hon. gentleman detailed information as to what investigations are being undertaken by the police in connection with each particular excerpt he reads in the newspapers.


John George Diefenbaker: I did not ask for particulars; I asked whether the matter was being looked into or whether these people are free to advocate the overthrow of the Canadian government by force?


George James McIlraith: No, they are not, and the matter is being looked into.


John George Diefenbaker: Is the Prime Minister that sure? He is one of those who had similar views at one time.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They won't overthrow us.
3076	COMMONS DEBATES	February 2. 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry HOUSING


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON NEW OR REVISED TECHNIQUES
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to ask a question of the Solicitor General as I find his answers a bit too difficult to take. I should like to address a question to the minister in charge of housing arising out of the statement he made earlier this afternoon. He said he was allocating $200 million of the amount he mentioned to the development of new or revised techniques in respect of public housing where the present act is not adequate. I think I paraphrased that correctly. Will he inform the House when he will be able to make a statement on exactly what he intends to use that $200 million for, and what new or revised techniques he has arrived at after discussing the idea with people who know something about the matter?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I cannot concede that the hon. member has paraphrased the statement correctly, but I can simply say that I will be happy to make such a statement soon. In the meantime I invite his ideas on new methods of providing housing for low income groups.


INQUIRY AS TO REPORT OF LE DAIN COMMISSION
Mr. Ray Perrault (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, in light of recent ministerial statements concerning laws regulating the use of drugs, can the Prime Minister inform the House whether the royal commission now inquiring into the subject is expected to report soon?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I hear a suggestion that we should legalize potash. I think we should take that into consideration. I have had no indication when the royal commission will report but I do want to emphasize that until it does the position of the government is not fixed. We have reached no decision concerning the legalizing or otherwise of the nonmedical use of drugs. We are looking forward to the report and the establishment of criteria on the basis of which any decision would be made. It is on the basis of such criteria that the government will determine what action should be taken.


MARIJUANA-ALLEGED STATEMENT AS TO LEGALIZATION
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare which has to do with an article in the Ottawa Journal under the heading "Munro Seeking To Get Off Pot". This is an admirable objective. What did the minister mean when he said that if a reasonable minority of Canadians were found to use marijuana this would be a basis for legalizing it? What did he have in mind in respect of "a reasonable minority"?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If my recollection is correct this question was asked of the minister last week. I suggested at the time the question might be directed to the Prime Minister and it was. That is my recollection of what happened in respect of this matter last Thursday or Friday.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister spoke for the minister, and while he can speak for most of them I am sure he cannot interpret what one of his ministers has said. Surely the minister should be given an opportunity to tell us what he meant when he made this irresponsible statement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the minister will have the opportunity to do so but the rules do not allow him to do so in the way suggested by the right hon. gentleman.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, in view of certain allegations made by the Minister of Fisheries, can he supply more information regarding the new Fisheries Act as outlined on television on Sunday?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the Fisheries Act is on the agenda of House business and will be dealt with shortly.


POLLUTION
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Roy-al: Mr. Speaker, in view of the allegation by the Minister of Fisheries that companies are polluting the Saint John River, have he or his officials taken the opportunity to meet with
February 2, 1970	COMMONS
management in an attempt to plan joint action to alleviate the pollution?


John (Jack) Davis: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker. We have met with all the companies with one exception, and we have been endeavouring to meet with that company as well.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Fisheries is dealing with this matter will he give every assurance that where vital employment is concerned in the Maritimes he will not deal with one particular aspect on the Saint John River system but will consider the problem as a whole?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Officials of my department, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and of other federal and provincial departments are meeting today in Fredericton to discuss that very matter today.


FRASER RIVER-MONITORING OF PULPMILL EFFLUENT
Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, in view of the aggressive anti-pollution stance the Minister of Fisheries took on television yesterday, is he considering making public the results of Fisheries Department monitoring of pulpmill effluent on the Fraser River?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, my brief answer to that question would have to be no. We have had great success in working closely with companies on a confidential basis and they have been adhering to our engineering standards for clean-up plant in B.C.


FISHERIES
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question about the seal fishery. Can the minister indicate what has been his response to representations made by spokesmen for the seal fishery of Newfoundland, and can he confirm whether or not the largest firm in Newfoundland to send seal fishermen to the ice has indicated that it will not prosecute the seal fishery this year?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I do not know at this moment the intentions of that particular firm.
DEBATES	3077
Inquiries of the Ministry It is having to change its operations somewhat and I am sure it will know the results of its survey in the next day or two.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, can the minister indicate what programs the government has in mind to compensate the sealers who in 33 days last year earned approximately $1,000 and will not be taking part in the fishery this year, as well as the firms which have already made preparations but because of the lateness of the minister's decision have had to cancel their programs?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is inviting the minister to make a statement concerning what program is being considered by the government. In the circumstances outlined, I think the information might be given by way of a statement. The minister might indicate if he is prepared to do that.


John (Jack) Davis: My brief answer, Mr. Speaker, is that we hope and have reason to expect the seal hunt this year will be every bit as productive in terms of income as it has been in other years.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, the information we have is that as a consequence of the minister's announcement on Friday-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must bring to the attention of the hon. member that he cannot indicate to the House what his information is. He may only ask a question.


James Aloysius McGrath: Will the minister make a statement in clarification of the very ambiguous statement he made on Friday which cast a great deal of doubt on the future of the industry in Canada and indicated that if it is to be productive it will be productive exclusively for the Norwegians-and the minister knows that?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are two members waiting to ask supplementaries. I shall allow these supplementaries, but I might remind hon. members we are running short of time and many members have been waiting for an opportunity to ask questions.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief supplementary. Would the minister advise what plans the Canadian government has for policing the international waters-and there is an international role here-in view of the fact that in past years the agreement in respect of taking seals at the front was broken?
3078	COMMONS DEBATES	February 2. 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


John (Jack) Davis: We will have federal fisheries officers on the vessels and we have an arrangement with the Norwegians whereby we may jointly supervise each other's fishermen.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Barry Maiher (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Some weeks ago the minister undertook to have his department look into the complaints of a consumers group regarding the alleged shortcomings of car repair clinics across Canada. Could the minister make a report to the House in this regard today?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to answer the hon. member's question at this point. We have been examining the matter very carefully, but the jurisdiction of my department and the federal government is somewhat doubtful at the moment, save and except as it relates to fraud under the Criminal Code. I do not think the complaints made involve fraud.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Bruce Howard (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence but in his absence I shall direct it to the minister answering for him today. In connection with the crash of another aircraft carrying seven passengers in southwestern British Columbia this past weekend, I should like to inquire how long it took the search and rescue operations of the department to get into operation and whether or not the aircraft was equipped with a crash position indicator?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I regret to inform the hon. member that on Mondays nobody answers for the Department of National Defence.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: That is the most informative answer you have given today.


SENIORITY AND JOB SECURITY WHILE PREGNANT
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In light of the submission today by the Canadian Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs, is the government preparing legislation to protect the seniority and job security of working women while bearing children?
The silence, Mr. Speaker, indicates a negative response apparently, so perhaps I might ask a supplementary. This is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In the light of the submission to which I have already referred, will the government be ratifying the convention of the International Labour Organization on maternity protection?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the submission made this morning by the Federation of Business and Professional Women, the minister stated that until the provinces had passed legislation in conformity with this convention it would be impossible for Canada to ratify it, and that the government of Canada was pressing on the provinces the desirability of such legislation.


HIGHWAYS
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. Can he tell us whether or not, during his recent tour of the north, any consultations were held with either Canadian or United States officials regarding the completion, or improvement, of the Alaska Highway?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, no consultations were held there, but I was informed while in the north that a bill is being acted upon by Congress which would set aside certain moneys for extended studies and negotiations with the government of Canada.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, might I just answer the Minister's comment by saying that there is a private member's bill which has been on the Order Paper for a long time and in respect of which there has been no action.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
February 2, 1970


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether in the course of his discussions he advised his United States counterparts, despite the fear of the government to have the matter come to a vote, that a majority of the members of this House are strongly convinced that the Canadian government should declare sovereignty over the Arctic islands and the water surrounding the Arctic archipelago?


POST OFFICE
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications. In view of the confusion and consternation in the minds of rural patrons, and in view of the wholesale closing of many rural post offices, may I ask the minister whether there is any proposed change in respect of the rural carriers and whether he is prepared to make a statement in the House indicating how these rural patrons would be affected-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's question is acceptable procedurally only to the extent it invites the minister to make a statement on motions. The minister might like to reply to that part of the question.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, I do not anticipate making any statement on motions. Where we do close post offices we always provide alternative service.


HOUSING
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing. It has to do with a matter he did not mention in his statement. In view of the tremendous importance of maintaining the existing stock of housing as well as building new housing, will the minister make a statement relating to government policy to encourage or assist home owners to rehabilitate their existing houses.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, in my statement I believe I referred to the application of section 40 loans. One of the things we did last year 21611-561
Inquiries of the Ministry was to provide for loans to a maximum of $18,000 for the rehabilitation of existing homes. We hope to use a larger number of section 40 loans for the benefit of people on low incomes.


PUBLIC HOUSING-PROVISION OF RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, would the minister assure the House that in respect of the building of low-rent public housing, outside and inside recreational facilities will be built in in every case?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether this question is in order at this time.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether he would make a statement shortly concerning the type of public housing to be built and the details of the program?


Robert Knight Andras: I shall be very happy to make a statement soon which will probably be very favourable with regard to the question raised.


WELFARE
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether we can count on receiving the government's white paper on welfare services before the end of the session and whether we can count on receiving it, for example, not later than June?
Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National
Health and Welfare): Mr. Speaker, it has not yet been determined whether or not it will be presented before June.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare a supplementary question. I am not sure I heard his response to my other question correctly but I assumed the date in June was the aim, not necessarily a commitment. I wish to ask the minister whether the advisory committee which has been named has been given any firm indication as to how long it will have to work, or does it have an indefinite duration for expressing views or giving advice on what should go into the white paper?


John Carr Munro: There is no direct relationship between the advisory committee and the
3080	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry white paper. The committee is a statutory-body set up under the Government Organization Act and it is of a continuous nature. They meet three times a year to advise the government, and myself in particular, on efficiency and on the merits of current welfare policies and to initiate advice on their own, not necessarily to act on questions that I might put to them. Therefore they may, of their own volition, have suggestions to offer with respect to the white paper.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have one further question. If there is no relationship at all between the June date and the appointment of the advisory committee, then any delay in bringing out the white paper is purely an internal matter within the government?


John Carr Munro: That is correct, Mr. Speaker, but may I indicate that I do not believe the Leader of the Opposition heard me when I indicated, in reply to his first question, that no firm decision has been taken by the government on the timing of the publication of the white paper.


BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Has the government decided on its policy in respect of the third report of the B and B Commission?


Winona Grace MacInnis: No.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not think the right hon. Prime Minister has delegated the responsibility for answering to the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Just this once.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: If no decision has been made, does government policy now permit senior public servants, as it permits cabinet ministers, to give their personal views on this matter?


Winona Grace MacInnis: The Prime Minister makes a good dummy.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: May I say, in answer to the hon. member's question, yes, Mr. Speaker. IMr. Munro.]
DEBATES	February 2, 1970


AGRICULTURE
Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Is the final report of the task force on agriculture in the hands of the government and, if so, can the minister inform the House when this important and long-expected document will be tabled and made public?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I received a copy of the report last Friday, but at this point I cannot indicate precisely how long it will take to translate and print it.




René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question.
Could he tell the House whether Catholic priests of Canadian origin are in Nigeria at present?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that there are no Canadian missionaries in the enclave, and therefore there is no problem in this respect. The House may recall that I reported some weeks ago that there were two or three who were evacuated in Biafran planes.


CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY
Mr. Rod Thomson (Ballleford-Kindersley):: have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the announcement that the Manhattan will make a second voyage, and in view of the fact that this second trip in Canada's waters may establish a precedent, does the government intend to make a declaration on Arctic sovereignty before any such voyage?


Mitchell William Sharp: As the House is aware, legislation was included in the Speech from the Throne. I hope it will be introduced
before very long.
In answer to the first part of the question may I say that I have also read these reports.
February 2, 1970

I do not know, as a result of my own inquiries, that in fact this ship is making another trip.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question to that of the hon. member for Battleford-Kind-ersley. I wish to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether officials of the Humble Oil Company or the United States State Department have been in consultation with the minister's department regarding the proposed second trip of the Manhattan, and whether or not the Canadian government indicated to those responsible what regulations the Canadian government would lay down with respect to the possible pollution of Arctic waters?


Mitchell William Sharp: Of course there have been some exchanges between the U.S. administration and the Canadian government arising out of various statements made by the Prime Minister and by other ministers on the whole subject of Arctic pollution and sovereignty over the Arctic.
With regard to the specific question whether the U.S. government has asked us about a second trip of the Manhattan, I think I made it quite clear in my previous answer that I did not know the Manhattan was to make another trip. Indeed, I do not know also whether the U.S. government would in fact make such inquiries. It is the Manhattan itself which would be making the voyage, not the U.S. government.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the government intend to lay down strict provisions or regulations with respect to the trip of the Manhattan as it might affect the possible pollution of Arctic waters?


Mitchell William Sharp: The House will recall that last year when the Manhattan made its voyage it was made with the concurrence of the Canadian government. It was an experimental trip in order to test whether there is passage and under what conditions it could be made. I should think that if the Manhattan passes through there again, the trip would be part of the same experiment and one which we should welcome, not protest against, because it is most important that we should all know the conditions under which Canadian waters can be used.
Inquiries of the Ministry POLLUTION


INQUIRY AS TO NEW MEASURES
Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: I have a question for the President of the Privy Council. Since, as I noticed, he was chatting with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources a while ago, I should like to ask the minister whether new anti-pollution legislation or measures will be announced soon. I am not asking whether the legislation will be dealt with in this session, but whether the announcement will be made soon?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: The program for the balance of this session has been indicated. At present there is nothing I can indicate that will be added.


PUBLIC BUILDINGS
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: My question is for the Minister of Public Works. Would he indicate whether a decision has been made to construct new federal facilities in Stephenville, Newfoundland, in line with recommendations of the Post Office Department and other federal agencies to improve the capabilities as projected in relation to the potential growth of the area?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question should be put on the Order Paper.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
James Aloysius McGrath: have a question for the Solicitor General. Has he received complaints of what appears to be excessive harassment by the RCMP of Portuguese ships in the port of St. John's?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker, complaints on that subject were received.


James Aloysius McGrath: In view of the fact that Portugese ships have been using the port of St. John's for 400 years, may I ask the minister what he proposes to do about these complaints?


George James McIlraith: We had the matter investigated and found that the complaints were not
February 2, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry substantiated. But I am pursuing the investigation further.


James Aloysius McGrath: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I was hoping to be recognized by you, Sir, before the question period ran out in view of the importance of the Prime Minister's answer to a supplementary question, an answer which I am not sure I heard correctly. I was trying to be recognized again by Your Honour to ensure that I heard what I thought I heard in answer to the supplementary question. Because of the confusion between the two sides of the House, I honestly do not know whether the Prime Minister heard my question and I would not want any confusion to arise with regard to the answer he gave. If I heard the answer correctly, federal civil servants can publicly express their views on matters of public policy; this might be an important precedent.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to suggest to the hon. member that I heard the question clearly and I also heard the answer. Perhaps he might wait to see what appears in Hansard.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It might be helpful if I were permitted to answer the question, but when the Opposition wants to volunteer answers I can only sit down and let them do it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is also rising on a point of order.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: There is still my question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising again on the same point of order?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it may be in anticipation of another question of privilege, but Your Honour said yourself that you heard the question and the answer. I should like to clarify what happened for the record. It seems to me that if the Prime Minister uttered something he cannot suggest the answer came from hon. members on this side. He is one of the leaders of the land and must be responsible.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do so

essentially for the purpose of putting a caveat on the record. When the hon. member for Okanagan-Boundary asked a question a few minutes ago of the Minister of National Defence the Prime Minister replied, if I heard him correctly, that no one answers today for the Department of National Defence. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that that comment should not stand without some remark about it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: It
has become apparent that we cannot force ministers to be here to answer questions, but I trust it is still clear that by the rules, in particular Standing Order 39(5), any member of the House has a right to ask a question of any minister any day of the week. Incidentally, since the second Acting Minister of National Defence is present, I thought he might have answered the question.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might make it clear as well that the situation you had cause to rule on during the course of this Parliament has come into general acceptance, and the caveat of the hon. member has no application.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am suggesting there should be no debate. I would not agree readily with the statement made by the President of the Privy Council.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Standing Order referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has not been changed or amended. It is still there.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on this point of order, I might suggest that the only intention in applying this system was to ensure that the question period could be orderly. As a gesture of goodwill, I think I might invite the acting minister to answer the question, if such is the desire of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Of course, the question period has expired and it is only with the unanimous agreement of the House that this could be done.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no such agreement. The hon. member may have an opportunity tomorrow to ask the question again.
February 2, 1970



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, Janu-' ary 29, consideration of the motion of Mr. Jamieson that Bill C-137, respecting the use of national safety marks in relation to motor vehicles and to provide for safety standards for certain motor vehicles imported into or exported from Canada or sent or conveyed from one province to another, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, when this bill was under discussion the other night, I mentioned one of the problems that will not be solved by our acceptance of the legislation. Some failures have already become apparent in the counterpart U.S. legislation, and in addition this bill does not take into account certain driving conditions in Canada. Mr. Speaker, since there is considerable conversation taking place in the chamber, perhaps you might invite some of those concerned to leave.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I notice the hon. member is looking pleadingly in the direction of the Chair. I assume he is hoping that the conversations will be somewhat more subdued so that we can hear him. I would invite hon. members to hold their conversations behind the curtains so that we can listen to the hon. member's very interesting speech.


William Arnold Peters: I appreciate your assistance, Mr. Speaker. One factor that has not been covered in the 29 points concerning safety factors in the United States, and which is unique to Canada, concerns our weather conditions. All the cars that one sees stalled on the Queensway, and on all the other highways and byways because of weather conditions, are an added hazard to traffic in wintertime, a hazard that does not exist in most of the United States. These stalled cars cause many serious accidents in Canada.
When a slight drizzle and foggy conditions are forecast, one can expect an increase in the number of road accidents. On cold mornings there will probably be as many rear-end collisions on the Queensway, even on dry pavement, as there are when conditions are slippery, so slippery as to make stopping impossible. The fact that some cars will not
Motor Vehicle Safety
run in this type of weather adds to the seriousness of the problem.
In the United States, it is reported that the cost of installing mandatory safety devices on cars came to $46, but a sum of $107 was charged to automobile purchasers. It is interesting to note that a survey of motorists disclosed that 54 per cent of those 20 to 49 years of age indicated a willingness to pay a higher price for safety devices, but only 50 per cent of those over age 50 indicated a similar willingness. I believe if drivers aged 60, 65 and 70 had been surveyed, a majority would have indicated a marked degree of reluctance to pay for additional safety features.
No doubt this bill will be examined thoroughly in committee. Members may draw attention to studies done in the United States which indicate that 10 per cent of safety devices produced by United States factories are rejected as unsafe following inspec.ion. Members will certainly hope this will not be the case in Canada.
No doubt members will also raise the question of car bumpers. I am sure that even if a motorist in Toronto had a piece of steel railway track welded all around his car he would still not find it safe to drive on some of the freeways there. It appears most car bumpers are installed just for wives to polish. They certainly are not installed for protection.
When I looked at the bumper on a car I previously owned I was amazed to see a big dent in it. I was sure I had not hit anything, and that nothing had hit me. When I looked at a number of similar type cars, I found they all had a dent in the same place. Another example of this was the little Karmann Ghia Volkswagen. It always had a dent in the hood. This was not because I drove it under a truck, but simply because the bumpers did not coincide.
I like the advertisement, although I do not believe it, which shows a guy with a sledge hammer banging upon a car bumper, and nothing happens to it. Such a bumper might withstand a five or ten miles per hour impact, without everything being scattered all over the pavement.


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: I would like to see the hammer he uses.


William Arnold Peters: If a little more cobalt were put in the bumper, it might produce a stronger alloy and make it last longer. That would help some of the mines in my area.
Another reason I have for speaking on the bill today is that it makes no provision with

February 2. 1970
Motor Vehicle Safety
respect to snowmobiles and snowmobile safety. The snowmobile is one of the greatest inventions the Canadian people have seen in many years, and many people are riding them for sport. I noticed the other day that two old ladies, one over 70 and the other over 60, were out on their snowmobile and ran into a car. Clearly, people of mature years as well as those not so mature are using snowmobiles which are growing in popularity. For that reason, I think it will be necessary for us to introduce legislation governing the safety of snowmobile operation. This matter comes under federal jurisdiction. I am also pleased to note that, since snowmobiles in large part are manufactured in Canada, the regulations governing their safety can be brought under federal jurisdiction. I have a number of suggestions to make with respect to the safety of snowmobiles.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
You know, Mr. Speaker, one cannot believe everything one hears about horsepower. It seems to me that some manufacturers lie like the dickens when they speak about the horsepower of their cars. You see tractors rated at 15, 20 or 25 horsepower, and yet you will see a Buick rated at 450 horsepower. The Cadillac people now have on the market a car with a motor said to develop 500 horsepower. A few years ago, an engine of that size would power an aeroplane of some size; it was enough to run a diesel plant which would supply electric power for a town of some 10,000 inhabitants. Clearly, when manufacturers talk of horsepower they are not talking about the power you can use to pull your neighbour out of the ditch; they are talking about concepts of speed and weight.
Advertising of a similar sort is applied to snowmobiles. These little vehicles are about 6 or 7 feet long, probably 2 or 3 feet wide, and weight anywhere between 250 and 1,000 pounds. They are now powerful enough to reach speeds of between 105 and 115 miles per hour. Of course, these fast snowmobiles are basically ordinary machines which have been souped-up, to use the vernacular. I think the minister ought to interest himself in this area and try to inform the public of the dangers through a program of advertising. As I say, horsepower really has little to do with how much power you have to pull your neighbour out of the ditch or pass the car ahead of you. It is based on engine capacity and the type of gasoline you use. I think our advertisers have been emphasizing the wrong

things when advertising snowmobiles. The size of snowmobile power plants ought to be limited by law, and there ought to be some distinction between snowmobiles used on the race track and those used for every day purposes.
Another problem is the noise of snowmobiles. Although some municipalities have bylaws governing noise, those bylaws are difficult to enforce insofar as snowmobiles are concerned. I know that some municipalities say snowmobiles may not be used in city streets, yet these snowmobiles which are kept at home must pass through city streets on their way to the country or to open spaces. One of my constituents complained about noisy snowmobiles going past his window on Sunday mornings. On the morning in question he tried to watch television but, because of the noise from snowmobiles outside, he could not do so. He went to the window and within one hour had counted 82 snowmobiles going past his house. In a subsequent letter he told me that he became more disturbed on learning that wheels could be fitted to snowmobiles, enabling them to be used in the summer as well as in winter. Clearly, some kind of engine muffler must be fitted to snowmobiles. You are not allowed to drive a car in any town without an engine muffler; neither are you allowed to operate a power lawnmower without some kind of muffling device. The same sort of regulation ought to apply to snowmobiles.
The question of headlights is also important. People approaching a snowmobile on the highway at night very often cannot tell if the vehicle approaching is a motorcar with only one headlight, a motorcycle or a snowmobile. Just as we would not appreciate hearing, say, 200 Model T Fords going by without engine mufflers, so I submit our motorists do not appreciate meeting vehicles in the dark with only one headlight. It is often impossible to tell, as I say, whether the vehicle you are meeting is a car with only one headlight. Sometimes a motorist may think he is meeting a car which has only its left headlight working. Clearly, if he pulls to the side of the road in order to take evasive action he may be doing the wrong thing if the approaching vehicle turns out to be a snowmobile. I, therefore, advocate that for snowmobiles as well as for motorcycles, two headlights set fairly close together ought to be mandatory.
My next point has to do with the survival of those who may be stranded in the bush. This ought to be of particular interest to the
February 2, 1970

Department of Transport. Very often these days, snowmobiles travelling in the bush break down. In temperatures of between 30 below and 40 below zero, it is often impossible for a man to survive in the bush unless he is equipped with snowshoes, knowledge of the environment and survival equipment. This equipment ought to include an axe and, I submit, some sort of radio oscillating device costing about $20 which could be switched on and guide rescue forces to him. Snow conditions in the bush often make it impossible for a man to walk far. If he could switch on some kind of oscillating device, which could work on the citizens radio band or a police band, his rescue would be more easily directed. These bands, for instance, could be monitored on a continuing basis, so that in an emergency we would not have to wait until a person was known to be lost before setting rescue operations in motion. We could provide adequate penalities in case children played around with such devices.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Of course, repairing one of these devices would probably cost as much as the original purchase price, but nevertheless it should be on the machine. It should be sealed so that once it is turned on it cannot be turned off until the rescue is effected. If this simple device were installed in an aeroplane, one could locate the aircraft very quickly. It has a range of 20 miles and is operated by a flashlight battery on one particular band. I understood they were to be installed on aircraft so that if a crash occurred, causing an impact of a certain magnitude, this device would automatically start operating.
There are several other considerations, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the municipalities will have to give consideration to installing guy wires parallel to the roads. I heard of a girl who was riding behind her boyfriend on a skidoo who ended up with his head in her lap after hitting a guy wire. A friend of mine, skidooing on his own farm, hit a barbed wire fence and had to have 40 stitches put in his face. He nearly lost an eye. Imagine what could happen when one is not familiar with the terrain! This bill may be concerned with safety devices such as roll bars or reinforced windshields. In the case of skidoos, we have an opportunity right now to make safety devices of this type available to the public before any more damage is done. It is no use waiting until a dozen people have their heads tucked under somebody else's arm.
Motor Vehicle Safety
We have this opportunity, and I think the minister is well advised to follow the American safety program in the initial stages. In Canada, perhaps we are more interested in a car that will operate safely and satisfactorily in northern climates. Features such as rear window defrosters, battery chargers and block heaters are much more important to us than some of the smog devices installed in California. Perhaps, we should consider these as well, but there are some purely Canadian problems on which we will have to act independently of the United States.
I am not sure what we should do about studded tires. In the United States, 10 per cent of the tires tested failed in one out of six tests but I am not clear how many of these failures were related to heat or cold. You will remember that after the war everybody was begging, borrowing or stealing tires because they were in short supply. On a cold morning it was not unusual to find all four tires flat. They were just not made for cold conditions. Perhaps studded tires are a northern problem, but they are costing provincial taxpayers large amounts of money if the report on highway damage is correct. The tungsten studs appear to be fine for the first snowfall, but I am not sure of their effectiveness in deep snow or ice. The safety requirements for tires in Canada would be totally different from those of the United States. Tires should be tested under Canadian winter conditions and the results would probably differ greatly from tests conducted in the United States.
The minister has shown some initiative in presenting this bill, as have some members in drafting private members' bills. One is my colleague from Surrey (Mr. Mather) who has had experience with the National Automobile Associations and has been interested in promoting highway safety for quite some time. The fact that the minister has taken some of the better points from a number of bills, and that there has been some Canadian consideration of this problem, leads me to believe that the minister will give consideration in committee to the extension of this investigation into some other fields, particularly snowmobiles and water safety. I am very surprised how many people wearing life-preserving equipment bearing the stamp of approval of the Department of Transport lose their lives. Some improvement could be brought about in this bill.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-137 introduced a day or two ago by the Minister of Transport is a very important bill.

February 2, 1970
Motor Vehicle Safety
I should like to make a few suggestions which I trust will be accepted by the House, particularly in view of the fact that I spent some 23 years in law enforcement and came in contact with some of these problems under the most distressing circumstances. It is a disgrace that in North America we kill upwards of 60,000 people every year on our highways, not to mention innumerable cases of impairment, maiming and property damage running into millions of dollars. No law can stop this, but it certainly is a step in the right direction.
As we all know, it is very difficult to enforce law because once the manufacturer has sold the automobile to the public, often he feels that is where his responsibility ends. This bill, Mr. Speaker, purports to plug one or two of those gaps.
It may be dangerous to have safety stickers or safety marks put on automobiles by the manufacturer because sometimes these automobiles are defective when they leave the factory. The previous speaker mentioned bumpers, and everyone who drives an automobile knows that the present bumpers are entirely inadequate. A bumper should be able to absorb the shock of an automobile running into a solid object at 30 miles an hour without danger to the automobile. We cannot be sure that there will not be danger to the occupants, but shock absorbers or a properly built bumper would reduce damage both to the automobile and the occupants.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I see no reason why a safety sticker should be put on an automobile when the bumper, one of the most important parts of the automobile when it is in motion, is nothing more than a piece of tinsel. Although it is extremely high priced, it is absolutely useless for the job for which it is intended. The amount that we pay for these chrome beauties could very well be used for devices made from reinforced rubber and steel. There could be some form of shock absorber or oil recuperating system similar to the one on large guns which we had in the army. The modern automobile is as lethal a weapon as a piece of artillery. The committee should give priority to bumpers when considering safety factors.
Some attention should be given to the danger caused by frost. I do not see any reason why windshields could not be lined with an arrangement of very fine heating wires to keep them free of frost. In cold climates such as we have in Canada, I suggest this should be mandatory for all windows.

It has always seemed strange that trucks are obliged to have all sorts of safety devices, but these are not mandatory on automobiles. One such item that comes to mind is a proper flasher. Most automobiles today have a flasher system, but this becomes inoperative when the battery goes dead. I think a mandatory provision should be incorporated in this bill that every automobile should have a double safety feature. If the electrical flashers are inoperative, there should be manual devices such as fire flares or the ordinary battery operated flashers. These flares could be put out for protection when changing a flat tire or if the vehicle is abandoned in a snowdrift with part of the car protruding. These flares could be used any time the automobile is a menace to traffic.
It should be mandatory that all automobiles have a proper towing hitch on both the front and rear of the car. When a vehicle becomes stalled in traffic which is proceeding at 60 miles an hour, it immediately becomes a menace. There should be a steel hook for towing purposes located in an accessible location so that it is not necessary to crawl underneath the car. The vehicle could then be towed by another vehicle with a strong nylon cord or chain.
I am sure law enforcement officers would support me when I say that many serious accidents occur after some minor breakdown, such as a flat tire, running out of gas, becoming stuck in a snowdrift or on the icy slope of a hill. The danger arises when people are on the highway trying to get the vehicle clear. Often, another vehicle comes over a hill or cuts out from other traffic and collides with the stalled vehicle.
Perhaps all these safety features cannot be incorporated at one time, but I feel they are long overdue. I feel they are necessary if the vehicle is to receive a government approved safety sticker. The only argument against these features at the moment is their cost. I feel there should be a little less soap opera advertising, and more value and safety for the purchasers of these vehicles.
I am glad the minister contemplates spending some government money on research. If we are to have safety devices, then by all means we should have our more intelligent people working on the cheapest and most effective devices so that the cost can be kept to a minimum. This would give some of our bright young people an opportunity to pursue this matter in the Canadian research councils, universities and in the automobile factories.
February 2, 1970

I am delighted to see that a step forward is being taken on the question of pollution. A day or two ago I made a gloomy speech on this subject. I pointed out that our atmosphere is being endangered by the emission of an enormous quantity of exhaust fumes, and that perhaps we are destroying forever our very limited oxygen supply. I think there should also be research on this subject. A great deal could be done to ensure that the most efficient fuels are used in our automobiles, such as those hydrocarbon fuels which create the least carbon dioxide and use the least amount of oxygen to propel the vehicle.
There has been a great improvement in storage batteries. Such batteries might well be incorporated into a vehicle as a subsidiary electrical driving device. This would be valuable on long trips. When driving from here to Toronto, upon reaching the outskirts of Toronto this electrical device could be switched on and used to drive through the city where the problem of pollution is the greatest. This system would not be necessary when driving in the country where the vehicle would be using up oxygen, but not endangering the health of the people.
This whole matter of safety on the highways is not confined to Bill C-137. There should be a continuing, concentrated educational program which could also be used to teach our children safety values. Safety programs can be effective. I hope hon. members will forgive an old man for reminding them of a situation which occurred in 1938 and 1939 in greater Winnipeg. Even in those days, the population of that city was 350,000. By co-operaiion of the public and the police, a safety record was established, which I think is an all time world safety record, of 228 days without a fatal accident-two-thirds of a year without anyone being killed. I have no hesitation in saying that if one picks up the newspaper today or tomorrow, there will be a report of a fatal accident in the greater Winnipeg area. I believe this to be true of any major city. In this instance, there was a period of eight months without a fatality. The automobiles of that day were very much the same shape and size as those of today. I do not think the driving public were greatly different. They were hurrying home for their dinner, and many of them used alcohol. However, with a concentrated effort, co-operation between the police, the local authority and those responsible for the administration of the law, a magnificent safety record was set up and there is no reason why any other city cannot equal it or do better.
Motor Vehicle Safety
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
We have better machinery today, better safety facilities. It is true that automobiles are more powerful but they are equipped with better safety devices-better brakes, power steering. Often there is two or three times as much contact between the automobile and the highway, resulting from the use of much wider tires.
Then, there is the question of what can be done by concentrating on safety. Speaking as a former police officer, I believe the first responsibility rests on the law enforcement officers. I know there are certain roads in Canada today which are considered to be revenue lanes the public is reluctant to drive down them for fear of being picked up for some picayune traffic offence. Motorists figure they are paying the cost, to the municipality, of running the police force. This results in bad liaison between the police and the public. If the minister, and all hon. members present will take cognizance of what I am saying and use their influence in the right way to make sure this sort of attitude is discouraged, I think the result would be beneficial. There is nothing in my opinion, next to the courtesy of one man toward another, which prevents accidents on the highway so much as a proper respect for the law. I admire a police force which enforces the law, but it should not engage in a game of hare and hounds in which it is continually hounding the public. The force is there to serve the public, to make sure that traffic flows properly back and forth. It is a sad thing when motorists get the idea that they are being forced, by a police force which is not doing its proper job, to pay municipal taxes that is, by a force which is raising revenue instead of making the highway safer.
I want to say something about the breathalyzer test. I have always been a strong supporter of civil rights and liberties, but when we are killing up to 60,000 people a year on the highways I say it is time we all put false pride in our pockets and said: If I have been drinking so much that the policeman thinks I am drunk, I owe it to the public to blow into the little balloon. It is a question of co-operating in the effort to reduce this terrible toll of our highways. Let us hear no more about motorists being assaulted when asked by the police to take this test. Instead, let each motorist resolve not to be one of those who carelessly risk other people's lives because

February 2, 1970
Motor Vehicle Safety
they insist on mixing gasoline and alcohol. I believe the breathalyzer test is a very fair experiment.
People have told me that with .08 per cent of alcohol in their bloodstreams they are just as capable of driving as if they had not taken any alcohol, or just as capable of driving as anyone else. I challenge this assertion. If they could see the films made of drivers who thought they could drink and still drive well, or the safety films put out by the research institutes, I am sure they would be convinced no one is safe behind the wheel of a car travelling at 60 miles per hour when he has .08 per cent of alcohol in his system.
It is not alcohol alone which is entirely responsible for the high death toll. I bring the word down: the word I should like hon. members to take home with them is "courtesy". It is when alcohol is mixed with bad manners that it is most explosive. When alcohol is added to bad manners, and the motorist gets out on the highway with a tired, jaded feeling, determined to hog the road and race the other fellow home, the combination is often fatal. In all the years I was a policeman I cannot remember a fatal accident involving two cars when alcohol was not involved in the case of either one or both drivers. I did not always find physical evidence in the form of bottles, or alcohol in the cars, but I cannot recall any fatal accident-and I was present at far too many-when there was not at least a strong suspicion of impaired driving on the part of one or both drivers involved. This, in itself, should be sufficient justification for accepting the breathalyzer test. Surely, we owe it to others to drop the keys into the mailbox after we have been drinking, or to give them to the wife and let her drive home.


Mr. Jamieson:: She may be drunker than you.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Money might well be spent on public education, or on the provision of safety awards. I like that idea. When I read that a bus or truck driver has won a 20-year safety award I am ready to take my hat off to him. Anyone who can drive through our cities and on our highways for 20 years, or cover a million miles without an accident, has got to be a superman. When these drivers have travelled a certain number of miles I suggest they might even be considered for one of the Canadian awards. To me, a bus driver who has driven two million miles without an accident is a public hero who deserves not only to be honoured but given a salary increase of 20 per cent. Some wonderful films are available.

Our national research people, the Mounted Police and the municipal police all have films on road safety which deserve the widest publicity. Everyone in a position to make use of them should draw out these films and show them at service clubs or at scout meetings.
I should like to see a reinstatement of the old youth and police programs begun by the Mounted Police some 25 years ago. Members of the force who were then, and still are, very highly respected, especially among young people, spent a great deal of their own time, with a minimum of assistance from the government as to time, vehicles at their disposal and the use of films, talking to young people and showing them films-how the force trained their dogs; how they made policemen; the kind of policemen who were true servants of the public, out to maintain the safety and happiness of the public. And they very much resented this modern trend of using the policeman as a revenue officer. It should never be done, and whenever it is done it should be discouraged.
This bill will go to the committee. I, for one, think the committee system has some very valuable uses, though it is still in the experimental stage. Let us get hold of this bill, take the 29 main points which the minister has outlined, examine them carefully and enlarge upon them. It might be well to spend a little money on research and upon the education of the public, because the prevention of automobile accidents is far more important than anything we can do after they have occurred.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I close by reminding you once more that in 1938 Winnipeg managed to get through two thirds of the year without one fatal accident among 350,000 people. If that could be done then, it can be done again now. The money that was spent in those days represents only a very small proportion of the amount of money we are spending every day to clean up this mess after it has occurred.


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in the debate on Bill C-137, I find myself in a position somewhat similar to those hon. members who, from a sense of dignity or of duty, were obliged to point out the inadequacies of the Canada water bill which we sent to a committee a few days ago.
While this bill is a very timely and important piece of legislation, as many hon. members have pointed out it lacks teeth and effec-
February 2, 1970

tive administrative measures to cope with the serious problems it was designed to alleviate. This bill merely seems to be a copy of United States safety standards, and a governmental compliance with standards already effected by most major car companies. There is no real, clear evidence of a truly Canadian safety standards code, in spite of the fact the department has allegedly been deeply involved in a comprehensive research program to determine and prescribed various minimum safety regulations and standards for vehicles operating in Canada.
Some of the safety devices we now have on our automobiles as standard equipment may be effective. Some, on the other hand, raise some degree of doubt, perhaps not totally in principle, but in design. For example, it was just last week that the Winnipeg police department removed the headrests from their patrol cars as a safety and convenience measure. This was done for safety because the officials of the department found the design of the headrests to be a hindrance to vision which more than offset the appreciable protection factor for which the headrest was intended.
I could also refer to the use of seatbelts. In a recently conducted survey in the province of Alberta it was found that only 18 per cent of the motorists interviewed actually used their seatbelts, in spite of the fact they knew of their existence and were aware of their function. If a motorist is grossly endangering his life or health by not using seatbelts, then' perhaps we should consider legislation forcing the use of this device. The use of any safety innovation such as this should be enforced if it is to be effective. If, on the other hand, only 18 per cent of the motoring public choose to use this device, with no indication of a possible increase in usage, it then would appear to be merely another factor contributing to the cost of manufacturing a car. This being the case, then the customer should be given the choice of purchasing a car with or without seatbelts. Seatbelts could be considered an option rather than mandatory item to be included in the price of the automobile.
Having regard to the stepped-up research program to which the minister referred, I must say Canada could certainly stand some improvement in this area. In substantiating this fact, I should like to point out that not so long ago the two-ply tire was introduced as standard equipment on all passenger cars and light trucks. This tire was to be safer because it supposedly had all the qualities of a four-ply tire plus many other side benefits. It was
Motor Vehicle Safety
to have been safer because it ran cooler; it was to have been shock-resistant and impact resistant because it was more flexible and had a tougher core, and it was supposed to give longer wear. In short, it was totally engineered to meet existing highway travel demands, freeway operation, gravel and dirt roads. The simple fact is that this tire was not only unsatisfactory in a performance or economy sense, it was totally unsafe. It was not long before blowouts, ruptures and separations became a rather common occurrence.
The interesting point I should like to bring to the attention of the House relates to the great selling job that automakers and tire manufacturers did in the United States and in Canada, particularly with the governments. They fell for this so-called revolutionary breakthrough, hook, line and sinker, and without hesitation placed their designated mark of approval on these tires to indicate that they met government safety standards.
After these so-called "rags" appeared, as they were commonly referred to in automotive circles, it was not long before the consumer found that these tires were totally unsatisfactory, unsafe and uneconomical, not only to the consumer but likewise to those involved in merchandising the product. The automotive makers found themselves in the embarrassing position of having to make a complete circle in their recommendations by recommending four-ply tires to correct a steering condition which developed from the use of this ardently supported two-ply tire.
The concern and lack of acceptance by customers resulted in a situation wherein new vehicle customers refused to accept a new car with a two-ply tire of any brand name and simply demanded a safe four-ply tire. These were furnished at an additional cost of from $50 to $75. The result was an insurmountable buildup of two-ply tire stocks within many wholesale and retail tire outlets. Eventually, tire companies refused to take their own tires back in exchange for suitable replacements.
Despite this degree of dissatisfaction, and the resultant hazardous implications, the government failed to intervene and ban the marketing of this product which was totally unsuitable and unsafe. I believe that tires marketed in Canada should be subjected to a vigorous inspection and test in order to meet Canadian road and driving conditions. After all, tires are still the basic foundation of the automobile.
This leads me to another point in respect of the claim of motor manufacturers that the

February 2, 1970
Motor Vehicle Safety
increased cost of new vehicles is the result of safety features. This is simply nonsense, and the manufacturers should be called upon to substantiate their claim. There is no question but that many safer instruments and devices could be installed at relatively little or no extra cost. For example, I think it would be just as cheap to manufacture a dashboard with a smooth, contoured surface as it is to have the sharp, knife-like edges we see in many models today. I think this could be incorporated without additional cost. I have known many injuries to be sustained as a result of impact against the rear view mirror, some of a minor nature but in many cases of a permanent nature.
As was pointed out by the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Bigg), much improvement could be made in the construction of the bumper. The function of the bumper has been totally disregarded and it has now become an item of appeal rather than an item for safety.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Another aspect that should be investigated, and to which no reference is made in the bill or the appendix, is a minimum standard for windshield and rear window vision. This matter, naturally, could affect the total design of an automobile and indeed it should. Even today, there are many fastback models produced which have a limited amount of rear window vision and which contain detrimental blind spots. Coincidental with this, I believe it should be mandatory in Canada that all vehicles have adequate defrosting equipment in order that front, rear and side vision may not be obscured in any significant way. Naturally, this standard would probably apply to vehicles marketed in Canada only, but I think it is a matter of major importance. This has been covered adequately by other hon. members.
In looking over the 29 standards set out in the appendix to Hansard of Thursday last, I find most items to be very vague. I hope, during the consideration of the bill by the committee, we will be able to find out specifically what is meant by item 113, which is a regulation concerning hood latch systems and regulation 206 in respect of door latches, hinges and locks. These are very vague terms. I think we all realize these are basic necessities in respect of automobiles. I should like to know for the record just what provisions the automobile manufacturers must follow in this regard.
I do not wish to delay this bill unduly and, therefore, shall close by saying I believe the

bill is a necessary piece of legislation which I intend to support. I am disappointed, however, by the lack of initiative of the government in prescribing Canadian standards in addition to those set by the United States. I believe such standards are necessary. Some of the Canadian requirements have been pointed out by me and others have been pointed out by other hon. members. I refer to such things as flares and towing devices, which were mentioned by my hon. friend from Pembina.
When one reads the bill one might almost believe it had been written by the motor car companies because without standards the bill does not mean too much. In a general way, all automobile manufacturers now comply with the standards to some degree. Regardless of the safety devices installed, the effect of such devices will depend to a large degree on the driver and passengers. There can be no substitute for caution and concern. One cannot legislate judgment and courtesy on the road.
Probably the greatest single contributor to carnage on the highway today is speed. I submit that if we are really serious about curbing the mass destruction of life and property, perhaps the best and simplest way to achieve it would be to simply build an automobile which travels no more than 50 or 60 miles per hour. Then, it might not be necessary to become involved in a debate which, in many respects, is rather superficial to the basic problem. But I doubt whether such a development will ever take place. Vested interests are involved and these will continue to exist. There will also probably continue to exist a desire and a challenge, on the part of some individuals, to live dangerously. So, we will continue to hear a lot of talk about safety, new innovations and new devices after this bill is passed. We will also continue to hear the tried and proven automobile advertising theme of more power, more torque and more speed. In view of this, there can be no illusions about there being less accidents. I submit therein lies a great part of our problem of highway safety today.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I just wish to make a few comments.
We are faced with an extremely serious problem, the problem of highway safety which must first be assured through education of those who drive vehicles and surveillance over mechanical safety of vehicles. As a matter of fact, the most advanced car, if in the hands of a careless driver, will always
February 2, 1970

result in catastrophes such as those we unfortunately see every day, especially on weekends.
It is surprising to realize that in this era of technology and progress, when vehicles can land on the moon, and a great number of mechanical problems, can be resolved with incredible accuracy, the main being living on earth, i.e. man, is forgotten and that truly improved motor vehicles that may be driven safely home yet to be devised.
Cars have been made wider, more beautiful. Sometimes, they have been made smaller, without anything being done to improve them. When you think of the $3,000, $4,000, $5,000 or $6,000 that must be payed for a car, it seems paradoxical that the safety features have been completely disregarded. Too many accidents happen on the highways for them to be all attributed to the drivers' recklessness. It is obvious that car manufacturers do not live up to their responsibilities.
I am therefore in favor of any action aimed at improving motor vehicle safety standards so as to cut down the startling number of accidents on Canadian roads.
Since the price of cars is quite high, it is quite normal for the buyer to expect something safe, something truly useful. This is why I suggest that the previous speeches were to the point. The technical aspect they dealt with must be taken into consideration, so that motor vehicles will really be made to serve the people. We do not get in a car because it likes it, but because it serves us one way or the other. Therefore, a car must be equipped with everything necessary to give us the best possible service. We must therefore think of a whole gamut of small details which are not necesarily the ones that have been thought of.
Safety belts were mentioned. It is common knowledge that practically nobody bothers about them. Sometimes accidents happen precisely because of the wearing of safety belts. There are therefore many problems, of varying importance, and we should not go to the other extreme in adding gadgets to car because this often serves no other purpose than enriching the manufacturer of these gadgets. We should therefore be concerned only with safety devices that are necessary.
I cannot be led to believe that in this century of progress, of sophistication, it is not possible to invent everything required to cut down on highway accidents through improved safety of motor vehicles.
Motor Vehicle Safety
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure you that I would not have entered the debate on this matter had it not been that I noted throughout this debate that you yourself, Sir, and those who occupy Your Honour's Chair, have allowed the discussion to involve matters such as snowmobiles and protection of aeroplanes. As I have no intention of speaking for more than about four minutes, I know without question that I will be granted the same privilege as that given to other members.
I have noted in reports over the years what it costs Canada to engage in a sea or air search and rescue when a plane goes down. It is my understanding that if a certain instrument, called a beeper, were put in a plane, hundreds of thousands of dollars would be saved in air or sea search and rescue, and also many lives might be saved.
So, I would like to recommend, on this aspect only, what I think will meet with unanimous approval, namely, that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) consider the introduction at an early date of legislation making it mandatory that all planes flying over Canada, especially private planes, be required to have this very inexpensive piece of equipment. At present our law does not require this, but I am certain that for the few hundreds of dollars it costs thousands of dollars would be saved and, in all probability, lives would also be saved. I request that this matter be taken into consideration by the Minister of Transport and that it be made compulsory for this piece of equipment to be included on all planes flying in Canada.
The second point I wish to make concerns snowmobiles. I have been doing a great deal of reading about this piece of equipment. A few years ago it was unknown, but now we have them by the thousand all across Canada. I should like to recommend to the Minister of Transport that the mechanical safety aspect of snowmobiles be included in the bill, apart from the motor vehicle aspect. However, if my reading is correct, and I have no reason to think it is not, a great many accidents are occurring on snowmobiles. I read that in our far north the snowmobile is replacing the dogs and sled. An aeroplane, with two or three passengers, might go down, necessitating air search and rescue. Similarly, a snowmobile might be lost due to an ice break, or for various other reasons, and the same air search and rescue would have to be undertak-

February 2, 1970
Motor Vehicle Safety
en. I should like to suggest that a beeper, similar to the one which I suggested should be put into planes, be put on snowmobiles or, in other words, that it be mandatory that all snowmobiles be equipped with a beeper.
I see the minister is nodding. May I point out to him that the same expenditure is involved in search and rescue operations tor a snowmobile as one undertaken for a plane. So, the point I am trying to make, however ineffectual it may be, is that it should be made mandatory that all planes in Canada or coming to Canada should be equipped with beepers, which cost only about $325 and which could save many lives. I also wish to point out that if they were used on snowmobiles just as many lives could be saved.
I will not abuse my privilege any further, but let me just say again that consideration should be given to equipping planes and snowmobiles with beepers, and that this legis-tion should be changed accordingly.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: apologize to the House for being late, but I was at a committee meeting elsewhere. However, I should like to have the attention of the minister with regard to a number of points which I should like to make in relation to the bill before us. I think everyone is concerned about making a concerted attack on the whole problem of the annual slaughter on the highways, not only the thousands who are killed on the highways but the scores of thousands who are injured and the millions of dollars of damage to property which results from automobile accidents. As the minister indicated, a section of the legislation deals with the drivers' habits. The provinces have a whole litany of offences dealing with the drivers' conduct. We, ourselves, have recently amended the Criminal Code dealing with the drinking driver. Whether or not this will have a great impact, I do not know. Then, of course, the provincial departments of transport and the departments of public works are concerned with the safety of the highways. Yet we know we are spending millions of dollars annually on rebuilding, on researching, and on the question of highway safety from the point of view of the road service. Now, there remains the last one, and that has to do with the vehicle itself.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I do not care how good a highway you may have, how good a vehicle you may have, how well a driver may have been trained, if he behaves like a damned fool at the wheel all

the rest is gone for naught. There is no way in which legislation can deal with his thinking. Within limits, you can constrain him. He can drive only so fast. We have rules of the road, and laws governing such things as dangerous driving, negligence, and so forth. But there are many ways in which the mental attitude of the driver can escape any legislation.
Let us deal with Bill C-137, Mr. Speaker. I think everyone in the House wholeheartedly agrees with its objectives. These are simply an increase in the safe use of the motor vehicle, not exclusively due to the action of the driver but to the safe quality of the vehicle.
My colleague from Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Noble) spoke about his early interest in this matter. I would not want this debate to end without reminding the House, particularly many of the new members on the government side, of the efforts made by the former hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi, Mr. Heward Grafftey, who at times appeared to be a lone knight in this battle. The action now being taken by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) may in large measure result from Mr. Grafftey's insistent prodding on this question. I think we all owe him a great debt of gratitude.
The bill will not guarantee against latent defects showing up in any part of a vehicle. Anything can be designed to standard, can be manufactured to standard, but this is no guarantee against a latent defect appearing in it. Further, the administration of the bill's provisions will be somewhat difficult.
As a classic example, are we going to force automobile manufacturers to design a special model for Canada? We must remember that, according to the terms of the auto pact, decisions are made as to what types of car are manufactured in Canada. The minister must know that what I have in mind here concerns winter driving conditions.
Take the example of a car designed on the fastback principle, which gives quite a low angle to the rear window. In the prairies, where the snow is drier than it is in eastern Canada, there is not much tendency for it to accumulate on such a rear window. However, in Ottawa, Montreal, New York State, and in the interior of British Columbia where the snow is much more moist, the ordinary slipstream of air passing over such a rear window is not sufficient to remove that snow. I have had this experience driving that particular type of vehicle in Ottawa. How will the ministry police such a situation? Can it
February 2, 1970



say to a manufacturer, "If that type of car is to be sold in particular regions, its design is no use"?
The other day the minister had some difficulty replying to questions about the term, "motor vehicle". He was asked what about a tractor. He replied that in certain cases a tractor might be covered by this bill, for instance if it were licensed to run on a road. But the trouble is that a manufacturer or distributor cannot determine, when he makes a sale, whether a tractor will be used primarily on the highway, or part-time on the highway, or all the time on a farm. I suggest it would be better to amend the bill to say that a motor vehicle means any vehicle except a tractor. The minister should definitely exclude tractors from the provisions of this legislation. The ultimate use of a tractor will be determined by its purchaser, and under the terms of this bill an inspector cannot go into a retail sales outlet and seize a vehicle.
Who will establish the standards to be specified by this legislation? On what basis will they be established? Who will do the research? Instead of setting up a government research bureau, I would prefer that we use an organization such as the Canadian Standards Association, an eminently suitable organization of national repute. Its seal of approval must appear on electrical and electronic apparatus, and on many other kinds of commodities. Why not require that its seal of approval be necessary for automobile components?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: It deals with some of them.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I would prefer to see a body of this kind deal with the actual research and the actual testing of components.
Then, there is the question of the appeal. A difference of opinion may arise between the automobile manufacturer and the government's bureau or the standards association. Who will sit in judgment? There is no use in one side saying yes and the other saying no, with both sides standing firm on their proposals. If we stipulate that the government side will always prevail, what sort of exercise will we have? I do not think that the minister, the government, and the public want that sort of thing.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
The section that deals with notice of defects imposes what I say is an absolute liability, an absolute responsibility on the manufacturer or distributor. He cannot claim any omission
Motor Vehicle Safety
of notice because under the section it envisages the manufacturer or distributor failing to give notice. He may have done all that is reasonable but the Post Office may have failed to deliver the registered notice. After all, a bag of registered mail containing 50 passports was stolen once and we do not know what other registered mail was missing. Under the system of bulk billing registered mail in the Post Office, it is not possible to ascertain what mail was in a particular bag unless there was a complaint from someone expecting a letter.
Suppose the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) owned a car with a defect and the manufacturer was trying to get in touch with him, would he know that he must receive a notice? If he did not, how could he complain?
I say the section is far too sweeping and imposes an absolute liability. It is worded so that there would be no relief against the situation where notice did not reach the owner, despite all reasonable efforts of the manufacturer or the distributor. Failure to deliver notice constitutes an offence and the penalties imposed for this are extraordinarily high.


Harold Edward Winch: Not high enough.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) said "not high enough". They are exceptionally high and changes should be made.
Now, I come to the second last point I want to raise, Mr. Speaker, and that is the right of entry of inspectors. I cannot agree that an inspector on his own may enter the premises of a distributor or manufacturer as he is empowered to do under the act, without some authority. Last year there was some discussion brought forward by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) about the powers of inspectors under the act dealing with pesticides. This act gave far more sweeping powers than those accorded the local police or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police regarding search for narcotics. No RCMP officer can enter and search for narcotics unless he has a specific warrant and only a person designated by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) through the Exchequer Court to possess a warrant has this same power. What is more important, narcotics or vehicle inspection? I think the standards are unbalanced merely for administrative convenience. Administrative inspectors are given far greater power than inspectors under the

February 2, 1970
Motor Vehicle Safety
Narcotics Act. When this bill comes back from committee, I hope to have a lot more to say about that.
The next thing, Mr. Speaker, is the right of seizure without warrant. There is no appeal under the act against this. Why is there forfeiture of the vehicle to the Crown? There is a provision for a fine and also penal servitude. Why seize the vehicle as well? Under the Excise Act a vehicle can be seized which is used by bootleggers, but in this particular instance why make it forfeit to the Crown?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Because it is unsafe.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister says "because it is unsafe", but what if the defect were to be corrected? Say for instance there was an unsafe tie rod, and a new safer tie rod were installed, what entitlement has the Crown to seize that vehicle?
This is a matter I have continuously objected to in the drafting of statutes. Why in heaven's name do we need a cross-reference to the Fisheries Act in this bill for the provision of steps to be taken under seizure and disposal and all that sort of thing? This is just bad drafting. Perhaps the minister and his colleagues should get together and bring out a new federal seizures act, but let us not keep going back to the Fisheries Act. One of these days, the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) is going to amend his legislation unknown to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson). Then he and a lot of others will be left hanging on the coattails of the Minister of Fisheries. Far better to get busy on a new federal seizures act to standardize the procedure under the various acts and know what it is all about. As a lawyer, why I should have to tell a client that I must go to the Fisheries Act to find out how to deal with an automobile is beyond my comprehension.
I hope this bill gets a real going over and that we get some sensible answers to the questions posed on all sides of the House.
I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock the House will now proceed with Private Members' Notices of Motion, namely, public bills.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the House will bear with me for a second, I should like to outline 
the business to be raised at the time of adjournment: The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave)-Criminal Code- Proclamation of remainder of amendments respecting breathalyzer; the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis)-Housing-1970 construction target for homes for elderly and those on low incomes; the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte)-Post Office-Earnings	following postal rates
increase.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' NOTICES OF MOTIONS


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should initiate a national reaserch and development program in respect of methods of proper and economic solid-waste disposal, including studies directed to the conservation of natural resources by reducing the amount of waste and unsalvageable materials and by recovery and utilization of potential resources in solid wastes; and provide technical and financial assistance to provincial and municipal governments and multi-governmental agencies in the planning, development, and conduct of solid-waste disposal programs.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
He said: Mr. Speaker, I note that although my motion was filed, if I may use that expression, since that time there has been a notice in the Citizen of January 30, about the intentions of the Province of Ontario. The headline of the article reads, "Ontario makes fresh beginning on industrial pollution controls". The body of the article reads in part:
All waste disposal sites and systems (including municipal dumps) will require provincial certificates of approval, and fines of up to $2,000 daily will be possible against violators who dispose of garbage at places and in ways not acceptable to the government.
Hamilton has a problem with regard to the disposal of solid waste emanating from the householder. I will not take up the time of the House in discussing this matter except to say that we have a secondary sewage disposal system utilized for the disposal of solid waste. I hope the federal government realizes that the people of Hamilton are concerned about this matter and are concerned because of the lack of commitment in this area by the federal government.
February 2, 1970

It can be said that as we enter the 1970's we are burying ourselves in our own waste with as little concern as we showed regarding the pollution of our waters and air. I believe it is time for us to place high on the list of priorities the question of solid-waste disposal. We must now become very concerned about smothering ourselves in the debris of our own making. I am not aware of any comprehensive statistics on the magnitude of solid-waste of all forms generated in Canada. Undoubtedly, there must be some statistics. Nevertheless, it seems to be that because of increased populations and the continuing trend towards urbanization that will be part of the pattern of the 1970's, the problem of waste, its disposal and related problems will become much more pressing than has been the case in the past.
The nature of solid-waste is variable and the problems relating to the disposal of solid-waste involve factors of geography, technology, government and public attitudes. Notwithstanding the variable of geographic location, it has been found that municipal solid-waste can be broken down statistically as follows:
Cardboard Newspaper Miscellaneous paper Plastic, Film
Leather, Moulded Plastic Rubber Garbage Grass and Dirt Textiles Wood
Glass, Ceramics and Stone Metallics
7 per cent 14 per cent 25 per cent 2 per cent
and
2	per cent 12 per cent 10 per cent
3	per cent
7	per cent 10 per cent
8	per cent
Solid waste from industry is another source of such waste. It is of significant magnitude. Although industry is involved in the waste problem, it plays a significant role in conserving material, thus conserving raw materials, and in the recycling through the industrial process of salvaged material. For example, industrial scrap is useful in the recovery of tons of copper, lead, zinc and other metals.
The paper industry also generates annually millions of tons of waste from the production of articles utilizing paper. Waste is generated from our acceptance of items like paper packaging, paper containers, bottles and jars, plastic containers and caps, metal cans and other miscellaneous packaging materials. This indicates the magnitude of the problem in this area alone. It takes very little imagination for us to realize that society will not stop generating large quantities of this type of waste, all of which in the end has to be discarded. Waste material also results from mining
Waste Disposal Research industries and takes the form of waste rock, mill tailings, smelter slag and so on, all accumulated at mine sites. Other areas of concern, of course, are those to do with urban renewal and superhighway construction which is, to say the least, being greatly accelerated. The problem here is this: We must ask ourselves what we are to do with waste materials such as plastic, tile, metal, stones, dirt and masonry. For how long can such materials remain on site or continue to be buried?
The three divisions that must be considered when classifying waste products and their disposal problems are atmospheric, liquid and solid. Although it seems possible, it really is not practical to separate problems involving solid-waste disposal from those involving water and air pollution. For example, air pollution can be aggravated by the burning of solid wastes. Household grinding of garbage eliminates solid waste but increases liquid waste. Solid-waste disposal by means of land fill can produce problems relating to ground water supplies. Therefore, any over-all policy involving the disposal of solid wastes must be developed in association with any policy relating to liquid waste and atmospheric conditions. Accordingly, it is necessary for the federal government to adopt some unified standard. At present it seems to show no interest in this.
I think it would be very unwise for Parliament and the government to debate the Canada water bill in isolation from other factors I have mentioned because, as I said, pollution and solid-waste disposal are interrelated questions. The outpourings of households, municipalities and industry, business and agriculture in the form of waste and discarded materials bring about pollution.
The theme of my remarks is really a plea for better waste management policies and how we are to bring those into effect in order to benefit Canadians as a whole at present and in the future. We must become motivated to deal with this problem now. It matters little whether the ends of our actions are the improvement of health, the economic incentives resulting from salvaging of waste products, long range conservation programs or the removal of aesthetic insults in the form of ugly views and undesirable odours. Although we have been motivated in the past by considerations relating to health hazards, other considerations are steadfastly becoming more important.
We are mainly concerned about the following forms of waste: Organic sewage or waste
309$	COMMONS
Waste Disposal Research which is principally carried by water contained in the units we use for the disposal of our wastes; trash and garbage, by which we mean primarily the material picked up from homes, businesses and other manufacturing establishments, and automobile hulks and demolition materials. Sewage disposal units cost millions of dollars in capital, and we should determine if they offer convenient means for the collecting and transporting of solid wastes that might be collected in the systems. Substantial grants are required in the area of sewage treatment because we must encourage chemists, biochemists, microbiologists and biologists to develop innovations in the technology of sewage treatment.
I say this because it seems that professionals in this field have made scant contribution to this area.
The collection of trash and garbage is still, in many instances, carried out in a primitive way and I submit that we need to undertake studies which will examine systems of modernizing the collecting and disposal of such waste. A good many cities have no satisfactory refuse disposal system at the present time and it is not uncommon to see refuse dumped in our rivers and lakes. The complexities resulting from the disposal of waste material from various sources, the salvage aspects relating to waste material, aspects relating to water and air pollution and the logistics of transfer and disposal of wastes, create problems of great magnitude. Visual pollution by automobile hulks is becoming a matter of national concern, and immediate steps ought to be initiated to recycle scrap from old cars to our steel furnaces. In that way, we could clean up this aspect of pollution.
Programs of salvaging and reclaiming can play a very significant role in solid-waste disposal management. The re-use of scrap material can make up for any deficiency in our raw materials. Solid wastes can, therefore, be viewed, in certain instances, as resources. The recovery of these resources has been the motivation behind some salvage operations, particularly in the United States. It is vital therefore that further research be undertaken in order to determine the purposes for which such salvaged waste material can be used.
It will probably be argued, Mr. Speaker, that the problem of solid waste disposal lies in the field of urban affairs, and that the federal government has no jurisdiction for action here. It seems that the federal government is not even interested in this field. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that the problem is complex and calls for co-ordination and hard

DEBATES	February 2, 1970
thinking without any jurisdictional nitpicking. As a result of recent United States studies the following has been said. I quote:
The inescapable conclusion is that it is now clearly necessary to treat the whole urban, suburban and rural complex, instituting a modern community, as a single unit within which waste management problems must be resolved. Full regard must be given to the inter-relationships of all environmental factors, to the total insult of pollutants to man's physical and mental health and well being, to all sources of pollution and to all methods for control.
That statement gives, I suggest, a great deal of credibility to my notice of motion. Hon. members will now appreciate why I call for a national research and development program that will be instrumental in the co-ordinating of programs to do with research, experimenting, the collection of data and so on, as a result of which technical assistance in the form of grants will be made available for the study of this over-all problem.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Technology has solved the problem of getting material into the community. It must now concern itself with bringing forth solutions which will remove waste. The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Andras) in charge of housing requested suggestions from the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) as to what he should do with the $200 million. I suggest this is an area in which he can place some fairly high priority and, perhaps in his wisdom, he would be prepared to give some credence to the motion which I have brought this afternoon.
In closing I wish to read from a report of the Environmental Pollution Panel of the Presidents Science Advisory Committee. I believe this matter was studied in 1966. It is still up-to-date. I think it is very important that we should be aware of what it stated in terms of final conclusions. I quote:
The overall nature of the problem is such therefore that attention should be given to-
(1)	The improvement of organization and system-ization of the waste material outflow portion of our consuming society.
(2)	The improvement of technology dealing with this outflow and with the separate steps of collecting, processing and disposing, and
(3)	The adoption of practices and policies that will close the loop between the materials consumption and the waste production parts of our society so that decisions relative to consumption will consider the waste product problem.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. David Anderson (Esquimall-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak very briefly in
February 2, 1970	COMMONS
this debate. I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) for raising this subject in the form of a motion and also for outlining so well the problem we are faced with. I do not wish to go over all the figures that were in his speech and I hope other speakers following me will also refrain from doing so.
There is no doubt that the population of the world is increasing at a very rapid rate and that increases in urbanization and sophistication of life are also taking place at a very rapid rate. The problem of solid-waste disposal-the disposal of paper, plastics, bottles, cars, cans-has become perhaps one of the most serious problems facing the modern urban society.
The hon. member's motion is to the effect that more research should be done in this area. From what little I know of the problem,
I agree with this. I think all hon. members would agree that federal provincial, or private funds should be allocated for research if it can be shown that research in this area is necessary. The problem of course is that if we devote money to research, this money is not available for use in dealing with the problem itself. Therefore, if research is not necessary and the skills and sophistication of existing technology is sufficient, perhaps the money should be devoted to actual production and operation of the techniques which research has already given us.
I have already stated I do not intend to speak at great length on this point. Perhaps other hon. members who speak on this motion of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) will discuss it at greater length. I wish to give an example of what I have in mind, which is the East Hamilton solid-waste reduction unit which I presume is close to my hon. friend's riding. This is a large plant costing approximately $6.3 million which is now being put into operation. I understand this plant will compound solid-wastes, produce steam, and that there will be a byproduct of reclaimed minerals. According to my information, this is being done in Hamilton at perhaps no cost to the taxpayer once the capital costs are met. This is the type of project where more research is evidently not necessary but where more money is being devoted to actually dealing with the problem with the present level of technology. I am not an expert on this subject, but it appears to me that using our present technology, and without extra research, much more could be done along these lines.
DEBATES	3097
Waste Disposal Research
I also wish to mention the program of Firestone Tire Company in dealing with old tires which now litter the countryside, waterways, roads and trash heaps. The company now has a process of reclaiming the chemical ingredients of these tires without the air pollution caused by burning them. Which has been the normal method of dealing with them up to now. This process now exists, and evidently more research is not necessary here. It is capable of being put into effect with present technology.
There is one important aspect which was not dealt with by the hon. member for Hamilton West, namely that we in Canada do not have a problem of the magnitude of other societies with respect to waste disposal. I myself lived for many years in Hong Kong, which is a small island less than 30 miles long and 5 miles at its widest point. One million people live on that island, as does a population of wild deer and other wild animals. I give this as an example of proper land use and an intelligent approach to urbanization which makes it possible for a relatively small area to have wildlife as well as a very substantial and heavy human population. In that city we have an efficient waste disposal plant. Forgive me for using "we". I realize I am speaking possessively, but a number of times I have been referred to as the member for Hong Kong. But to return to my subject, a by-product of this plant is building materials, such as building blocks. The costs of building and operating this plant are not met by the sale of building blocks. There is a certain deficit which has to be made up. Nevertheless, it has been possible to substantially meet the cost of solid-waste disposal by the sale of these by-products. This is the type of operation which Canadians should study.
I would also like to mention another area I know something about, namely Japan. This country has a problem infinitely greater than ours. In many urban areas of Japan the problem is even greater than some United States cities. I noticed in the January 3 edition of the Financial Post an article on the Tezuka disposal system of solid wastes. I will not go into all the complexities, but it is, according to the report, a new type of solid-waste disposal system. The research has evidently been done. The Tezuka Kosan Company is willing to sell these units for the disposal of solid wastes f.o.b. Yokohama. They have reached a stage where the research is completed and the units are now into production.
February 2, 1970

Waste Disposal Research
Canada, I suggest, can benefit a great deal by learning from the experience of other countries, such as the U.S., and especially Japan. I suggest if we embark on independent research, much of it would only duplicate research that has already been done elsewhere. If I may make one suggestion in this particular debate, it would be that a portion of the research moneys which have been talked of by the hon. member for Hamilton West should be used for translating foreign technical journals and perhaps even subscribing to these journals and making them widely available in Canada. By so doing, we will avoid a great deal of duplication and waste, not to mention delay in getting on with the job. With that suggestion, Mr. Speaker, I resume my seat.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, for the life of me I could not understand anyone in this House who approached this motion from a realistic point of view, irrespective of his party, opposing the motion or being a party to talking it out. Without doubt this is a motion which should be accepted in principle and agreed to, particularly when we realize the importance of the principle involved. It has been moved in a manner acceptable under the rules of this House, in that it calls for an expression of opinion by the House that the government should initiate a national research and development program to study suitable and economic methods of disposing of solid waste, and so on.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I must admit that upon occasions I am not quite certain as to the interpretation or definition of "solid waste", though I believe I understand the priority assigned to this question by the hon. member who introduced this motion. I also note that he mentioned the subject of sewage, and, of course, whenever there is solid waste in sewage, disposal problems arise. As one who comes from Vancouver, the third largest city in Canada, I have some interest in this question. On the southern boundary of Vancouver, there is the twin delta of the Fraser River whose course begins hundreds of miles to the north. This being so, Vancouver gets everything from the cities, municipalities and industrial establishments as it is discharged into the river as far back as Prince George. So, whether it is solid waste, semi-solid waste or just waste, it all ends in Vancouver where the Fraser hits the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

We in Vancouver and, I think, the citizens of Canada generally, take great pride in the beaches of Vancouver. Yet in the last few years we have been forced on occasions to completely close our beaches because of the effluent, the solid or semi-solid waste which is polluting the area. Vancouver has spent millions of dollars trying to correct the situation through its disposal plant at Iona, yet even today we do not possess too good a record in this regard. There is no question but that the pollution of our rivers, our streams, our oceans is serious enough to call for federal action.
I make these remarks because, in part, they were prompted by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) when he introduced his motion. Nevertheless, should anyone think that the motion refers strictly to solid waste, then in this case too I believe we should approve the motion of the hon. member for Hamilton West without too much debate. It should certainly not be talked out.
I was most interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson), particularly his references to what is being done in Tokyo and in Hong Kong. He told us from his own experience as a resident in those cities that they have moved to deal with this question of the disposal of solid waste. He suggested there was, in fact, no need to spend money on research on this subject since we could learn directly from what they were doing in Hong Kong and Japan. I would agree with that proposition-if we were doing anything about it, if we were learning and taking action on the basis of what he knows from his personal experience in those areas. Basically, there is no great difference between the solid material of Hong Kong, or of Japan and that of Canada. Metropolitan Vancouver now has a population of 900,000; Montreal has a population of well over two million; Toronto, about two million.
So, one does not have to think in terms of Hong Kong or of a city in Japan. We have cities here of comparable population experiencing comparable problems. It is time we moved to deal with them. There has been so much talk and writing about pollution in the last two or three years without anything being done about it that I believe I am not the only member of this House or the only citizen of Canada who is getting heartsick about the fact that all this talk and wishful thinking is accompanied by no action. This motion asks that we carry out certain research projects. If we can get the information from Japan or
February 2, 1970

Hong Kong, that is fine. But let us then take action. For Heaven's sake, Mr. Speaker, do I have to tell you or any other hon. member what it is like outside the City of Vancouver, or any other large city-to show you the debris of the cars, the tires and the cans? The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich says they are dealing with this in Tokyo and Hong Kong. Why, in the name of God, are we not moving in that direction here?
I live in what I maintain is one of the most beautiful ci.ies in the world-Vancouver. Move up the valley, though, and see the acres upon acres of abandoned cars, the tires and the cans. I do not know too much about science but I do read scientific journals and if my reading of them is correct there are methods, developed in other countries, whereby scrap metals can be recovered, tires can be used for other purposes, and cans can be utilized. All I have to say is this: congratulations to Hong Kong and Japan on their progress as outlined by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich. Congratulations to those who have done research in getting rid of solid waste material.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Unless I am wrong, the point of the motion by the hon. member for Hamilton West is, let us accumulate that knowledge, and for God's sake let us do something about it: with federal initiative, let us co-ordinate this knowledge and work with the provinces and municipalities to remove not only the eyesores but the detriment to the health of the people in our cities and rural areas, because no action has been taken by this authority in respect of solid-waste disposal.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Oitawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) on this motion. It is a very good one. I am sure it is the precursor of many efforts that will follow from many quarters to focus on a problem that is increasingly recognized as being of major importance.
The hon. member's motion has roughly two arms to it. One calls for research and asks the federal government to initiate research into solid-waste disposal to reduce its volume, and to look into methods of recovery and use of such materials that are beneficial. The second arm of the motion calls for technical and financial assistance to the provinces and to municipal governments-he even goes so far as to include multi-government agencies- for planning, developing and continuing programs.
Waste Disposal Research
The hon. member in moving his motion very properly recognizes that this is an urban problem. It is a problem of concentrations of population in relatively small areas. It is a problem of an increasingly affluent society. The beer cans and discarded, used automobiles that litter our highways and provide eyesores are the by-products of a society whose members have two cars in the garage, two television sets in the home and an increasingly high standard of living-a society that places high value on labour services yet neglects the elements of recovery that are essential if we are to reduce this problem to manageable proportions.
Every year in Canada some 400,000 automobiles are scrapped. A disturbingly small proportion of them are scrapped through the established channels through which full recovery of their materials is possible. Approximately 19 million to 20 million tons per year of solid wastes are, as estimated by one authority, being produced in our urban centres. Within the last ten years this amount has increased by 10 per cent in the country of our neighbour to the south, according to our best estimates, and will continue to increase. We are told that roughly Impounds per day of municipal solid waste per person is produced. It is estimated by one authority that in 1980 this will go up to 5 J pounds per person.
In the United States, every person uses per year 250 metal cans, 135 bottles, 338 metal and plastic caps and 6 tubes, including four tubes of toothpaste. These are just a few indicators of the mountains of surplus materials that are being discharged from our increasingly urban communities. The mover of the motion said we are literally burying ourselves in our own wastes. This has been said many times. This is in fact an urban problem. Those of us who have served on municipal councils know how urban it is and how the nature of the problem has changed. A decade ago ashes were an important part of this problem. Now, thanks to the change to heating oils and natural gas, ashes are an almost negligible part of wastes.
We now have an increasing proportion of brush from suburbanites who have their own gardens and have to discharge their own materials because they are forbidden to burn it in their own backyards because it would pollute the air. We have increasing proportions of industrial wastes. We have in Canada, I am sure, the highest proportion of newsprint and cardboard waste per capita.
3100	COMMONS
Waste Disposal Research This is perhaps a doubtful feature of this magnificent resource of our country which has led to its rather reckless use.
Convenient containers, methods of packaging, and trends in public health which insist that everything be covered and nothing be left in such a way that it can be contaminated in the process of distribution, have contributed to the waste disposal problem. The problem has to be viewed in its entirety, and it has to be analyzed at various stages.
The definition of solid waste is fairly arbitrary as between liquid, solid and atmospheric waste. As the mover of the motion pointed out, the one embraces the other; measures to control atmospheric pollution where there are particles involved will often accentuate the solid disposal problem. Liquid and solid wastes are in many cases interchangeable. Let us consider the situation where the woman of the house has a garbage disposal unit which chops the garbage to shreds. It simply converts solid waste to a liquid form of waste, and there is a problem at a different point. The collection of waste, its processing and disposal must be attacked at every stage.
There is also a major secondary materials industry. It is estimated that something like $5 billion to $10 billion worth of waste could be recovered in the United States. The recovery of scrap copper could amount to 80 per cent of the new copper used in the United States. The recovery of lead from secondary materials and scrap is equal to twice the domestic lead production in the United States. The recovery of materials such as paper, rubber, plastic, textiles, even hair and feathers, and in some cases precious metals, has an economic base. A community that has sufficient incentive and interest in that base could build up an industry.
This affluent society of ours increasingly destroys the economic base of the secondary materials industry. How does it do so? It does so by its social attitudes. Anyone engaged in the business of recovering waste is associated with the junk collector. Collection and transfer points are zoned out of existence by municipal authorities. There is no positive encouragement to make such collection points comply with sanitary requirements. There are no research programs initiated to establish a means by which these places could be made acceptable to communities. The approach of our affluent society is just to zone them out of existence.
In our society we are very fortunate that the standard of living and wage rates are as

DEBATES	February 2. 1970
high as they are, and I would not in any way want to change them. However the high cost of living defeats the secondary recovery process because the high cost of labour makes the cost of recovery prohibitive. We have frequently criticized local government because it is completely self-defeating as far as orderly waste recovery programs are concerned. Garbage collection in its rough sense, in broad population usage, tends to be fragmented over different municipalities. This is one of the services that is frequently left, in a two-tier system of municipal government, at the primary level and is not transferred to the regional level.
Regional authorities may have control of waste disposal sites because these are so few, and expensive. The fragmented nature of municipal government, each with its own zoning laws, each with its own by-laws governing the collection and disposal of waste, and each with its own system, makes this a very difficult matter. Municipalities may farm out the job to private contractors. They may have a municipal operation. The effect of such a state of affairs is to make almost impossible an orderly arrangement for the secondary materials industry, with sufficient inducement to engage in planning and investment in capital facilities, collection facilities and transfer points. This is almost entirely due to the fragmented nature of local government in our big city areas.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I served on a municipal council in this city. Every second year we had the problem of how to acquire a satisfactory land-fill site: that was the language used. I am sure hon. members of this House would be astonished to know how many parts of the city of Ottawa have been built up by the sanitary land-fill method. Within my own recollection some of the best parkways along the Rideau River have had five or six feet of sanitary land-fill dumped there. It has been dumped on both sides of the Rideau River parkway and on the Ottawa River parkway.
A major sand re-fill operation took place on the Ottawa River parkway in the Britannia area, in my own constituency. The problem, of course, is very simple: Sites become more difficult to find. Every year the cost of haulage to sites farther and farther removed from the point of origin of the solid waste becomes more prohibitive in an economic sense. More and more communities regard the temporary land-fill operation as a community nuisance that must be stopped at all costs.
February 2, 1970

The municipality, generally speaking, has two choices. It can incinerate and pollute the air, or it can engage in landfill operations, face the violent objection of residents of the area and run the serious risk of polluting the water and destroying the natural marshes and other features which are part of the environment for a considerable time to come. Last but not least, they must face the fact that the sites that are reasonably available within economic hauling distance are rapidly being exhausted.
The hon. member for Hamiltion West commented favourably, I gather, on the announcement by the government of Ontario that it intends to licence disposal sites and impose penalties on people who do not use proper disposal sites. I believe this is action on the negative side, the penalty side, and is not proper use of the jurisdiction the province has in this area. I do not wish to hide behind the jurisdictional problem. I am one who believes the federal government also should take a great deal of initiative. It is easy to do just what the province of Ontario has done. It is just one small part of the story, that is, placing a prohibition without giving any answers to dealing with the problem. I see the hon. member agrees with me.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I think the hon. member is reading a little more into it than is indicated by my smile.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I should be very happy to hear the hon. member's view if he disagrees, because I know the type of problem the municipalities face. They have to face the fact that these sites are not available any more. What can be done? A prohibition can be placed on dumping. Then, where does the garbage and solid waste go? It does not vanish into thin air. It cannot be placed in a stream. Something has to be done.
I am in total agreement with the purpose behind the motion. I believe it is an eminently satisfactory motion, but I wonder if its mover would consider going a little further. This is not exclusively a problem of the federal government, as much as I would like the federal government to have authority over it. I think it is a serious enough matter that when we have a federal-provincial conference on urban problems, it should receive high priority on the agenda. There is no way in which one level of government can cope with this problem. Of all the problems- in the whole area of urban affairs, this one has an extremely local content, a regional content
Waste Disposal Research and a national content. By the very nature of things I believe the development of a national program would have to be part of a co-operative endeavour at all levels of government.
I should like to say a word or two about the problem of automobiles. Like any other member of this House, when I take a drive on Sunday afternoon out into the country, especially in the winter when the leaves are not there to hide the view, I see the hulks of wrecked automobiles. There is no question that this is an unpleasant sight and that something must be done about it. The National Capital Commission spends in the order of $20,000 each year in hauling away abandoned automobiles from the green belt area. This is just one community and one area. When the owner of an automobile decides it is no longer worth driving, or decides he can no longer drive it, he hauls it out at night, takes off the licence plates, hopes he has succeeded in obliterating the identifying marks, and abandons it. This has become a great problem in areas such as Detroit and New York.
I have read of proposals whereby governments could deal with the problem of abandoned automobiles. I have spoken to people who know something about the automobile business. When I ask what can be done with an old automobile, I am told that first it is stripped. Certain parts of a salvageable nature are removed, such as the battery which has recoverable lead, the tires which have recoverable rubber, and other items. Then the automobile is taken somewhere and burned. By burning, it is reduced to metallic remains; then the burned hulk can be compressed and has an economic salvage value.
Part of the difficulty is what has happened in respect of the steel industry. The steel industry does not need a large volume of scrap material any more. There was a time in the steel industry, about 15 years ago, when scrap metal was a very important item, but because of recent developments the requirements for scrap has been reduced. This has had a most unfortunate effect on the removal of automobiles from our landscape.
The hon. member said that site control is needed. I quite agree. I wonder what other measures might be taken to cope with this problem. I understand the Japanese have developed a good method of recovering automobiles, but in a country like ours the recovery of automobiles is not a simple matter. There must be recovery points, and we have long distances to deal with and
3102	COMMONS
Waste Disposal Research sparse population. We must recognize that a recovery method based on burning would involve pollution of the air. We must have some disposal method whereby we can reduce the extraneous materials which pollute the air.
I believe, also, we must have a method of subsidy in respect of bringing the material into a central point. The tragedy of a solid-waste disposal program is that it has such a precarious economic base because of the attitude toward it, the trends in our society, the cost factor and everything else. It seems to me we cannot reply upon a "do nothing" attitude to develop positive salvage and secondary material recovery industries. The industry will have to receive a good deal of assistance and research. It will have to receive a good deal of help by way of subsidy and help from local authorities who will have to adapt their zoning and regional planning requirements at certain central points to which waste should be attracted and where it can be recovered.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
This program will call for a national code of waste removal which, in my opinion, can be developed only by co-operative action at the three levels of government in Canada. I look forward to the day in the near future when, at a conference called to discuss urban affairs, this problem will receive high priority and will lead to the kind of measures which were mentioned in the debate today.


Mr. R. J. Orange (Northwest Territories):: the tailings pond system are then studied, and the transportation and fate of these substances in the receiving stream are analysed. This is an experimental program which could be expanded if we learned more about the handling of solid wastes from base-metal mining activities.
There is in the Department of National Health and Welfare an advisory committee in public health engineering, under the chairmanship of Professor P. Jones of the University of Toronto, which is in the process of preparing a report on solid-waste disposal problems in Canada. This report, hopefully, will be available within the next few months. It is to be submitted to the Science Council through this advisory committee. It will attempt to identify the urgency of the problem, with probable emphasis on waste disposal in large urban centres and solid-waste disposal associated with feed lots wherein large herds of animals are concentrated in small areas.
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has one program of the value of almost $1 million which has been continued for over three years to develop apparatus for the disposal of wastes within apartment complexes. The apparatus will provide a method for treating all wastes within the complex itself and will handle the solid wastes involved.
The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce has a program for the advancement of industrial technology. One project, which is valued at $57,000, is in progress to develop a solid-waste compacting machine to replace incineration in large dwelling complexes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. The hour appointed for the consideration for private members business having expired, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Jamieson that Bill C-137,
21611-57J
Motor Vehicle Safety
respecting the use of national safety marks in relation to motor vehicles and to provide for safety standards for certain motor vehicles imported into or exported from Canada or sent or conveyed from one province to another, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) began this debate last week he said that this was one of the most important pieces of legislation with which Parliament would be concerned this session. When 1 looked at my file, which holds reports covering only a small fraction of the problems concerning automobile safety, 1 realized the minister had not exaggerated. If anything, he underplayed the seriousness of the problem.
Today I called the National Safety Council in order to get its most recent figures on deaths, injuries and property damage caused by automobile accidents. The most recent figures cover 1967 and 1968. The figures for 1969 are not yet at hand, but I am sure they will not show any drastic reduction. According to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, 5,412 people died as a result of automobile accidents in 1967, 165,000 people were injured, and there were over 330,000 claims for property damage. The estimate of property damage in that year as a result of automobile accidents was in the neighbourhood of $650 million. In 1968 there was a slight reduction in the number of deaths caused by automobile accidents. In that year the figure was 5,375, but the number of people injured increased to 172,718. The number of claims for property damage rose to 360,000.
It is because of this kind of situation that finally in 1970, in both Canada and the United States, we are beginning to enact legislation which, if enforced, will cut the toll of deaths, injuries and property damage caused by car accidents. And if we are doing this in 1970 it is because a few individuals in the United States, one or two in Canada, and a few organizations put the spotlight of publicity on defects found in cars over the last 15 or 20 years.
In this situation the role of the automobile companies in Canada has been a disgraceful one, a despicable one. Mr. Speaker, let us face the facts. Automobile companies in Canada are 98 per cent controlled by the automobile companies in the United States, and from the

February 2, 1370
Motor Vehicle Safety
beginning they have rejected the idea that there was anything basically wrong with their product.
Automobile companies tried to convince the public that automobile accidents were caused by improper driving habits or by defects in roads. Of course, some automobile accidents have resulted from those causes. But the automobile companies also tried to convey the idea that there was nothing wrong with automobiles themselves or, if there was, the companies had done everything possible to correct the defects.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, I am sure members of this House know that the person most responsible for publicizing the completely uncaring attitude and negligence of the automobile companies was Ralph Nader in the United States. I am sure that members of this House will know, too, that when Ralph Nader's arguments began to have an impact on the United States public, General Motors, the biggest automobile company in the world, or their lawyers, hired investigators to undertake detailed research into Ralph Nader's private life. What they expected to find, I do not know; and what they expected to do with the information, if they got any, I do not know. Whether the information they were after had anything to do with cars, or whether somebody hoped to find something about him that might be used to detract from his work, I do not know. But I do know that when the information was made public, General Motors had to beat a hasty retreat and apologize.
Mr. Nader did this work in the United States. As the hon. member from Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) mentioned, a former Conservative Member of Parliament, Mr. Heward Grafftey, was also responsible for publicizing the need for very careful examination of the construction of automobiles. He also stressed the need for government inspection so that the defects which caused accidents could be controlled. The hon. member for Edmonton West then proceeded to ignore everything which Mr. Grafftey had suggested, when he argued that this legislation was too tough on the companies. The whole point of what Mr. Nader and Mr. Grafftey were saying to the public was that we had to get a great deal tougher with the automobile companies.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. In regard
[Mr. Orlikow.l
to the comments made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), I think that any remarks I made this afternoon were not in the sense he indicated, namely, that we were too tough on the companies. What I said was that there were some problems in regard to administration. I would not want those words to go unchallenged because they are a direct misinterpretation, albeit unintentional, of what I said.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to spend time debating with the hon. member for Edmonton West what he said or what I interpreted. I will be content to let the record speak for itself. Anybody interested in the subject can draw their own conclusions from the speech made by the hon. member for Edmonton West and my own.
I am glad that the Minister of Transport, on behalf of the government of Canada, is bringing forward the motor vehicle safety bill which will set standards for the first time. I am concerned because the minister in his speech admitted rather candidly that this legislation will bear the United States stamp of approval and that the possibility of Canadian standards varying substantially from those in the United States is virtually nil. This reflects a continuing abdication by this federal government in regard to legislating standards in all areas in accordance with the needs of the Canadian people. Canadian auto safety standards will, in effect, be set in Washington where there has been, and still is, consistent opposition by the automobile industry which has so far frustrated genuine efforts in this field. The United States government has tended to accept standards set by the industry.
I am afraid that in adopting similar standards-the 29 points which will be dealt with by regulation later-we will in effect be adopting the United States standards which have consistently proven to be completely inadequate. Besides that, I presume the safety features required for Canada's climate, such as rear-window defrosters, will not be included because they are not necessary in a large part of the United States; therefore, neither the government nor the auto companies will make them a standard feature of United States automobile manufacturers.
Even if this is true of the United States, it certainly is not true of Canada and we should make it a requirement of new car manufacture that rear-window defrosters are included. I drive a Swedish car, a Volvo, which has
February 2, 1970

a rear-window defroster, and I can tell the minister that it works very effectively even in the Ottawa winter. A clear rear-window makes it possible for me to be a better and safer driver. I hope this feature will be included in the Canadian legislation. In effect, the legislation is meaningless unless Canadian auto safety standards are specifically spelled out.
Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago I said that the United States automobile companies have been conspicuous by their refusal not only to take the lead in promoting safer automobiles but in their opposition to anybody else getting involved in this field. In hearings before a U.S. Senate subcommittee a few years ago headed by Senator Philip Hart, Senator Edward Kennedy was questioning the president of General Motors. He inquired how much profit General Motors had made in the year before the hearings. After some protest it was admitted that in the last fiscal year General Motors had made $1,500 million profit. When Senator Kennedy pressed a question to elicit how much had been spent in research for automobile safety, the president of General Motors had to admit that the figure was less than $5 million. As Senator Kennedy pointed out, that was less than one-twentieth of one per cent of their profit.
When people like Ralph Nader bring to the attention of the public the research findings of engineers and medical scientists at universities such as Cornell, Harvard, California, Minnesota and institutions such as the Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, and John F. Gordon, the president of General Motors, ridicules amateur engineers for trying to take over responsibilities that belong to competent engineers in the industry, it makes one stop and think.
Indeed, the only honest thing Mr. Gordon said was that the responsibility lay with the engineers of the industry but, in fact, the industry had completely abdicated its responsibility. The institutions which I have mentioned, Cornell, Harvard, California and Minnesota, uncovered auto designs which led to 40,000 fatalities per year in the United States at that time. They found that cars were likely to have doors pop open when there was an accident, had cardboard-like roof structures, uprootable seats, flying cushions, flying metal dash-knobs, chisel-like rear-view mirrors, and above all dangerous parts of the steering wheel. These were just a few of the 100-odd design defects found by the research engineers.
Motor Vehicle Safety
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
The United States Optometric Foundation performed a series of studies, and the projects director, Dr. Merrill J. Allen, reported:
Not a single car provides a suitable visual environment for daytime driving.
Similarly, a Cornell group established substantial variations in the strength of door-latches among various makes, but all were below minimum adequate safety regulations. The Liberty Mutual Insurance Company in the United States some years ago arranged for the construction of what they called safe survival cars. The company took four standard 1960 Chevrolets, removed the gingerbread, the chrome geegaws and unsafe features, and replaced them with dozens of safety improvements that would have added not more than $10 to the cost of production. Among those improvements were collapsible steering assemblies, automatic fire protection systems, roll bars to strengthen roofs and safety braking devices.
Every one of these safety features has been known to Detroit for years. Detroit engineers have known for years that impacts against steering columns are responsible for a large percentage of serious injury-producing accidents and deaths. But when it was suggested to General Motors that collapsible steering wheel assemblies should be built into General Motors cars, the company said that was not practical. However, one year later when the heat was turned on by the Senate investigating committee, lo and behold, the company installed collapsible steering wheel assemblies in certain cars as an optional feature. Now, a few years later, after considerable pressure by those who are really interested in automobile safety, collapsible steering assemblies are to be made part of an automobile's standard equipment.
It is interesting to note that automobile companies are more concerned about the appearance of cars, because that is important from the point of view of selling them. You change the appearance when you want to introduce a new model. But safety features which protect the lives and well-being of passengers have been made available only very recently as optional features for which the purchaser has to pay more money. It has been demonstrated conclusively that automobile companies have not cared about safety because in their opinion safety features do not sell cars. At hearings in 1965, General

February 2, 1970
Motor Vehicle Safety
Motors chairman, Frederic Donner, said that the-
-decision to offer an item as optional equipment recognizes what I believe is the basic freedom of the customer to pay the cost of tailoring a car to his own specifications or rejecting whatever he may not want.
In other words, if the customer wants a safety feature, he must pay for it. I have already said that styling will sell a car, but apparently safety features will not. Similarly, faulty tires have been responsible for a substantial percentage of automobile accidents and fatalities. In 1965 John Floberg, secretary and general counsel of the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, made this comment at the end of the hearings before the United States subcommittee:
I submit that the best standard, the time-tested and proved standard and the appropriate free enterprise standard of quality should be the one that has in the case of tires, as in the case of other consumer products, worked most satisfactorily; namely, the discriminating and sophisticated taste of the American consumer.
Senator Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin has introduced several bills covering tire standards. I will refer to them soon. It became obvious during Congressional hearings that the consumer really could not choose because he was never given information on which to base his choice; therefore, he could make no meaningful choice when it came to tires. I wish to refer to some of Senator Nelson's discoveries, because I think we realize that what applies to cars in the United States also applies to cars in Canada; defects in United States cars become apparent in Canadian cars and measures that will make cars safe in the United States are also applicable in Canada. Among several comments that Senator Nelson made on February 23, 1965, are the following, as reported in the Congressional Record. It is significant that only now, almost five years later, are we in this country and in the United States beginning to consider legislation in this field. The report I have in my hand reads in part as follows:
If cars were built so that protection could be provided for the head alone, at least one out of five people who are now dying in auto accidents would be saved.
If cars were built with seat and shoulder belts which would hold people in the car in an accident, thousands of lives would be saved: If a person is thrown from the car, the chance of death is five times as great.
If cars were built with only three basic changes, occupants could probably survive any crash up to 35 miles per hour-and statistics show that 87 per cent of all accidents occur at impact speed of 35

miles per hour or below. The three basic changes are: shoulder harnesses; doors which will stay closed in a crash; and collapsible steering shafts

The need for changes is obvious. But one factor impedes progress in this area. That factor is the conviction in Detroit that 'safety doesn't sell.' It is the stylist who reigns supreme in the automobile industry, not the safety and engineering experts.
Senator Nelson advocated the following safety features on motor vehicles: collapsible steering wheels, shoulder harness safety-belt anchors, specific types of safety glass, smog removing exhaust systems, standardized transmission controls to avoid confusion, and uniform bumper heights. We used to think that bumpers were designed to protect cars from damage in accidents, but if one looks at a car one will notice that they are becoming fancier and fancier and will only hurt a person or a car coming into contact with them. The automobile companies are making bumpers like that because they are not so much interested in safety as in the look of the car.
In 1966 Senator Nelson began to press for a bill to set tire standards. It would have given the consumer some protection against faulty tires. Disturbing stories came to light in the inquiries he conducted and the evidence submitted. The following was found:
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
That many new automobiles are being sold with tires which are designed to carry the normal load for which the automobile was designed.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this still applies. It was also found:
That size labels on tires-the only basis a motorist has for determining load capacity-were never meant to indicate the precise size. An 8.00 by 14 tire, which official tables indicate should carry an 1,180-pound load, may actually be smaller than a 7.50 by 14 tire, which is supposed to carry only 1,090 pounds.
That quality labels on tires, such as deluxe, premium, and first-line, have no meaning whatever and "there is no way to tell one tire grade from another."
Senator Nelson reported that he wrote to the presidents of the four major automobile manufacturing firms to ask them directly whether the tires supplied with their new cars were adequate to carry the loads for which the cars were designed. Not one of them replied with an unqualified yes.
American Motors replied that its cars could safely carry a full load, provided-
I think this should be noted.
[DOT]-the tires were specially inflated.
General Motors stated that the design guide in selecting tires was three passengers, but that its sedans could safely carry six passengers plus 200
February 2, 1970

pounds of luggage, provided the tires were specially inflated.
Chrysler said simply that its tires were adequate "provided they are properly maintained."
Ford Motor Co. said that it has been customary to make tire selections on the basis of a three-passenger load. But Ford said its sedans could carry six passengers plus luggage if the tires were specially inflated.
This was the testimony they gave Senator Nelson. Consumers who purchased the cars were never told that special measures were required tor inflating the tires. In other words, consumers had no way of knowing whether the tires they were purchasing were of adequate quality to give them the protection they needed.
I do not have time to put it on the record this evening, but Senator Nelson was able to document hundreds of cases where cars with new tires which had been used for less than
1,000	or 2,000 miles had been involved in serous accidents because the tires collapsed. Why? It was not because they were necessarily inadequately built, but because the people operating the cars had not been given the information that the tires simply could not carry the load which they expected them to carry. I refer to sedans and station wagons that people use to take their families on camping trips, etc. This was the record in 1965 and 1966, and it has not really changed. In November, 1968, Ralph Nader was able to publicize a partially completed study by the Federal Trade Commission staff in the United States which said:
-U.S. auto dealers and manufacturers have not lived up to guarantees they give on new cars-
The study says that auto industry "quality control . .. has apparently yielded under the pressure to produce more cars."
It said warranties are designed primarily to help sell cars and have not resulted in improved quality or service.
The report further stated:
"The failure of the warranty to provide new car buyers with substantially defect-free cars ... results from slack quality control at the manufacturer's level, combined with soaring car sales of dealers, shortages of skilled mechanics and inadequate allowance to dealers for pre-delivery inspection."
We know that since Mr. Nader and others began publicizing the defects in cars, the car manufacturers have finally realized that when they discover a number of cars, sometimes hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands, have defects they should not do as they did until a couple of years ago; I refer to their very quietly informing the dealers that there
Motor Vehicle Safety
was something wrong with the Buick, Cadillac, Chrysler or Ford. In an almost surreptitious manner the dealer would then get in touch with the purchaser and try to persuade him to bring his car in to be checked, to see if the defect was as serious as the manufacturer thought it was. The manufacturers now make regular public announcements when defects are discovered. This was not done for a long time. They scoffed when Ralph Nader and Heward Grafftey publicized the built-in defects in Canadian and United States cars. Public attention forced the automobile companies to make these announcements.
This is the record of the North American automobile manufacturers. It is a record of refusal to face up to their responsibilities, one of refusing to spend money on research to make automobiles safe. As I mentioned earlier, research has been left to universities and non-profit organizations. Publicity has been carried out by organizations such as the Consumers' Union in the United States. The automobile companies have dragged their feet.
I am worried about two aspects of this bill. I am worried that the standards the minister will be working with, and the regulations which will be drafted to cover the 29 points which he proposes to bring under review by means of this bill, are to a large extent those which have been agreed by the United States auto manufacturers. I submit this is not good enough.
I submit that the government should be prepared to establish a research and testing organization financed by it. I feel this should be undertaken by the government in co-operation with one or more Canadian universities to carry out scientific and objective research and testing of automobiles. We should not leave it, as we have in the past, to the automobile companies. As the record proves very conclusively, they are completely disinterested. They have done as little as possible. I submit that the leopard has not changed its spots; it is the same leopard. They will do no more than they are forced to by the government and by public opinion.
The second major reservation I have about this legislation is, what will happen after it is passed? Who will police the legislation? Who will ensure that the automobile companies live up to the specifications and regulations drafted by the government? I am concerned about the hesitancy of this government and the government of the United States to act. I

February 2, 1970
Motor Vehicle Safety
am concerned about the desire of this government to pare the budget and reduce the number of civil servants. I am concerned because even though there will be legislation and laws will be passed, there will be little, if any, enforcement of the regulations and therefore little, if any, inducement for the automobile companies to live up to the rules and regulations which will be enacted.
If the minister means business, and if the government wants to protect the Canadian people, it will not be enough to simply pass this law. It will not be enough for the department simply to draft regulations and to get an order in council proclaiming them. A very effective agency, with sufficient staff will be required to police the automobile companies to ensure that they do what up until now they have not been prepared to do, that is, build cars which are safe, cars which the people of Canada can drive with reasonable assurance that they are as safe as can be built. Hopefully, this legislation will become effective so that the automobile companies will be required to manufacture 1971 model cars in such a manner that consumers will know they are safe.
o (8:40 p.m.)


Mr. R. L. Whiting (Hallon):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to participate in this debate because many of the ramifications of Bill C-137 find a focal point in my constituency of Halton. This bill affects the actual lives of people, and this very month hundreds of Canadian citizens will become victims of accidents involving automobiles.
Transversing Halton are two of the busiest highways in Canada and, indeed, on this continent. I refer to the Queen Elizabeth Way and the Macdonald-Cartier Freeway. Literally tens of thousands of automobiles and other vehicles use these highways each day. Hardly a day passes when someone is not brought into our hospitals because of an accident due to drivers who may be careless or unthinking, or whose vehicles may be mechanically defective. Although this bill cannot and does not attempt to regulate highway traffic, it is nevertheless encouraging to know that the minister, in introducing Bill C-137, indicated that his department is co-operating with the provinces to improve safety standards in connection with highway traffic throughout Canada.
In Halton we have one of Canada's largest automobile and truck manufacturers, Ford of

Canada. Their standards of practice and their attitudes toward measures of safety are of vital concern to practically every Canadian. The Canadian automotive companies producing north American-type cars and trucks have for the past two model years been complying voluntarily with United States federal safety standards legislation. This has been done primarily because of the Canada-U.S. automotive trade pact which allows free passage of automotive vehicles and parts across the Canada-U.S. border.
It follows that when cars are being produced in both countries for sale in both countries, it is most efficient and economic to have them identical. This leads up to the desire of all Canadian automotive companies that the standards be identical with those now in force in the United States. Any variation would lead to horrendous problems in the manufacturing area and would, in effect, work against the program as contained in the auto pact. Any deviation would also result in higher manufacturing costs which undoubtedly would be passed on, at least in part, to the consumer.
I think the minister is moving in the right direction at this point by having the first list, as contained in this bill, conform to the American safety standards. However, this should not be another area in which it might be said we are being dictated to by forces outside our country. I believe that we in Canada can show leadership in the field of automotive safety. I would strongly urge the minister and his department to enlist the cooperation of those organizations and individuals who are concerned with the safety of our people when they venture out onto our highways.
We have the people in Canada who, through their observations and experience, have the knowledge to tell us what can be done. We also have the people who know what can be done. This latter group would involve the automobile manufacturers. I understand they are already working with the Department of Transport to develop better standards. It is my opinion, Mr. Speaker, that we should use these people to the fullest advantage so that we as Canadians can become leaders in establishing international automotive safety standards.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Rutherford (Rud) Lester Whiting: However, in all this matter there is something of a paradox. I venture to say that far less individual concern on the part
February 2, 1970


Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lambion-Keni):: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to delay the proceedings very long. In the first instance, I do not like to kick a man when he is down. According to tonight's papers GM and Chrysler are down. They were down drastically in
3110

February 2, 1970
Motor Vehicle Safety
the last quarter of 1969. These companies and Ford are undergoing pretty stringent lay-offs. As a matter of fact, I am told today that Chrysler of Windsor laid off 2,000 workers.
I should like to make one recommendation before this matter goes to the committee. It has to do with a private members' bill I have on the Order Paper. I think it is No. 96, but it might as well be 960 for all the chance it has of coming forward. I am particularly concerned with the safety features in our so-called muscle cars. A muscle car in the trade is rated as one with a standard domestic chassis and a sports-type body, with about 450 cubic inches of engine under the hood, or a 440 cube hemi. The companies have named these very excitingly; they have called them the Barracuda, the Sting-Ray, the Cobra-or you name it.


An hon. Member:: What about the Bearcat?


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: That was another generation. What I object to is that these are standard engineered vehicles equipped with tremendous power plants, with no regard for safety or for the ability of people who buy them to drive them. For example, take a Chevy Biscayne. The engineers tell us that they have 184.3 square inches of braking surface. The engineers have worked out that the braking power to ton ratio is 93.9.


An hon. Member:: Tell us about your own product.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: I will come to that in a moment. Compare this family sedan with a car having a 400 cubic-inch engine. You still have 184.3 square inches of braking surface. Compare that again to a VW 1500, a car that I would not even own; you could not expect me to drive it home. However, it has a braking power to tons ratio of 140, which is about 60 per cent greater than our domestic cars. Let us compare the 93.9 ratio of a Chev Biscayne to a Ford Fairlane, which has 116 and Maverick which has 104.
There is nothing which makes a young man's red corpuscles work better than a drive in a nice, finely-tuned sports car. I have respect for sports cars. I admire them, and I am in good company; the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) likes them too.


Mr. Howard (Skeena):: Have you other, similar interests?


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: The important point is that these cars being sold on the North

American continent are killers. They are standard automobiles souped-up with powerful motors. Is it not a great thing to see one with a set of shackles on the back which lengthen it, and a set of slicks which stick out at least three or four inches wider than the fender. The provinces of this country licence these vehicles, but if you go out on the highway with your truck, and you do not have fender-flaps on it, the OPP or the QPP will pull you over and give you a ticket.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Last year in Essex county one of these muscle cars was involved in an accident. It went out of control and, believe it or not, it went into the second storey of a house. You talk about flying low, Mr. Speaker; that sure was it. We had an inquest in Lamb ton count-ty when a young man departed this vale of tears. At the inquest it was disclosed that this guy had bought a compact car with a 400 cubic-inch engine in it. The judge, in handing down his decision, said it was obvious there was too much car for this man to control.
As you drive through our villages and towns, more particularly on quiet streets, have you ever seen so many black marks in your life? There are more black marks on some of those pavements than there are on the runways at Malton Airport which are used by jet airliners. On a Sunday in summertime, if you go out for a drive with your wife and you see a crowd, you know you are on a drag strip. Those drag strips should not be the public highways.
These cars I am describing, which are really good only for a drag strip, should not be licensed to travel the highways and byways of the country. Apart from reading today that automobile companies were laying off people, another item caught my eye. It reported that insurance in Canada on muscle cars is about 25 per cent higher than insurance for a standard car. But United States auto insurance firms are ahead of us in this matter; on October 8 last they announced a 50 per cent increase in coverage rates for 1970 super-powered cars. The installation of huge motors in cars, without related engineering covering brakes, suspension, etc., is something which should be watched closely. I believe a formula should be established giving a ratio of weight to horsepower and of weight to braking surface.
Before sitting down may I say there is one other area in which the standing committee
February 2, 1970

could do a wonderful job, a job that should have been done years ago. It should consider the standardization of traffic acts all across Canada so that one would know what the heck he was doing when he drove into another province. The committee should also make recommendations on standard road signs. In this regard international road signs would be best. For example, in Ottawa one can make a right turn on a red light. In other places that is not allowed, and if it happens a driver is in deep trouble. In the interests of automobile safety I would urge the committee to recommend standardization of traffic acts for the whole Dominion of Canada.


Mr. Randoph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the debate on this bill, and have read a number of the speeches made by hon. members. It is a measure that is of great interest not only to members of this House but to all the citizens of our nation who are well acquainted with motor vehicles and with the hazards associated with those vehicles. Most facets of safety have already been covered by hon. members and it is not my intention to go over all the points again. However, I feel I should briefly outline several points that in my opinion should be considered hand-inhand with the present regulations and with the provisions outlined in this measure.
I feel that in dealing with the problem of highway safety there must be full co-operation between the federal, provincial and municipal levels of government. Sound, sensible and enforcible safety measures must be enacted and enforced by every level of government. Only in this way can we cut down appreciably the tragic number of motor vehicle accidents which occur every year.
For year there has been need for a national automotive safety code. It is amazing that something more concrete was not done about it prior to 1970. Car safety has now become a No. 1 health problem in Canada. I believe it can be called a health problem. The large number of people who are killed and crippled on our highways makes it a national disgrace. Many accidents could have been avoided, and the intensity of injuries lessened, had a national automotive safety code been established years ago.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
As we look back on our laws and regulations it is an amazing and remarkable fact that our government protects our food, pro-21611-581
Motor Vehicle Safety
tects our water to a degree, especially drinking water, protects other aspects of health; we have building codes to make sure that our housing is up to standard, we have standards for electrical wiring, and a large number of other protective measures are taken to look after our citizens; but for years we have neglected one of the greatest causes of death and injury to Canadians, that is, the modern automobile. I believe that is why the bill before us has given rise to so much interest among hon. members and, I am quite sure, among the general public. Improvements in this field are being made and a measure of government action, both federal and provincial, is being taken. However, we have still a long way to go to cover all the points which we should be covering.
There are two or three aspects of traffic safety which I should like to cover very briefly and point out that in my opinion they must go hand in hand with the various codes which we are trying to establish in this piece of legislation. The three aspects of traffic safety which complement legislation of this type deal first with the drivers of automobiles, second with highway design, and third with the safety features of vehicles which automobile manufacturing firms and governments have neglected for generations.
In so far as training of drivers is concerned, I am not putting all the blame on the deferral government because much of the responsibility is provincial. It is the provinces which have the licensing of automobiles under their jurisdiction. We have driver training programs in schools in various provinces of this nation. In my opinion the training of drivers should be undertaken by schools all across Canada. I have heard people say that this type of training does not necessarily result in a decrease of traffic accidents. This is just not so. Training of drivers must complement legislation of the type we have before us. This is why I urge full co-operation among federal, provincial and municipal governments to ensure that this type of training is made available to the young people of this nation who are the future drivers of vehicles and who, according to statistics, are involved in the greatest number of accidents.
I urge that the federal government approach the provincial governments which have not proceeded with this program. I urge hon. members to help ensure that this type of driver training is undertaken by schools all across Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific, so that when our young people get behind

February 2, 1970
Motor Vehicle Safety
the wheel ol a car they know what hazards and dangers they are likely to face on the highway.
Another action1 which should be taken by the government and which should complement this legislation is research. I am referring now to research in highway design. I think that too much is left to chance at present. I realize that every highway department has a group of very competent engineers who work on highway design; but as we get more powerful vehicles and as the average speed of our cars gradually increases, there is more need than ever for the federal and provincial governments to enter into research of highway design in co-operation with each other. I believe that if this were done, a great number of accidents which presently take place would be eliminated. I suggest that this is a field into which the federal government should enter, and it should support, at least financially, research programs which are desperately needed.
The third point which I wish to make has already been covered by speakers on all sides of the House. It concerns vehicle safety. Other speakers have said, and I say it again, that we are very fond of putting flashy chrome on our cars. The manufacturers of automobiles know that automobile owners everywhere in the world are real suckers for something that looks flashy. They have neglected-there is absolutely no doubt about it, so I will not go into all the details again-many safety features which should be incorporated into motor vehicles before they are allowed on the highways of this nation.
I will give the House one example-the height and quality of bumpers. On many of our vehicles bumpers are placed at different heights. The statistics which are available to individuals who wish to obtain them indicate that a number of injuries and deaths could have been avoided if the height of bumpers had been standardized. Also, the quality of bumpers should be improved because most bumpers would be dented if they hit a package of popcorn.
This is an area in which we need a safety council and a government which will check on the facts and then insist firmly that this type of safety feature be incorporated into vehicles. We can still get good design in a car and a vehicle that will operate efficiently, without losing any of its effectiveness, with many more safety features incorporated into it than we have today.

There is one more aspect of vehicle safety which I will mention very briefly. I refer to testing. I believe that motor vehicles should have compulsory testing in Canada. After you have had a motor vehicle for a period of time, you should be forced to have it tested at a proper testing station by competent mechanics. There are motor vehicles being driven around Ottawa and, in fact, in every city in Canada that have no right to be on the highways of this nation. What are we doing about it? The neglect is nationwide for the simple reason that compulsory testing has not been introduced in every province. One or two of the provinces may have this requirement.
I know that two or three years ago we had some interesting information from the city of Vancouver which had introduced compulsory testing of motor vehicles. The number of accidents caused by faulty mechanism was very low compared with the number of accidents in the provinces in which there was not compulsory testing.
I am convinced that the older a vehicle gets, the more chance there is of the vehicle breaking down. That is why we need this type of testing. We are not trying to put the driver of an automobile in a strait jacket by saying that he must do this, that or the other thing; but a driver who is on a public highway should realize that it is his duty, not only to protect himself but to protect other drivers on that highway.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
An individual can have an up-to-date automobile in top-notch shape, and yet can have his family wiped out because the vehicle belonging to another driver had not been properly checked for defects. I have no hesitation in urging most strongly that the testing of motor vehicles should be part and parcel of the safety code from one end of Canada to the other.
A previous speaker mentioned the standardization of signs. I should like to say a few words on this subject. Thank goodness it is coming, because signs should be standardized. When I cross the bridge into Quebec, or go to any other province, I should know that I will be driving on highways in exactly the same situation as I would in my native province of British Columbia. This is just common sense, Mr. Speaker. Signs should be standardized throughout the North American continent.
February 2, 1970

I realize that some of these points have been made before, but I felt I should comment on them and stress what I feel is also needed to make some of the safety codes work. As legislators we must do our best to obtain the type of safety measures which will protect the ever-increasing travelling public in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson). The House will realize that if the minister speaks at this time he will close the debate.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to take a great deal of the time of the House to recap the debate. I simply want to say thank you very much to those hon. members who have supported the principle of the bill as I anticipated they would. There has been, I think, that degree of unanimity which I forecast when introducing the measure a few days ago.
It seems to me the most logical course to take is to give this bill the thoroughgoing questioning in committee that has been predicted in various parts of the House. At that time it will be possible for me and officials of my department to provide hon. members with the explanations that many have been seeking. Let me hasten to add that if it appears, as a result of committee discussion, that there are ways in which this legislation can be improved, I will be more than pleased to consider such revisions.
There are only three or four general comments I should like to make in winding up this debate. It will become evident in committee that the effectiveness of this measure will to large degree depend upon the kind of cooperation we can achieve with the provinces. For this reason I have worked with the appropriate ministers in the provinces from the outset to ensure that companion legislation is introduced at the provincial level so we will have a measure that will go beyond the competence of the federal government in defining what is a safe car, or a reasonably safe car at the time it leaves the factory.
Once it gets into the provinces, replacement parts, new tires and various things of this kind, and the matter of testing, are within provincial jurisdiction. I believe we have established the most effective level of cooperation and an awareness on the part of both levels of government of the need for co-operation. 1 am sure this will produce the desired result.
Motor Vehicle Safety
From the beginning I have been concerned with what might be described as off-highway vehicles, namely, snowmobiles, and have wondered how we might come up with an effective nationwide set of standards. Under his legislation I am satisfied that we have the competence to introduce safety standards so far as the new vehicle is concerned. We have had discussions with the provinces to see if we cannot arrive at some sort of standards on licensing, because in some instances snowmobiles are permitted to cross highways and in other instances they are not licensed at all. In other cases they are licensed to travel on the shoulder of the highway. While agreeing completely with hon. members who feel there is a need for regulation in this field, I believe we have to get the various jurisdictions to agree on a set of standards and then introduce as many of them as possible into the new vehicle.
I was most impressed with the comments of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) who talked about the need for some kind of homing device and coupled this with reference to the need for a similar mechanism on aircraft. Even knowing your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to drift too far from the subject, but I still do not understand why this is not part of the mechanism of aircraft. I have received submissions from various aviation clubs and the like, and I find myself in complete agreement with the hon. member that this device seems thoroughly logical in terms of aircraft. I have asked if there is good reason why we should not have it, otherwise it would be my intention to bring in this type of legislation.
As far as surface vehicles are concerned, we may have to make some distinctions because there is a difference between a vehicle being used for pleasure in the immediate vicinity of the home and one being employed for commercial or transportation purposes in the north. I undertake to see whether there is any kind of homing device that might be used in this way. There is no doubt that search and rescue is a costly business as far as governments are concerned, but it is tragic that sometimes lives are lost when people are only a few miles from the rescue party because there is no means of locating them.
There were many other interesting and constructive comments during the debate. The only point that I felt was not emphasized as much as I would have expected was my reference to the role of research into causes of accidents. As we have said repeatedly, and

February 2, 1970
Motor Vehicle Safety
members opposite also commented on it, you can build the safest automobile in the world, but if it hits a child, the child is probably maimed or killed. No matter how safe the automobile is, if it topples over an embankment and rolls 50, 60 or 100 feet, the risk is very great. Apart from making the car as safe as possible, we must try to find the scientific reason for so many accidents happening. Ruling out the impaired driver, there is still a surprisingly large volume of accidents caused by apparently normal people not driving at excessive rates of speed. But there seems to be very little interest in research into this area.
A related question is highway design and its affect on accidents. I believe the research and development section of the Department of Transport can be of considerable help to the provinces in trying to determine, not merely standards of size but to see if we cannot recommend standards on a nationwide basis to reduce many of the problems and make the roads safer.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I believe this bill will help us considerably, but I would ask that members not lay too much emphasis on the 29 standards. They happen to be the ones in existence at the present time, but if anyone comes up with other improvements we will be more than glad to introduce them once they have been tested. I suggest this is only a small part of the problem. If we are to attack the problem as effectively as I believe we can, we must consider the driver, the causes of accidents and also the "ways" system-if we can use that expression-that is, the highway itself.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
In any event, I still consider this an historic piece of legislation. I believe if we bring it before the committee shortly we can provide the kinds of answers for which hon. members are looking. I for one look forward to bringing the bill back to the House and completing a progressive move forward for the people of Canada. I thank all hon. members for their help.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.

Donald Stovel Macdonald: (Mr. Jamieson.]
That the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, in consultation with Mr. Speaker, be directed to study the question of radio and television broadcasting of the proceedings of the House and its committees, including the legal, procedural, and technical aspects thereof, and the question of arrangements made for reporters for the electronic media in the Parliament Buildings.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I will not take much of the time of the House in speaking on this matter. May I indicate that in the English version of the motion there is typographical error. The printed words on the second line reading, "ratio and television broadcasting", should read "radio and television broadcasting." I think a comparison with the French language version will confirm that this is so.
Perhaps I ought to refer the House, as the most effective way of dealing with this matter, to the debate which took place some ten months ago on March 26, 1969, when the question of having a committee to study the broadcasting of the proceedings of the House was being considered. At that time I said, as reported at page 7164 of Hansard:
Thereafter, I expect that the house will want to ask the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization to make a preliminary study of the question of working out appropriate procedures for broadcasting in the House. I repeat, however, that I believe we should let the committee complete the work we have given it.
At that time I suggested it would be desirable to let the committee consider procedures of the House as they related to radio broadcasting and television, after the discussion of the general procedures of the House then underway was concluded. The committee had an opportunity of discussing in a general way last spring the question of broadcasting of House procedures by electronic media and, as a result of these discussions, I understand that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has prepared certain information which will be of assistance to the committee this year, assuming that this motion passes.
May I make some brief references to the actual terms of the motion. It says, among other things, that the standing committee be directed to study the question of radio and television broadcasting in the House, including the legal, procedural and technical aspects thereof. It is obvious that there will be technical problems from the point of view of broadcasting from the chamber itself. This is patently not a forum which lends itself readily to the broadcasting medium, and this motion will give an opportunity for the com-
February 2, 1970
COMMONS DEBATES	3115
mittee to try and solve some of the technical problems.
In addition, the committee must refer to the practice that has grown up in the House of providing facilities for those who report to the radio and television media and interview members outside the Chamber itself. The committee is therefore being asked to examine the arrangements which might be made for the media so that from a technical standpoint radio will be able to obtain a good signal and television a good picture for the purposes of public broadcasting.
A reference is made to the legal considerations involved. I made a number of references to these considerations in the debate last year. Hitherto, the laws of libel and slander have not applied to proceedings inside the House. The proceedings, in such circumstances, have been guided by the principle of parliamentary privilege and, perhaps more important, by the general traditions of the House and have tended to guard against remarks which might be in the nature of slander. Some changes may have to be introduced in this area so that the reputation of no person may be damaged as a result of remarks inside the House or its Committees, that is, so that as a result of anything said by an hon. member inside, no one may be attacked with impunity before the public media and the country. Therefore, the committee will have to look into the legal aspect and the effect on the country's laws of providing for the proceedings of the House and its committees to be broadcast.
Finally, from the procedural standpoint the committee will have to determine what changes in the procedure of the House will be desirable so that the House may have its proceedings broadcast most effectively and so that hon. members, whether in the front benches or the back benches, will have almost equal opportunities to appear. There is an inevitable bias in our system in favour of those sitting in the front benches on either side of the House. The committee will therefore have to consider how to give hon. members on either side comparable opportunities to be heard on a public broadcast.
As I say, the committee will have to consider the proceedings of the House as they now exist in order to see what changes may have to be instituted if we are to adapt to the new medium, just as I assume the proceedings at Westminster had to be adapted some two centuries ago when Mr. Hansard was first
Broadcasting of House of Commons Debates permitted to go into the Commons gallery and take a note of the parliamentary proceedings.
I will delay the House no more, Mr. Speaker. This will be an important step in the history of the Canadian Parlliament. Other parliaments such as that in Westminster have studied this difficult question and pronounced negatively against televising the proceedings of the House. We, in our turn, will have to reach our own decision. I am sure that the committee will bear in mind the observations of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) when he remarked in the debate last March that in this area there is a substantial difference of opinion not so much among parties but among members within parties. On this question I am sure that all hon. members, whether they are members of the committee or not, will have the opportunity to contribute to and involve themselves in the proceedings so that the committee might have the opportunity of hearing their views and arriving at a consensus as to the best method of dealing with this question.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, in responding to this motion moved by the minister I think I can say that I was the one who moved the resolution some ten months ago which was referred to by the minister and which formed the basis of a very useful discussion and debate at that time. In concluding his remarks the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) referred to the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), who said that not only are there differences among parties but within parties as well. I think this is parallel to the situation that existed in the United Kingdom, where the cleavage was horizontal and ran across party lines. We in this party have a variety of opinions. I think it is proper that this is so. I think it would be very difficult to be otherwise on an issue of this kind, which belongs to the members of the House of Commons. It does not belong to the government. It does not belong to political parties. It is an issue on which for members should be guided by their own conscience, point of view and responsibility and come to a decision. What I have to say will represent my point of view. Other members of my party will have views to offer either in this House or before the committee. I have no doubt that they will vary from the point of view I expressed in the debate ten months ago and which I will again express tonight.
February 2, 1970
3116	COMMONS
Broadcasting of House of Commons Debates
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
It is my hope that when the committee is convened and organized it will, for the purpose of this issue, hold public hearings. During the course of the proceedings when we were considering the proposed rules to be brought before the House, the meetings were held in camera. Whether this was wise or not is beside the point; it is now water under the bridge. I strongly recommend that when the committee is convened and organized its meetings be held in public.
I do not envisage any great rush on the part of the public to attend the meetings, but members of the media who are involved, and interested members of this House, may wish to attend. By that time members of the other place may have completed their own close and interesting examination of the media and may wish to attend the meetings to hear what the House of Commons has to say on the question. I hope this will be the case.
I hope after reasonable consideration, when the committee presents its representations to the House the Whips will not be called upon and individual members will be permitted to vote according to their own point of view. I want to make that quite plain. I know there will be problems. There will be a lot of pain and sutfering attached to either a permanent or experimental introduction of radio and television into this House and its committees. However, I think the benefits will outweight any drawbacks. Nothing is born without pain and suffering. It may well be that members of this House will have to undergo a certain amount of pain and suffering in this regard.
I feel there are two points which must be considered on this issue. What is paramount is the right of the public of Canada who have elected us and in respect of whom we are trustees. The people of Canada have a right to the fullest, most complete and best information which can be obtained from the proceedings of the Parliament of Canada. Many arguments will be made. Some will be very persuasive and some will be convincing as to why it is not a good thing. I will listen with care to those arguments because I am open to persuasion. I think some of the arguments will be the same as those made the time Hansard was introduced into this House several years ago. I think that 20 years after we attempt this timid experiment people will wonder why there was ever any objection to it.
We are not without precedents to observe. Before going on to that however, may I point


out some of the problems which will arise. There is, of course, the problem in his House of the two official languages. This will certainly form a technical problem of considerable size. There is the question of cost. We do not know what that will be. We have some idea of the cost of the experiment which took place in the United Kingdom with relation to the House of Lords. There is the question of the relationship between this House and its committees.
If there is to be an experiment and later a permanent proposal to televise the House and committees, obviously there will have to be some rationalization of the proceedings of both the House and its committees. There is, of course, the very difficult legal problem to which the minister referred which in my opinion will involve remedial changes in the statute. Perhaps I may deal with that question for a moment or two.
I have read the report of the Clerk of the House of the United Kingdom. I have also read the statements and some of the documents in connection with the experiment in Australia with relation to radio, and those in connection with New Zealand. In examining the Senate and House of Commons Act in Canada, sections 4 and 7 explain the privileges and immunities of the members to the actual use by the written media of extracts from official documents of the House. The privileges are extended to cover those, but it is a specific restriction to the written extracts. I think we will probably have to follow the same practice with regard to privilege as exists in the United Kingdom.
I will give an example. Perhaps even on an experimental basis the proceedings of this House or its committees may be televised or broadcast by radio. A statement made in this House is of course protected by the traditional rights and privileges of members of the House. If the proceedings are being broadcast live, and a statement is made which could well have a slanderous effect, although it is protected in this House, what would be the position of the member or the network which broadcast the slanderous statement which was received outside the House?
In spite of what was said in New Zealand, this seems to be a legal proposition. It might well be that we will have some trouble. Apart from the question of fair comment, there is some likelihood of being sued for slander. If we are going to do this, I hope the committee
February 2, 1970	COMMONS
will receive adequate legal advice and will review the proposals made in Australia and the United Kingdom. I hope the committee will consider the excellent and learned article by the Clerk of the United Kingdom House. I hope it will take a hard look at the necessity of amending the Senate and House of Commons Act.
I will now deal with the question of merits.
I know the problems, technical and otherwise, which will result. I know it will probably be a long, hard, arduous and difficult process to evolve a system which will be acceptable to all members. I think it would be best if the committee recommended a trial period of radio broadcasting. Australia has almost 25 years' experience in radio broadcasting, and some limited experience in televising. Despite the fact that the arguments advanced in Australia in 1945 and 1946 paralleled the arguments advanced by people in the United Kingdom at the time of the proposal to inaugurate a written record of the proceedings of the House, the Australian people have now come to accept this system-radio broadcasting in particular.
I am not suggesting there is any great national outcry that proceedings of this House of Commons, the other place or the committees of either are essential for entertainment, amusement and the advancement of the knowledge of the people of Canada. What has been happening in the past is that by a gradual process which at times we were not able to perceive, the emphasis on Parliament has been slowly moving out of this chamber and into other places. I am not about to rehash the problems that Your Honour and others have had in connection with the difficulties of the electronic media. Radio and television reporters have attempted to obtain clarification and expansion from members of this House of statements made here and repeated outside.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
The trouble is that this practice developed in the course of a year or so to a point at which in the minds of a great many Canadians there was some doubt whether what took place in this chamber, or immediately afterwards outside it, constituted in fact the proceedings of the House of Commons. It is probable that no one was at fault. The practice just grew; it just came about. The Chair finally came to a wise decision. All the decisions which the Chair makes are wise, of course, particularly since there is now no
DEBATES	3117
Broadcasting of House of Commons Debates right of appeal against Your Honour's rulings..
I did not mean that to be a backhanded compliment. The fact is we were in grave danger of losing the usefulness and advantages of this democratic institution of the House of: Commons.
There will still, of course, have to be means by which members of this House can be requested, under suitable arrangements satisfactory to all concerned, to explain and amplify statements made here. I hope we will not then be met with the situation which arose when we attempted to raise in this House questions of privilege, or challenge statements made outside. When we tried to do this we were advised, and quite properly according to the precedents, that we were not able to proceed along those lines. I should like to think that having examined some of the statements made in the House and some of the statements of clarification made outside, the committee would find itself able to examine this question of privilege in relation to the connection between the two.
The other point I should like to make is this. Because of the diversity and size of our country we do not possess what is known as a national press. It is no one's fault. There is, of course, the Canadian Press, and there are a number of writers and commentators covering events on a national basis. But we tend to take a regional approach to events. Much of the press gives greatest prominence to matter which are of the greatest interest to particular cities or regions. This is natural, and it is obviously the case. I suggest this is why an increasing interest has developed in national television and radio coverage; it is because these media have instant access to a national audience, and because what was said or televised outside this chamber had more national significance than the articles which appeared in the press.
This is another reason for considering the advantages of continuing the practice in some form, since they may well outweigh the disadvantages. Indeed, in my view the advantages of tackling this problem along experimental lines do, indeed, outweigh the disadvantages. I hope sufficient hon. members will agree wlith me in this regard.
I said earlier that I would mention the situation in Australia and in New Zealand. I was particularly interested in a statement by the late Sir Gilbert Campion, the well-known.

February 2, 1970
Business of the House
Clerk of the United Kingdom House, who had this to say on a visit to New Zealand in 1949: If one considers only the popular reaction, the experiment of broadcasting debates would seem to have justified itself. People have learned much more about the purposes and proceedings of Parliament. Some are shocked to find that the tone of a democratic assembly is not that of an areopagus or a Roman senate. Many have developed a live interest in the debates and both parties agree that discontinuance is unthinkable.
Another interesting comment was made by an Australian visiting New Zealand who happened to turn the radio onto the wavelength which covered the proceedings broadcast from the New Zealand legislature. His comment was the kind one would expect to hear. He said that the speeches might not have been of the highest quality, and there were probably mistakes in the syntax and in the English, but they had an agreeable element of spontaneity. The interruptions, the arguments and the questions were a spontaneous reflection of the people in the chamber who, in their turn, represented the people of the country as this man summed it up, "This house is the people of New Zealand with all their virtues, all their defects, all their warts."
I realize there will be a long and arduous period of experimentation before us, but in my view we cannot struggle against the fact that this is a medium which no one can escape, and one which offers advantages. Nevertheless, I think we should be most careful that whatever results will have its origin in a logical basis acceptable for a trial period to all of us. I hope the committee will undertake its task with this thought in mind and make its report in an objective wtay to face a good, freewheeling debate with, hopefully, a free vote at its conclusion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have on occasion demonstrated an ability to compress a speech into a very few minutes, but I can hardly limit my remarks to 30 seconds. I should like to speak in support of this motion but there are a few comments I wish to make, so I propose that we call it ten o'clock.
Sone hon. Members: Ten o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, before the proceedings on the adjournment motion begin, may I confirm that on Wednesday we shall call as the first item of business the bill to amend the Yukon Placer Mining

Act, followed by second reading of the National Parks bill, after which we would return to the measure we have just been debating.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, right after the Christmas recess I reminded the minister in charge of housing that last year the federal government gave direct assistance under the National Housing Act to the building of some 20,000 dwellings for elderly and low-income people with families. I asked him what the target was for 1970. We were glad to have the suspense ended this afternoon when he answered that funds would be available to construct
35,000	housing units specifically for low-income families. Although this total is greater than last year's, it still falls far short of the need. In Toronto alone I am told there is a waiting list of 15,000 applicants, enough to take up almost half the number of units to be provided for all Canada.
Since the minister answered my question this afternoon, I want to do something rather unusual and ask him further questions so as to get a march on his next statement in the House. The hon. gentleman's statement raised fully as many questions as it answered. I am glad he promised to make a detailed statement soon, and I should like to draw his attention to some of the questions which people are still waiting to hear answered.
[DOT] (10.00 p.m.)
The first relates to my question this afternoon. Can the minister assure us that all these 35,000 new, low-income dwellings will have modern facilities for the recreational needs of the tenants of all ages, both inside and outside the housing units? If people with good incomes need space for play and other leisure activities, people with low incomes need this a great deal more. People with good incomes can get away and find the recreation, the space and places for other activities they require. People with low incomes are forced
February 2, 1970	COMMONS
to stay, and consequently their needs are very much greater. They have fewer advantages and their needs and the needs of the whole community by extension are greater.
My second question: When does the minister propose to announce the new rental scale for public housing which has been hanging fire for so long? To be an improvement over the existing one it needs to be based on net income, not gross income as at present. A single-parent mother, to mention only one type, needs to be able to deduct the cost of child care before the rent is calculated, and to be able to deduct other legitimate expenses. Otherwise there is no use whatsoever in expecting that such families can get off welfare and back into the living and working stream of the community.
A Canadian Welfare Council survey last year found that mothers on welfare across Canada, single-parent mothers with four children, to give one example, spent half their income on rent. That is out of all reason. A rent of that dimension leaves too little for the other needs of the family.
My third question: Is the minister giving consideration to a program of outright grants to enable low income homeowners to improve their older homes? These people simply cannot repay loans and the interest on them. There is no use in the minister saying we already have legislation to cover these people. The grants could be made returnable on the death of the owner and/or the sale of the house, but they must be grants and not loans.
My fourth question:	The minister
announced that the allocation for student housing is to be $45 million this year compared with $55 million last year. Does he really consider this 20 per cent drop a "modest decline" as he says? Faced with the need to repay student loans, and with the bleak prospect for summer jobs ahead, a good many students will be hard put to it to get the education they need and which Canada needs them to have.
All these people on low income, and many other types, need proper housing now. They need it so that they can support their families in modern homes with the attractions that keep families together. They need it so they can afford to go out and get the training and the jobs that will make them part of the community and will give them self-respect and the right to carry their share of the load. They need it to keep their homes in repair in order to live out their lives in comfort.
DEBATES	3119
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
I trust that when the minister makes his promised further statement it will be such as to give these people hope based not on promises or on next year but on further proposals for this year such as I have suggested. It is all very well to talk about the war on inflation, but a war on inflation ought not to be carried to such lengths as to become a war on the poor by refusing to extend housing to the required amount. This is carrying the war to the most vulnerable part of the civilian population, those people on low incomes. That is not the place to wage a war on inflation. Let us wage it in those areas where the people can stand it and not in those areas where the people, unless we give them help will become greater burdens on the community. This will only add to our burdens instead of allowing them to carry their own share proudly and effectively.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take issue with the last remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis). I think the statement which my colleague the minister in charge of housing made in the House this afternoon is a clear refutation of her charge that we are carrying on a war against inflation with the low-income or poverty groups.
As my colleague indicated, a total of $570 million out of CMHC's capital budget of $854 million has been reserved for the purpose of providing housing for low-income families and elderly persons. These funds will permit the corporation to arrange in 1970 for the construction of 35,000 housing units specifically for low-income families.
As hon. members know, during the 20 years prior to 1969, 82,000 homes for low income families were built in Canada. In 1969, in line with government policy, provision was made for 27,000 units of low-income housing in that year, a number that will be increased to not less than 35,000 units in 1970. The total allocation of capital funds for low-income housing in 1969 and 1970 at 62,000 units therefore represents 75 per cent of the previous 20 years' production, which is a clear indication that this government and the minister have very much in mind the needs of the low-income group. In addition, my colleague also mentioned that the direct lending activities of CMHC under section 40 will be devoted to the needs of families in the lower income bracket.
3120	COMMONS DEBATES	February 2. 1970
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Referring to the later points raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, I may say that my colleague is very much aware of the need for providing recreational facilities in these low income housing areas. He has asked his colleagues for much greater flexibility in managing the budget and his responsibilities during the coming years. I think he will be making statements both on the subject of grants and rentals in weeks to come.
With respect to student housing, a matter raised by the hon. member, I would simply say that if one takes in broad context over recent years the amount of funds devoted to student housing, and relates that to what has been spent in the low-income area, one will find that on balance we are attempting to do now-in the area of low-income housing- that which we have done, not entirely but at least have attempted to do in the area of student housing.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Champlain.
I am sorry I did not recognize him sooner, but he was not in his seat.



POST OFFICE-FINANCIAL POSITION FOLLOWING INCREASED RATES

René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but I thought three questions would be discussed this evening.
Here is the question I put to the Postmaster General: Have his decisions with regard to new postal rates and new working conditions for postal employees finally put the Canadian postal service on a profit-earning basis?
It will be recalled how protests greeted the increase from 5 to 6 cents in the postal rate for first class mail. It will also be recalled how all newspapers and magazines, especially weeklies and monthly publications, protested vehemently for being thus threatened with bankruptcy.
In fact, protests are still being raised. A number of magazines and weeklies which were already in a difficult position though acknowledgely excellent have disappeared or are bound to do so very soon.

Several trades and industries rely, for their publicity, on the efficiency of the postal service. What has happened since the day these decisions were made?
People are complaining. The delivery of second and third class mail is slow. In the urban districts, the fact that services are discontinued from Friday night on is bringing a lot of other services to a standstill.
Last year, I sent to my electors in La Tuque a notice calling them to a meeting. Imagine my surprise on discovering that I had arrived in La Tuque before my notice!
Where are all these changes leading to. Mr. Speaker? Has the volume of mail increased? And the number of money orders, of registered letters and other postal matter?
[DOT] (10.10 p.m.)
Should good service everywhere not be the foremost objective? Should some areas be deprived of postal service for a matter of earnings?
I am under the impression that the minister went the wrong way about it, but stubborn as any good Irishman, he may not be willing to admit it.
The minister should inform the House as soon as possible whether his department is moving ahead or losing ground. I know one can always juggle with figures. I do not want to be given just any figures. I wish to be provided with statistics I can compare with those of the 1967-68 financial year.
I am convinced that the Canadian postal service is losing a lot of money and I should like the minister to contradict me. I would be happy if he could.
All newspapers and magazines, all businesses and industries are striving hard to discover new means of distribution other than those of the post office.
I think that the postal service will become less and less economical, and, once more, further rate increases will be suggested.
Therefore, I ask the minister to tell us whether the decisions taken last year have been effective.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speak-
February 2, 1970	COMMONS
er, postal rates and increases in effect since 1968 were not intended to make ends meet in the Post Office Department nor to provide a surplus.
For the fiscal year 1969-70, the Post Office Department anticipates a deficit of about $75
DEBATES	3121
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion million. It is obvious that such a deficit would have been a lot higher had the House not passed the postal rate increases suggested by the department.

Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.15 p.m.

Tuesday, February 3, 1970