1970-10-07

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Speaker:: On Monday, October 5, the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) raised a question of privilege in which he suggested there could be a conflict of interest in the conduct of the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Morison) in his capacity as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Regional Development.
The hon. member for South Western Nova stated that the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth, while Chairman of the Standing Committee on Regional Development, was employed by the Department of Community and Social Development of the province of Newfoundland. The hon. member for South Western Nova went on to point out that that province signed an agreement with Ottawa and is on the verge of signing a new agreement affecting a greater part of the province; consequently he felt that the Newfoundland plan was much more liable to receive attention than others and, to use the hon. member's words, he sensed a direct conflict of interest.
I think that the hon. member for South Western Nova will agree that his proposed question of privilege may have been raised prematurely in that the Standing Committee on Regional Development has not met for several months and will not meet again in this session. The question of electing a chairman in the coming session is a matter of future determination.
At the same time, I should remind hon. members that it has been a long and well established practice that this House should not undertake any inquiry as to the conduct of any member except when charged with a specific offence. In that regard I would draw to the attention of the House a statement made by Mr. Speaker Michener which is 22478-70
recorded at page 584 of the Journals for June 19, 1959, as follows:
In my view, simple justice requires that no member should have to submit to investigation of his conduct by the House or a committee until he has been charged with an offence.
As matters now stand, I suggest that the question has been stated by the hon. member in general terms relating more to propriety than to misconduct. In the circumstances, the Chair must rule that there is no prima facie case of breach of privilege.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Third report of Special Joint Committee on the Constitution of Canada-Mr. Gibson.

[Stage Direction]
Sixth report of Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections-Mr. Laflamme.

[Stage Direction]
Ninth report of Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development- Mr. Watson.

[Stage Direction]
First report of Special Committee on Election Expenses-Mr. Jerome.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. Charles Turner (London East) moved: that the fourteenth report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, presented to the House on Monday, October 5, 1970, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
October 7, 1970
Questions

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

['How many consultants have been engaged by the Department of National Health and Welfare during each year 1950 to 1970 inclusive (a) what was the cost of the consultants (b) how were the consultants utilized (c) for what reasons were the consultants necessary?\nReturn tabled.']
Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: 1. No.
2.	2,723.
3.	4 and 5. Because personnel from many different departments are involved in the preparation of answers, it is impossible to prepare the kind of man-hours or cost evaluation requested in questions 3, 4 and 5. See Hansard dated March 1, 1967, page 13,613.



Mr. Comeau: 1.	In 1968-69 and 1969-70, what were the estimated sums spent on research in the Department of the Secretary of State and what was the purpose of each research project?
2.	How much money was actually expended according to Dominion Bureau of Statistics figures?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Department of the Secretary Of State and the Dominion Bureau of Statistics as follows: 1. Sums spent on research: 1968-69, $43,211; 1969-70, $301,891.
Purpose of research projects: Study of film industry; Study of archeology in Canada; Task force on educational broadcasting; Study of heraldry in Canada; Study of media and political process, Study of Francophone youth; Study of immigrants and official languages; Committee on youth; Study of Canadian Indian youth workshop; Action research on youth programs; Research on Indian participation; Study on Winnipeg ethnic groups; Study on research material pertinent to Indian and Eskimo participation; Study for publica-
IMr. Turner (London East).]
tion on Indians; Study in migration of native people; Study of commissions of enquiry and investigations relating to land claims of people of native ancestory in Canada; A bibliography and critical analysis of existing literature of Malecite language; Study of methodology in a community analysis inventory; A study of the human effects of some economic development decisions; A study of social learning in a cross-socioeconomic setting; Study of research projects and government documents for termatrex system; Review of selected research on migrants in Canada; Study of cultural differences of ethnic groups in Calgary; Study of cultural processes in the Chinese community of Vancouver; Study of research relevant to concepts of social distance, culture shock, cultural perception and cultural differences; Study of travel and exchange opportunities at community colleges; Study of Children's International Villages; Methods and recommendations for establishing an international travel and exchange project for the physically handicapped; Study in model procedure and conduct in press analysis; Collect data on emerging black groups in Canada and offer recommendations; Collect and analyze data on neighbourhood action projects and offer recommendations; Study on citizenship; Survey of federal government youth programs; Analysis of community selfanalysis project at Algonquin College.
2.	The Dominion Bureau of Statistics does not have actual expenditures on research for 1968-69 and 1969-70. A survey requesting information on actual expenditures for 196869 and estimates for 1969-70 on research in the natural and engineering sciences is in process.


MILITARY ITEMS OR EQUIPMENT SOLD TO PORTUGUESE COLONIES
Mr. MacDonald (Egmonl): 1.	Since 1960 what military items or equipment has Canada sold to Portugal and by type, at what cost?
2.	Since 1960, what military arms or equipment has Canada sold to Angola, Mozambique or Portuguese Guinea?
3.	Since 1960, has Canada sold any commodity that could be considered of a military nature, to Angola, Mozambique, Portuguese Guinea or Portugal?
4.	To the knowledge of the government are any Canadian arms or military equipment being used in the persecution of domestic conflicts in Angola, Mozambique or Portuguese Guinea?
October 7, 1970

5.	In particular, are Canadian Sabre Jets being employed in any of these conflicts and, if so, when were these arms or equipment made available to these Portuguese colonies and from what country were they purchased?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Departments of Industry, Trade and Commerce and External Affairs as follows: 1. Canada sold military items of the following description to Portugal during the period 1960-69 inclusive; automotive parts $86,360, radar $28,261, and miscellaneous $51,242. Aircraft piston engine parts in the amount of $3,102,017 have been sold to Portugal. The latter equipment is for use with propeller driven general utility transport aircraft designed for commercial use; any potential military use would be limited by the performance characteristics of this older type aircraft.
2.	During the period 1960-69 inclusive, Canada sold to Mozambique $169 worth of electron tubes classed as military items and no military arms or equipment to Angola and Portuguese Guinea.
3.	None.
4.	Not to the knowledge of the Canadian Government.
5.	To the Department of External Affairs' knowledge, no Canadian Sabre jets are being employed in Portuguese Africa.


INCENTIVE GRANTS
Mr. Broadbenl: 1.	For the fiscal year 1969-70 (a) which and how many non-resident owned or controlled firms have been awarded financial grants or incentives under the Industrial Research and Development Assistance Program, administered by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce (b) in each case, what was the total financial grant or incentive allotted?
2.	For the same year (a) which and how many Canadian owned or controlled firms have been awarded financial grants under the IRDA program (b) in each case, what was the total financial grant or incentive allotted?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: The Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act received royal assent March 10, 1967. Regulations were passed May 25, 1967 and initial payments made under the Act occurred in government fiscal year ending March 31, 1968. To qualify for a grant an organization is required to be a Canadian corporation. No 22478-705
Questions
restrictions with regard to ownership exist, however, each applicant receiving a grant must pass the Benefit to Canada requirements of the Act.
Individual grants under the Act are made on a confidential basis and details of such grants are not made available.
The following provides the extent of the information that can be given in response to the above question:
1.	Financial Incentives to Non-resident owned or controlled firms
(a)	Number of firms	177(b)	Amount ($000's)	9,690.4;2.	Financial Incentives to Canadian-owned or controlled firms(a)	Number of firms	248(b)	Amount ($000's)	12,400.13.	In addition, financial incentives were given to the following firms for which there is no conclusive evidence as to the residence of the principal owner-(a)	Number of firms	87(b)	Amount ($000's)	909.5
Note: (1) Corporations have been classified as non-resident owned or controlled where official information filed with the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act Administration indicates that more than 50 percent of the voting stock is directly or indirectly owned by non-resident shareholders and there is a concentration of such ownership. Corporations not reporting under the Act have been classi-field as non-resident owned or controlled if available public information indicates that more than 50 percent of the voting stock is owned by non-residents and there is a concentration of such ownership.
Note: (2) Corporations have been classified as Canadian-owned or controlled where official information filed with the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act Administration indicates that 50 percent or more of the voting stock is directly or indirectly owned by Canadian residents or where although more than 50 percent of the voting stock is held by non-residents there is no foreign parent or concentration of foreign control and the effective control rests with the management and directors of the Canadian company. Companies not reporting under the Act have

October 7, 1970
Questions
been classified as Canadian-owned or controlled if available public information indicates that 50 percent or more of the voting stock is owned by Canadian residents. Certain of the companies are exempt from reporting under the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act and conclusive evidence of the country of ownership is not available from other public sources. The number of such companies and the amount of the incentives given are shown separately.


SECRETARY OF STATE-NUMBER OF CONSULTANTS
Mr. Robinson: How many consultants have been engaged by the Department of the Secretary of State during each year 1950 to 1970 inclusive (a) what was the cost [DOT]of the consultants (b) how were the consultants utilized (c) for what reasons were the consultants necessary?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: (a) and (b): 1966-1967, $15,508; Consultation on Language Pedagogy; Consultations on Statues and Portraits of former Prime Ministers; Consultations of Centennial Program; Consultations on Library; Consultation on Documentation Deposit and Retrieval System.
1967-	1968, $27,519; Consultation on Education Support Program; Consultations on Statues and Portraits of former Prime Ministers; Consultation for National Staff Conference of Citizenship Branch; Consultation on Language Pedagogy; Consultation on Documentation Deposit and Retrieval System.
1968-	1969, $10,939; Consultation on Education Support Program; Consultation on Statues and Portraits of former Prime Ministers; Consultation on Community Development Training.
1969-	1970, $20,125; Consultation on July 1st Celebration; Consultation on Education Support Program; Consultation on Statues and Portraits of former Prime Ministers; Consultation on Manitoba Centennial Caravan.
Note: Records are not available prior to
1966-1967.
(c)	The engaging of consultants enables the department to take advantage of expertise not available within the department.


INDUSTRY, TRADE AND COMMERCE CONSULTANTS
Mr. Robinson: How many consultants have been engaged by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce

during each year 1950 to 1970 inclusive (a) what was the cost of the consultants (b) how were the consultants utilized (c) for what reasons were the consultants necessary?


Hon. Oifo E. Lang (Aciing Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as
the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: Financial records are no longer in existence for the years prior to 1964-65.
1964-65, 11; 1965-66, 13; 1966-67, 12; 196768, 132 *; 1968-69, 225 *; 1969-70, 157 *.
(a)	1964-65, $30,396; 1965-66, $49,612; 196667, $160,032;	1967-68, $418,798 *;	1968-69,
$1,047,831 *; 1969-70, $984,348 *.
* Includes consultants who participated in design clinics and product evaluation panels convened to determine the eligibility of products for the Canadian Design Index.
1967-68, 100 consultants totalling, $5,659;
1968-	69,	175 consultants totalling, $6,844;
1969-	70, 115 consultants totalling, $10,235.
(b)	To analyse data and to advise departmental officials on various economic factors affecting Canadian industry, such as potential markets, productivity, comparative cost studies and technical comparison of Canadian industry to that of other countries.
(c)	To provide specialist knowledge and to supplement the expertise available in the Department.


REORGANIZATION OF AIR CANADA
Mr. Fortin: 1.	Has the government received a detailed report of the reorganization of Air Canada and, if so, will this report be tabled in the House?
2.	Will the annual report of this corporation be studied by a parliamentary committee and, if so, on what date?
3.	Are there any plans to change the capital structure of Air Canada?
4.	Have Air Canada profits taken a sharp drop and, if so, for what reason?


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. The government has not received copies of the detailed reports dealing with the reorganization of Air Canada although verbal progress reports have been presented periodically. Since they contain a great deal of proprietary information, there is no intention to table them in the House. Members will, however, have an opportunity to discuss organizational matters with Air Canada when the corporation's annual report is referred to Committee.
October 7, 1970

Questions
2. Yes, the date will be for the Committee 3. $1,150,000 from July 1, 1969 to April 30, to decide.	1970.
3.	Yes, but these plans are still in the formative stages.
4.	There was a reduction in Air Canada's profits in 1969 as compared with 1968 but this was due to a month-long strike. The year 1970 is proving a difficult one for airlines in North America as a whole. The reasons are many and complex but Members will have an opportunity to discuss these in connection with Air Canada's Annual Report.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD-PERMIT BOOK APPLICATIONS
Mr. Skoberg: What was the total amount paid by the Canadian Wheat Board to mail permit book applications to the Wheat Pool and Line elevators in the Provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta?


Otto Emil Lang: Permit book applications together with "Lift" material were distributed to elevator managers by express at a cost of approximately $18,081.62.


NEWFOUNDLAND-DERAILMENTS AND MAINTENANCE COST OF ROADBEDS
Mr. Lundrigan: 1.	How many derailments has CNR had in Newfoundland since the discontinuation of the passenger trains?
2.	What was the total cost of the derailments?
3.	How much money has been spent in maintaining CNR trans-provincial roadbeds since the discontinuation of the passenger trains?
4.	How many men now are employed in the maintenance and upkeep of CNR roadbeds in Newfoundland?
5.	How many men were employed in the maintenance and upkeep of the roadbeds before the discontinuation of the passenger trains in Newfoundland?
6.	What was the cost to CNR for maintenance of the roadbeds in Newfoundland for each of the years 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969?
7.	How many derailments did CNR experience in Newfoundland during the years 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969?


Gérard Duquet: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. Up to June 1, 1970, 7.
2. $283,386.
4.	149 regular, 108 extra.
5.	216 regular, 60 to 100 extra for seasonal work depending on scale of extra work program.		
6. Year	Maintenance	Capital1965	$2,106,000	$ 360,9001966	2,100,000	695,7001967	2,000,000	1,475,3001968	1,650,000	282,3001969	1,580,000	543,8507. Year	No. of Derailments	1965	1	1966	4	1967	2	1968	7	1969	6


EXPENDITURES UNDER CANADA-FRANCE AGREEMENTS
Mr. Paproski: 1.	What is the total expenditure by Canada authorized for 1970, under the Canada-France agreements?
2.	What, in detail, are the objects of each class of expenditures in the total amount?


James Alexander Jerome: In so far
as the Department of External Affairs is concerned: 1. The Department's financial contribution under the 1965 cultural agreement with France for the fiscal year 1970-71 is $825,000.
2. There are two classes of expenditure: academic and scientific exchanges, to which $600,000 of the total amount is allocated, and artistic and cultural activities, to which $225,000 of the total amount is allocated. The latter class of expenditure includes allocations for a tour by a Canadian theatre company, performances by a Canadian dance company, the operation of the Canadian Cultural Centre in Paris, book presentations, exhibitions of Canadian art, exchanges of persons, a tour by a Canadian musician, and administration of various projects.
In so far as the National Research Council of Canada is concerned: 1. $80,000 for 197071.

October 7, 1970
Questions
2. To assist Canadian and French scientists in travelling abroad and to promote international scientific activity.
In so far as the Department of the Secretary of State is concerned: The Department is involved in two programs which are the result of agreements between Canada and France. Amounts authorized for the fiscal year 1970-1971: International Travel and Exchange Program: To be expended under Standard Object-10 grants, $150,000. Cooperant Militaire Program-two contract employees under program: To be expended under Standard Object-4 professional and Special Services, $8,095; To be expended under Standard Object-2 Transportation and Communications, $734.


RESEARCH INTO INDUSTRIAL USES OF GRAIN
Mr. Rowland: Is the government actively engaged in research of the industrial uses of grain, especially wheat and, if so (a) what is the nature of the research (b) does it include studies into the feasibility of adding grain alcohol to motive fuels as an anti-pollution measure?


James Alexander Jerome: In so far as
the Department of Agriculture is concerned, the answer is: (a) The Department conducts research on the quality of wheat for baking and pasta products and on barley for its use in the brewing and malting industries, (b) No.
In so far as the Canadian Wheat Board is concerned, the answer is:	The economic
feasibility of manufacturing industrial products from wheat and other grains have been considered by several study groups. The manufacturer of industrial alcohol from grains and the subsequent use of such alcohol in gasoline has been studied by many including the Science Secretariat. To date, studies have shown that alcohol production from wheat is more costly than other methods. However, considering Canada's tremendous resource for the production of plants suitable for the manufacture of alcohol, a different approach is now being taken. A study group composed of specialists from three government departments and agencies is being assembled to determine the plant material, process, fuel and engine characteristics required to make alcohol an economically viable fuel for combustion engines.


USE OF COMPUTER-DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, TRADE AND COMMERCE
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce have the use of a computer in its operations and, if so, to what extent is it utilized?
2.	Is the computer programmed 24 hours per day and, if not, for what reason?
3.	What is the number of hours planned for utilization of the computer?
4.	What has been the annual cost of computer services for each year 1960 to 1970 inclusive?
5.	How many programs are in preparation for the computer at the present time and how will each affect the efficiency of the Department?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce presently utilizes the following computers: (a) IBM 1440-utilized full-time, (b) Time Sharing Terminal-utilized an average of 30 hours per month, (c) Central Service Bureau and other Ottawa based service bureaus are utilized for approximately 12 hours per month.
2.	The IBM 1440 computer production is scheduled for 24 hours per day, five days a week; in addition, 32 hours per weekend was scheduled during a peak period this year (March, April and May).
3.	The Department is presently engaged in a computer feasibility study to determine the overall computer requirements; a firm answer cannot be given at this time.
Year	Amount
1960/61	$ -
1961/62	-
1962/63	-
1963/64	-
1964/65	-
1965/66	35,612
1966/67	78,885
1967/68	100,939
1968/69	135,171
1969/70	124,713
1970/71	150,000 (est.)
5.	Some 63 programs are presently in preparation for computer processing. These programs will reduce clerical effort, increase efficiency, provide information not previously available and provide for greater depth analysis.
October 7, 1970


SS PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What was the sale price of the SS Prince Edward Island1
2.	What other tenders were received and what was the amount of each?


Gérard Duquet: 1. $20,000.
2. There were seven other tenders received in the amounts of $400; $555; $3,000; $3,700; $5,300; $7,125; $10,150.


DOWNSVIEW AERODROME
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Has the municipality of North York made representations to take over the operation of the Downsview Aerodrome as a civil airport and, if so, what action is being taken?
2.	Has the Department of National Defence agreed to sell the Downsview Aerodrome runways and certain other adjacent property to the municipality of North York?
3.	Is the Minister of Transport prepared to licence the aerodrome as an airport and supply normal air traffic control services?
4.	Will the Minister provide Transport departmental funds to help develop the Downsview Aerodrome as a civil airport?
5.	Does the Minister consider that the operation of the Downsview Aerodrome as a civil airport will assist in solving the overall air facility problem in the Toronto area?


James Alexander Jerome: In so far
as the Department of National Defence is concerned: 1. Discussions have been held between North York and the Department of National Defence relative to the continuing operation of the Downsview Aerodrome. No decision has been taken on the future level or nature of civilian operation.
2.	No.
In so far as the Department of Transport is concerned:
3.	(a) Downsview Aerodrome can be licensed when and if it becomes a civil facility provided the present zoning protection is maintained. However, because of the geographical situation of Downsview as regards noise pollution, and because of other aviation facilities close by (Toronto International, Toronto Island and Buttonville Airports) the role of Downsview is foreseen as providing a limited facility for general aviation serving industry, (b) Air Traffic Control services can be provided should traffic conditions generated by
Questions
the limited aviation activity envisaged at the airport warrant it at that time.
4.	This will depend on the circumstances which exist when and if the aerodrome becomes a civil facility.
5.	The degree to which the operation of Downsview Aerodrome will assist operations in the Toronto area will depend on the ultimate use which is made of it as a civil facility. However, bearing in mind its limited role, it is expected that the impact of the use of Downsview in the overall aviation plan for the Toronto area will be minimal.


TRAINING OF PUBLIC SERVANTS IN GOVERNMENT LANGUAGE SCHOOLS
Mr. Moores: 1.	How many public servants have been trained in the government language training schools up to May 31, 1970 and, of these, how many have studied (a) French (b) English?
2.	Excluding the regular salary of the trainee, what is the approximate cost per trainee?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: 1. From 1963 to May 31, 1970, 17,324 employees subject to the Public Service Employment Act and other Federal officials and employees have been enrolled in French training and 4,367 in English training.
2. Excluding salaries, the cost of training is approximately $1,000. per level and each employee normally completes one level in one year.


LIFT PROGRAM APPLICATION, H. A. OLSON
Mr. McIntosh: Has an application been received from H. A. Olson of Medicine Hat, under the provisions of the "Lift Program" and, if so, what are the details of such application?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Under the provisions of the Lift Program the application form and other documents associated with the program are considered to be privileged information between the farmer involved and the Department of Agriculture. It is therefore the policy of the Department not to divulge details of any producer's farm operations or information as to his eligibility for a payment under the regulations.

October 7, 1970
Orders for Returns QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


INCREASE IN GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OFFICE SPACE
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	In the past ten years, how much new office space, by square foot, have government departments (department by department) increased their office space (a) in Ottawa (b) outside Ottawa?
2.	Of this space, how much is (a) in buildings owned by the government of Canada (b) in privately-owned buildings?
3.	Of the space in government-owned buildings, what was the cost of building construction per square foot and what is the actual cost of maintenance per building per square foot?
4.	Of the space occupied in rented buildings, what is the actual rental per square foot and what is the cost to the government of maintenance per square foot?
5.	For what period is the government committed to remain and to pay rent in the buildings in which they have rented quarters?
6.	Does the government assume financial responsibility for structural and decorating costs of rented space?


SUPPORT SHIPS H.M.C.S. PROTECTOR AND PRESERVER
Mr. Dumont: 1.	Has the contract price for H.M.C.S. Protector and Preserver been changed from the amount of $50,186,650 indicated in answer to Part 4 of Question Number 1,305 answered February 17, 1969 and, if so, what is the present contract price?
2.	If an increase is involved, what factors contributed to such an increase and what are the amounts involved?
3.	What is the estimated amount that will be paid the contractor when the two ships are completed?
4.	Was the delivery date of September, 1969 met for the first ship as indicated in answer to Part 7 of Question Number 1,305 and, if so, what is the present operational status of the ship and where is it located?
5.	If the ship is not operational, what are the reasons?
6.	Will the delivery date of February, 1970 for the second ship be met as indicated in answer to Part 7 of Question Number 1,305?


AMOUNTS OF FEDERAL TAXES COLLECTED AND FEDERAL PAYMENTS MADE-1968
Mr. Paproski: 1.	What amounts of federal taxes were collected, by provinces, in 1968, in each category (a) personal income tax (b) corporation taxes (c) sales taxes (d) social security taxes (e) other taxes and duties? 
2.	What were the amounts of federal payments by provinces in 1968 in each category (a) equalization grants (b) higher education (c) occupational training (d) Unemployment Insurance (e) hospitalization (f) Medicare (g) Old Age Security (h) veterans and disabled pensions (i) other joint programs?
3.	What were the amounts of expenditures by government departments in each province and territory in 1968?
Return tabled.


FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CONTRIBUTIONS TO SHARED-COST PROGRAMS
Mr. Beaudoin: In each fiscal year since March 31, 1960, what was the total amount contributed by the Government of Canada to (a) shared-cost programs undertaken in conjunction with any province or territory (i) by province or territory (ii) by department or agency for each province or territory (iii) by division for each department or agency in each province or territory (iv) by showing the percentage contributed by each department or agency in each province or territory (b) programs financed completely by the federal government (i) by province or territory (ii) by department or agency for each province or territory (iii) by division for each department or agency for each province or territory (iv) by item, in the case of Quebec?


RESEARCH STUDIES-DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, TRADE AND COMMERCE
Mr. Robinson: 1.	What research studies have been carried out by, or on behalf of, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce during each year 1960 to 1969 inclusive?
2.	What research studies are presently being carried on and/or are contemplated during the next five years?
3.	What was the cost of each of the research studies completed in each year 1960 to 1969 inclusive?
4.	What is the estimated cost of each of the studies presently in being or contemplated during the next five years?


EXPORT OF MILITARY AIRCRAFT
Mr. Lewis: 1.	By country, for each year 1963 to 1969 inclusive, how many military aircraft (export commodity classification 601-59) have been exported from Canada?
October 7, 1970

2.	Does the Government of Canada keep records on whether the purchasing country re-exports military aircraft purchased from Canada and, if so (a) what types of aircraft were re-exported (b) what country re-exported them (c) to what country were they re-exported?
3.	For which of the transactions in Part 1 did the Government impose as a condition of sale the requirement that Canadian permission be obtained before the purchasing country could resell the aircraft?
4.	If Canada keeps the records referred to in Part 2, was Canadian permission sought in each case where there was a re-sale?
Return tabled.


ENGAGEMENT OF CONSULTANTS-DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Robinson: How many consultants have been engaged by the Department of Public Works during each year 1950 to 1970 inclusive (a) what was the cost of the consultants (b) how were the consultants utilized (c) for what reasons were the consultants necessary?


RESEARCH STUDIES-DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR
Mr. Robinson: 1.	What research studies have been carried out by, or on behalf of, the Department of Labour during each year 1960 to 1969 inclusive?
2.	What research studies are now being carried on and/or are contemplated during the next five years?
3.	What was the cost of each of the research studies completed in each year 1960 to 1969 inclusive?
4.	What is the estimated cost of each of the studies now in being or contemplated during the next five years?
Return tabled.


RESEARCH STUDIES-DEPARTMENT OF SECRETARY OF STATE
Mr. Robinson: 1.	What research studies have been carried out by, or on behalf of, the Department of the Secretary of State during each year 1960 to 1969 inclusive?
2.	What research studies are now being carried on and/or are contemplated during the next five years?
3.	What was the cost of each of the research studies completed in each year 1960 to 1969 inclusive?
4.	What is the estimated cost of each of the studies now in being or contemplated during the next five years?
Return tabled.
Orders for Returns


ENGAGEMENT OF CONSULTANTS-DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Robinson: How many consultants have been engaged by the Department of National Health and Welfare during each year 1950 to 1970 inclusive (a) what was the cost of the consultants (b) how were the consultants utilized (c) for what reasons were the consultants necessary?
Return tabled.



RESEARCH STUDIES-DEPARTMENT OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES


Mr. McGrath: 1.	What Federal-Provincial Trans-Canada Highway contracts have been awarded in Newfoundland since January 1, 1960?
2.	What was the location and length of each such contract?
3.	What was the name of the general contractors?
4.	What was the total amount of each accepted contract?
5.	What was the total amount paid to the general contractors?
6.	What was the (a) estimated (b) actual cost of materials supplied by the government?
7.	What was the (a) estimated (b) total fees paid to the consultant engineers?
8.	What was the total contributions paid to the provincial government for each contract?
9.	On what date were the contracts awarded and what was the date of the actual completion?
10.	What is the anticipated date of completion for current contracts?
11.	Are the stated amounts the contributions made by the federal government or the total cost of the various items?
12.	In each case, was there a 50-50 or a 90-10 agreement between the federal and provincial governments?

October 7, 1970
Orders for Returns


FUNCTIONS OF MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO IN CHARGE OF HOUSING
Mr. Alexander: 1.	What is the function of and the responsibility delegated to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of Housing, other than Housing?
2.	What recommendations of the Task Force on Housing and Urban Development (a) have been accepted and implemented and as to these, when and to what extent (b) regarding recommendations not dealt with in Part (a), which other recommendations are acceptable to the government and when will they be implemented (c) what was the total cost of the Task Force?
Return tabled.


MINISTERS' TRAVEL EXPENSES, 1969-70
Mr. Coates: 1.	What was the total of travelling expenses for each Minister of the Cabinet during the fiscal year 1969-70?
2.	Does this include the use of government aircraft and, if not, on how many occasions was a government aircraft used?


GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES' TRAVEL AND REMOVAL EXPENSES, 1969-70
Mr. Coates: 1.	How many members of the Public Service of Canada or members of Crown corporations or members of government commissions received in expenses under the Travel and Removal Expenses classification an amount in the fiscal year 1969-70 in excess of $2,000.00?
2.	In each instance, what was the name of the person, his or her position, and the nature of his or her work?


PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARIES' TRAVEL EXPENSES, 1969-70
Mr. Coates: 1.	What was the total of travelling expenses for each of the Parliamentary Secretaries during the fiscal year 1969-70?
2.	Does this include the use of government aircraft and, if not, on how many occasions was a government aircraft used?


&quot;CROSS CANADA SPORTS DEMONSTRATION&quot;
Mr. Robinson: 1. Is it the intention of the federal government to continue the programme "Cross Canada Sports Demonstration" and, if so, to what extent?

2.	How many sports demonstrations were held in 1989 and 1970, where was each held and what was the cost of each demonstration?
3.	Who are the members of the Cross Canada Sports Demonstration team, how long has each been with the team and how much is each paid and is each member under contract and, if so, for how long and at what cost?
Return tabled.


ATTENDANCE OF HEALTH AND WELFARE MINISTER AND EMPLOYEES AT WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION MEETINGS
Mr. Coates: 1.	Did any employees of the Department of National Health and Welfare attend the World Health Organization meetings that were held recently in Geneva and, if so, who were they, what were their positions and for what period of time did each attend the meetings?
2.	In each instance, how did the individual travel to and from Geneva and what was the cost of travel and expenses?
3.	Did the Minister of National Health and Welfare attend the World Health Organization meetings and, if so (a) what period of time (b) what meetings did he attend (c) did he participate in an active manner (d) where did he stay while at Geneva (e) how did he travel between Ottawa and Geneva (f) what was the total cost in travel and expenses?


USE OF COMPUTER, DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of National Health and Welfare have the use of a computer in its operations and, if so, to what extent is it utilized?
2.	Is the computer programmed 24 hours per day and, if not, for what reason?
3.	What is the number of hours planned for utilization of the computer?
4.	What has been the annual cost of computer services for each year 1960 to 1970 inclusive?
5.	How many programmes are in preparation for the computer at the present time and how will each affect the efficiency of the Department?


MERCURY POLLUTION
Mr. Barneii: 1.	(a) How many industrial and manufacturing establishments in Canada utilize mercury or mercury compounds in their operation (b) what are the names and locations of these establishments?
2.	(a) In what watersheds are these plants located, and into what streams or lakes would any effluent from these establishments drain most im-
October 7, 1970

mediately (b) how many such streams, lakes and potentially involved areas of watersheds have been tested for mercury pollution, and which ones (c) in which has evidence of mercury pollution been found, and of these in which have fish been tested for mercury content (d) of these, in which ones are fish considered (i) safe for human consumption (ii) unsafe and, in the latter case, which species?
3.	What reimbursement and/or financial assistance has been made to commercial fishermen (a) for direct losses (b) for indirect losses resulting from mercury pollution (i) by the federal government (ii) those causing pollution?
4.	Has the Department of Fisheries and Forestry taken any steps under the Fisheries Act to ban or regulate the discharge of mercury into Canadian waters and, if so (a) what measures were taken (b) do these measures include the enactment of regulations (c) what are these regulations?
5.	Is any testing being done of fish for dangerous levels of any of the other elements and, if so, which ones?
6.	Are there any elements listed in the Food and Drug regulations, as being dangerous for human consumption, which might be consumed by fish, for which a content in fish is not being tested and, if so, what are they?
Return tabled.



USE OF COMPUTER-DEPARTMENT OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES AND RECEIVER GENERAL OF CANADA

Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of Supply and Services and Receiver General of Canada have the use of a computer in its operations and, if so, to what extent is it utilized?
2.	Is the computer programmed 24 hours per day and, if not, for what reason?
3.	What is the number of hours planned for utilization of the computer?
4.	What has been the annual cost of computer services for each year 1960 to 1970 inclusive?
5.	How many programmes are in preparation for the computer at the present time and how will each affect the efficiency of the Department?
Return tabled.



USE OF DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT-DEPARTMENT OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES AND RECEIVER GENERAL OF CANADA


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, Notices of Motions numbers 406, 455, 476, 517 and 519 are acceptable to the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Notices of Motions numbers 406, 455, 476, 517 and 519 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


REPORT ON BRITISH COLUMBIA TOWBOAT INDUSTRY
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 406-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the Report on the Investigation into the TowBoat Industry in British Columbia conducted in 1969.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 455-Mr. Harding:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all reports, studies, etc., discussed at the recent four day meeting held at Montebello, Quebec between United States and Canadian Government scientists to discuss Arctic research problems sponsored by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 476-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study by Ernst and Ernst undertaken for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion regarding planning study as mentioned in answer to Question Number 897 and reported in Hansard of March 18, 1970 at page 5163.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 517-Mr. Burton:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of an agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Saskatchewan providing for the joint sharing of capital costs for the development of provincial parks in Saskatchewan during 1970-71 and 1971-72.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
October 7. 1970
Motions for Papers

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 519-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the survey on the retail prices of nineteen commonly prescribed drugs undertaken by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs as mentioned by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in his speech before the Federal-Provincial Conference. June 10-12, 1970.
Motion agreed to.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, Notices of
Motions Nos. 60, 263, 369, 396, 404, 480, and 518 are acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential papers and to the authorization of the government authority concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that Notices of Motions Nos. 60, 263, 369, 396, 404, 480 and 518 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PLACE DU PORTAGE, HULL
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 60-Mr. Thomson:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence between the Department of Public Works and the former owners of Place du Portage in Hull, Quebec, in relation to the rental of space by the Government of Canada.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 263-Mr. Foriin:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence, reports, briefs and other documents submitted to the Government of Canada regarding the construction and equipping of a federal building in Victoriaville, Quebec.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 369-Mr. Mather:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of the exchange of information between the Government of the United States and the Government of Canada on the results of the United States nuclear explosion underground in the North Pacific as mentioned by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in Hansard on February 11 at pages 3481-3482.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 396-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged from January, 1968 to March 1970, dealing with pollution control between the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and the following Companies: Proctor and Gamble Ltd., Lever Bros. Ltd. and The Colgate-Palmolive Company Ltd.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 404-Mr. Rynard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all letters, telegrams, briefs or other documents dated since the 1st of July, 1969, exchanged between the Minister or any official of the Department of National Health and Welfare and any person or organization regarding grants in aid of cancer research.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 480-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study by Lalonde Valois undertaken for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion regarding the transportation study of the Gaspe region as mentioned in answer to Question Number 897 and reported in Hansard of March 18, 1970 at page 5163.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 518-Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse):
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of the agreement and all correspondence between the federal government and the Government of the Province of Quebec respecting the development of the Forillon National Park.
Motion agreed to.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as	to call Notices of	Motions	Nos.	218,282, 288,	307,	322,	331,	356,	362,	395,	446,	451,456, 458,	488,	491,	493,	494,	495,	496,	497,	500,501, 502,	503,	504,	505,	506,	507,	508,	509,	510,
511 and 512?


SUBSIDIARIES IN CANADA
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 218-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report by H. R. Kemp on data on
October 7, 1970
[Stage Direction]
subsidiaries in Canada undertaken for the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce for the fiscal year 1966-67, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the past Session.
James Alexander Jerome: This motion is not acceptable because the consultant in question unfortunately passed away during the time he was commissioned to conduct the study, and therefore the report is in draft form only. The minister feels he could not table the report in this form and he asks the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Skoberg:: I will give it due consideration, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


PRIVATE AIRCRAFT USER CHARGES AND FEES
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 282-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the review on user charges and fees paid by private aircraft using the facilities provided by the Department of Transport as mentioned by the Minister without Portfolio in Hansard of November 26, 1969 on page 1291.
Gérard Duquet: Mr. Speaker, it is a continuing study which is not yet completed. The Department of Transport is presently considering the whole matter of charges, including those that are paid for various types of private aircraft.
When a decision is reached in that regard, the government will examine the possibility of giving the requested information to the House.
Until then, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


John Leroy Skoberg: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


DEFENCE PRODUCTION SHARING-U.S. FIRMS EXPORTING TO CANADA
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 288-Mr. Broadbent:
That an Order of the House do issue for a list of all United States firms exporting to Canada, products under the Canada-U.S. Defence Production Sharing Agreement from its inception in 1959 to November 30, 1969, listing the specific materials and components coming into Canada and the dollar aggregates involved.
Motions for Papers
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce wishes to inform the hon. member that to compile a list of purchases by the Canadian government would be costly and, at best, would constitute only a partial reply since information on private companies' purchases is held to be commercially confidential. He is able, however, to table estimates of the dollar aggregates involved if this is acceptable to the hon. member.


Mr. Broadbent:: It is acceptable.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is carried subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 307-Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all studies, reports, memoranda, etc., regarding the statement made in Parliament by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and reported in Hansard of December 11, 1969 on page 1851 that: "if oil were sent from Alberta to Quebec in the east, it would be very costly. Indeed, pipelines would have to be built from Western Canada, which would not be profitable".
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the hon. member's motion I have to say that there are no specific studies, reports, memoranda, etc. regarding the statement to which he refers. I would point out, however, that it was remarked before the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works on May 8 last year that the price of Alberta crude brought as far west as Toronto was some 60 cents a barrel above the laid-down price-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member knows that he cannot make a statement. He has to indicate whether or not the return is to be made. He should not take the occasion of the calling of the motion to make a speech.


Mr. Baldwin:: We want to get on with the Grain Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion to be dropped
or transferred for debate?


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: In view of the Parliamentary Secretary's statement that the government has no

October 7, 1970
Motions for Papers
information and that the minister was speaking without any survey or knowledge of the facts, I am prepared to withdraw the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


STUDIES BY TRANSPORT POLICY AND RESEARCH BRANCH
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 322-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the research studies undertaken by the Transportation Policy and Research Branch of the Department of Transport as reported in answer to Question Number 233 in Hansard of December 17. 1969 at page 2069.
Gérard Duquet: Mr. Speaker, the member has asked for twelve different studies, some of which have already been published while others have not yet been completed. The government will consider the possibility of communicating the remainder to the House. If the hon. member would be good enough to indicate clearly in separate notices of motion which reports he would like to obtain, the government could deal with each of them according to its own importance.
I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw that motion.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order I want to reinforce the point that this is not the time for this sort of thing. The time of the House should not be taken up by this continuous repetition of alibis by the government. There could be private exchanges. We are anxious to get on with the business of the House in the short time remaining during this session, and we think that in the future the rule that Your Honour mentioned should be strictly enforced.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, it will be noted that the objection of the hon. member for Peace River is that we are giving the House too much information.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Left unresolved is the question of whether Motion No. 322 should stand, be voted upon, transferred for debate or dropped.
[Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands) .1


John Leroy Skoberg: I would like some of that information, Mr. Speaker, and so I will resubmit the question next session.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
PURCHASE RESEARCH BRANCH STUDIES Motion No. 331-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the research studies undertaken by the Purchase Research Branch of the Department of Supply and Services as mentioned in answer to Question Number 128 and reported in Hansard of December 15, 1969 at page 1949.


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, the Purchase Research Branch of the Department of Supply and Services was established to improve methods of government purchasing. The studies and reports produced by the branch were written for departmental use, and not primarily for wider distribution. They contain information given in confidence by business firms on the understanding that this information would not be made public. In addition, some of the documents contain classified material. It is therefore not possible for these papers to be tabled in their present form.
There is, however, a large amount of useful information that is not classified which I believe would be of interest to the public. It is, therefore, my intention to have the classified information removed from these papers and to have all of the remaining documents and studies made available to the public.


Mr. Bell:: Censorship.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the conditions and reservations expressed by the minister, is the motion carried?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 356-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all reports received by the government or any agency, branch or department thereof from the Warden or other officers of the Saskatchewan Penitentiary at Prince Albert, Saskatchewan with regard to the so-called "food protest" or "food strike" engaged in by inmates at the said Penitentiary in December, 1969, and for a copy of all reports relating to any follow-up or subsequent action taken by the Administration of the said Penitentiary.
October 7, 1970
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion stands.
INDUSTRY STUDIES Motion No. 362-Mr. Broadbent:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all industry studies completed by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce pursuant to Deputy-Minister Reisman's memo on that subject.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce wishes to inform the hon. member that the internal memo he refers to provided general instructions to branch directors in their activities and was not directed to specific studies. If the member is interested in any particular industry, the minister would be happy to see if a study has been prepared and if the material is in a form suitable for tabling.


John Edward Broadbent: Despite the felicitous tone of the answer I wish to have the motion transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


PORT ALBERNI HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS FINANCIAL REPORTS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 395-Mr. Barnett:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of each of the three most recent annual financial reports received by the Minister of Transport from the Port Albemi Harbour Commissioners.
Gérard Duquet: Mr. Speaker, the reports in question include detailed confidential information on the internal operation of the Commission. To divulge their content seems contrary to public interest.
However, the government is willing to table a condensed report showing the financial position of the Commission for the years 1967, 1968 and 1969.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that this motion be carried?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Motions for Papers
CNR RIVERS SUBDIVISION ACCIDENT Motion No. 446-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the report of the Canadian Transport Commission concerning the investigation into the mishap on the CNR Rivers Subdivision on April 28, 1968, where three employees were killed when the engine went through the bridge.
Gérard Duquet: Mr. Speaker, we are advised by the Canadian Transport Commission that, following a specific request to its committee on rail transport, the latter has investigated the particular circumstances in which the accident occurred and has decided to make an order providing for publication of the information contained in the report of the committee's inspector. Copies of the order and related documents will be forwarded to the hon. member.
In view of this information, would the hon. member kindly withdraw his motion.


John Leroy Skoberg: I am pleased to hear that, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


FOREIGN OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL OF CANADIAN MINING INDUSTRIES
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 451-Mr. Sallsman:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the studies undertaken in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources on the degree of foreign ownership and control of the Canadian Mining and mineral processing industries as indicated at page 33 of the 1968-69 Annual Report of the Department.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, the preliminary investigations on foreign ownership, referred to on page 33 of the 1968-69 annual report of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, are still continuing and have not yet reached the report stage. It is anticipated that one phase will be completed for publication within the next few months. I would, therefore, ask that the hon. member withdraw his motion.


Mr. Saltsman:: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.

October 7, 1970
Motions for Papers


WATER POLLUTION BY CHEMICAL AND PULP AND PAPER INDUSTRIES
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 456-Mr. Harding:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence between the Department of Fisheries and Forestry and the Chemical and Pulp and Paper Industry regarding mercury water pollution in Canada.
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: It
is the view of the government that the tabling of the correspondence requested in this motion would seriously and adversely affect the confidence and effective working relationship between the Department of Fisheries and Forestry and the companies in question. In view of this fact we should like to request that the hon. member withdraw his motion.


Mr. Harding:: Transfer for debate, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


GLACE BAY HEAVY WATER PLANT-CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN GERALD A. REAGAN AND GOVERNMENT
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 458-Mr. Muir:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of any or all correspondence between Gerald A. Reagan and the federal government or any department, division, agency or Crown corporation, relating to the financing of the heavy water plant at Glace Bay, Nova Scotia.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, a search of departmental files has established that there exists no correspondence within the purview of this motion. The motion is therefore not acceptable to the government and it is hoped the hon. member will withdraw his motion.


Mr. Muir:: That is agreeable, Mr. Speaker. But I have other ideas.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



EASTERN DESIGNERS LIMITED REVIEW OF SAINT JOHN WATER SUPPLY STUDY

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 486-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study by Eastern Designers Limited undertaken for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion regarding the Saint John Water Supply Study as mentioned in answer to Question Number 897 and reported in Hansard of March 18, i970 at page 5163.
['We are still agreeable, Mr. Speaker.\nOrder discharged and motion withdrawn.']
Mr. Martin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, this is a continuing study and as yet there is no report suitable for tabling. I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Burton:: 1 am in a very agreeable mood today, Mr. Speaker.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 488-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study by J. Parikhal undertaken for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion regarding the regional migration study as mentioned in answer to Question Number 897 and reported in Hansard of March 18, 1970 at page 5163.
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, the report requested takes the form of a computer printout and, as I mentioned in June, it is not suitable for tabling. I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


John Stratford Burton: We are still agreeable, Mr. Speaker.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



SHAWINIGAN ENGINEERING LTD. REVIEW OF SAINT JOHN WATER SUPPLY STUDY

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 491-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study by Shawinigan Engineering Ltd. undertaken for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion regarding the Saint John Water Supply Study as mentioned in answer to Question Number 897 and reported in Hansard of March 18, 1970 at page 5163.
['Yes, Mr. Speaker. If there is anything useful I can convey to the House, I certainly shall.']
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, the study requested has not yet been submitted to the department. In these circumstances I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


John Stratford Burton: Agreed, Mr. Speaker.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
1968-69 STUDY OF EFFECT OF OESTROGEN-PROGESTIN COMPOUNDS
Motion No. 493-Mrs. Maclnnis:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study undertaken in the fiscal year 1968-69 funded by the Department of National Health and
October 7, 1970

Motions for Papers
Welfare on "The Effect of Oestrogen-progestin Compounds on Platelet Surface Reactions in Women of Childbearing Age".


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, a reply has already been given to the question and it still stands. I must say that-

The Department of National Health and Welfare does not publish the results of scientific studies carried out in these circumstances without the written permission of the investigators. Furthermore, the studies of which copies are requested have not been completed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am afraid the hon. gentleman's "furthermore" is beyond the scope of our rules. The Parliamentary Secretary should indicate whether or not he is prepared to file the report.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: In view of these circumstances, the hon. member might wish to withdraw her motion.


Mrs. Maclnnis:: I am unable to understand why this information should be classified but in the interest of co-operation I am willing to drop the motion today and put it back on the order paper tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is dropped for today.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
1969-70 STUDY OF EFFECT OF OESTROGEN-PROGESTIN COMPOUNDS
Motion No. 494-Mrs. Maclnnis:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study undertaken in the fiscal year 1969-70 funded by the Department of National Health and Welfare on "The Effect of Oestrogen-progestin Compounds on Platelet Surface Reactions in Women of Childbearing Age".


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Mr. Speaker, the reply is the same as the one I gave for notice of motion No. 493, and for the same reason I would ask the hon. member to withdraw her motion.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, my reply is also the same.



[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 495-Mrs. Maclnnis:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study "Causes et consequences demographi-ques economiques et sociales de la pratique de la methode thermique de regulation des naissances" funded by the Department of National Health and Welfare in the fiscal year 1969-70.
Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is the same as for the two previous motions. For this reason, I would ask the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway to withdraw her motion.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, my answer is the same as for the two previous motions.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is withdrawn for today.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn. [English]
1970-71 STUDY "PROJET DE RECHERCHE AUPRES DU MILIEU DEFAVORISE URBAIN QUEBECOIS"
Motion No. 496-Mrs. Maclnnis:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study undertaken by Le Centre de Planifi-cation Familiale, Montreal, in the fiscal year 197071 funded by the Department of National Health and Welfare on "Projet de recherche auprds du milieu defavorise urbain Qudbecols".


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Mr. Speaker, for the same reasons that I have already given about the previous requests, I would ask the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway to withdraw her motion.
While I have the floor, Mr. Speaker, and with the unanimous consent of the House, I might perhaps suggest that the same answer should apply to motions Nos. 497, 500, 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509, 510 and 511.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I shall spare you the trouble of reading the other motions but I shall submit them again tomorrow morning.
8874

October 7, 1970
Motions ior Papers Mr. Speaker: The motion is dropped. Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: Nos. 497 and 500 to 511 inclusive are dropped.
1969-70 STUDY, "PROJET DE RECHERCHE AUPRES DU MILIEU DEFAVORISE URBAIN QUEBECOIS"
Motion No. 497-Mrs. Maclnnis:
That an Order of the House do Issue for a copy of the study undertaken by Le Centre de Planifi-cation Familiale, Montreal, in the fiscal year 1969-70 funded by the Department of National Health and Welfare on "Projet de recherche auprfes du milieu defavorise urbain Quebecois".
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
1969-70 STUDY "PHYSIOLOGICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF ORAL CONTRACEPTIVE MEDICATION"
Motion No. 500-Mrs. Maclnnis:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study undertaken by the Jewish General and Montreal General Hospitals in the fiscal year 196970 funded by the Department of National Health and Welfare on the "Physiological and Psychological Aspects of Oral Contraceptive Medication".
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
1968-69 STUDY "PHYSIOLOGICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF ORAL CONTRACEPTIVE MEDICATION"
Motion No. 501-Mrs. Maclnnis:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study undertaken by the Jewish General and Montreal General Hospitals in the fiscal year 196869 funded by the Department of National Health and Welfare on the "Physiological and Psychological Aspects of Oral Contraceptive Medication".
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
1969-70 STUDY "EVALUATION OF RESULTS OF GENETIC COUNSELLING"
Motion No. 502-Mrs. Maclnnis:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study undertaken by the Montreal Children's Hospital (McGill) in the fiscal year 1969-70 funded by the Department of National Health and Welfare on the "Evaluation of Results of Genetic Counselling".
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.

1968-69 STUDY "EVALUATION OF RESULTS OF GENETIC COUNSELLING"
Motion No. 503-Mrs. Maclnnis:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study undertaken by the Montreal Children's Hospital (McGill) in the fiscal year 1968-69 funded by the Department of National Health and Welfare on the "Evaluation of Results of Genetic Counselling".
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
1967-68 STUDY "EVALUATION OF RESULTS OF GENETIC COUNSELLING"
Motion No. 504-Mrs. Maclnnis:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study undertaken by the Montreal Children's Hospital (McGill) in the fiscal year 1967-68 funded by the Department of National Health and Welfare on the "Evaluation of Results of Genetic Counselling".
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
1966-67 STUDY, "EVALUATION OF RESULTS OF GENETIC COUNSELLING"
Motion No. 505-Mrs. Maclnnis:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study undertaken by the Montreal Children's Hospital (McGill) in the fiscal year 1966-67 funded by the Department of National Health and Welfare on the "Evaluation of Results of Genetic Counselling".
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
1969 STUDY "AN EXPERIMENT IN COMMUNITY HEALTH CARE"
Motion No. 506-Mrs. Maclnnis:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of a study undertaken by Toronto General Hospital (University of Toronto) in the fiscal year 1969-70 on "An Experiment in Community Health Care: The Evaluation of Voluntary Family Planning (a) the need; (b) the desire; (c) the effect", funded by the Department of National Health and Welfare.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
1968-69 STUDY "AN EXPERIMENT IN COMMUNITY HEALTH CARE"
Motion No. 507-Mrs. Maclnnis:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of a study undertaken by Toronto General Hospital (University of Toronto) in the fiscal year 1968-69 on "An Experiment in Community Health Care; The Evaluation of Voluntary Family Planning (a) the need; (b) the desire; (c) the effect", funded by the Department of National Health and Welfare.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
October 7, 1970	COMMONS
1967-68 STUDY "AN EXPERIMENT IN COMMUNITY HEALTH CARE"
Motion No. 508-Mrs. Maclnnis:
That an Order ol the House do issue for a copy of a study undertaken by Toronto General Hospital (University of Toronto) in the fiscal year 1967-68 on "An Experiment in Community Health Care: The Evaluation of Voluntary Family Planning (a) the need; (b) the desire; (c) the effect", funded by the Department of National Health and Welfare.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
1969-70 STUDY OF SOCIAL AND MEDICAL FACTORS OF WOMEN ATTENDING FAMILY PLANNING CLINIC
Motion No. 509-Mrs. Maclnnis:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study undertaken by the University of British Columbia in the fiscal year 1969-70 funded by the Department of National Health and Welfare on "Social and Medical Factors of Women Attending Vancouver Family Planning Clinic and a Group of Women not Attending a Family Planning Clinic in two areas of the City of Vancouver".
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
1968-69 STUDY OF SOCIAL AND MEDICAL FACTORS OF WOMEN ATTENDING FAMILY PLANNING CLINIC
Motion No. 510-Mrs. Maclnnis:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study undertaken by the University of British Columbia in the fiscal year 1968-69 funded by the Department of National Health and Welfare on "Social and Medical Factors of Women Attending Vancouver Family Planning Clinic and a Group of Women not Attending a Family Planning Clinic in two areas of the city of Vancouver".
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


STUDY OF EFFECT OF ORAL CONTRACEPTIVES ON FOLATE METABOLISM
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 511-Mrs. Maclnnis:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study undertaken by St. Boniface General Hospital in the fiscal year 1969-70 funded by the Department of National Health and Welfare on "The Effect of Oral Contraceptives on Folate Metabolism as Related to the Outcome of Subsequent Pregnancies".
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
Mr. Speaker:: Motion No. 512 in the name of the hon. member for Kootenay West.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I believe Motion No. 512 is included in the group just referred to.
DEBATES	8875
Inquiries of the Ministry


An hon. Member:: No. There is an error in the list.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I ask that No. 512 and the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motion stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received, which is as follows:
Government House Ottawa, October 2, 1970
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Gerald Fauteux, P.C., Chief Justice of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber at 4.45 on Wednesday, October 7th, for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills and proroguing the Second Session of the Twenty-eighth Parliament of Canada.
I have the Honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant, Louis-Fremont Trudeau Brigadier General
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.


ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. On June 19 he indicated that the government was considering recommending to Parliament that marijuana be transferred from the Narcotic Control Act to the Food and Drugs Act in a way that simple possession of marijuana could be prosecuted by summary conviction as an offence not subject to jail terms. Can the minister indicate whether the government has reached a decision in this matter and, if so, what the decision is?

October 7, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, may I advise the Leader of the Opposition that the government has not reached a decision yet.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the recommendation of the LeDain Commission that the federal government should investigate the establishment of regional drug analytical laboratories at strategic points across the country, can the minister tell the House whether he has done anything about the suggestion and give the House an assurance that these laboratories have been established and are in existence?


John Carr Munro: Yes, the government is giving active consideration at the moment to giving food and drug licences to responsible and competent people and inviting them to conduct these analyses. When the final arrangements are made I will be pleased to make the announcement in the House.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I gather the announcement is that nothing has been done yet?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hees:: That is correct.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the recommendations of the LeDain Commission, can the minister assure the House that the government has now established a system of centres across the country to provide information and consultation for drug users?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The department and the Food and Drug Directorate are busy now in preparing a detailed program for information and educational purposes, and we hope to have it operating within the next few months.


Thomas Miller Bell: The minister has had a busy summer.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue and, in doing so, congratulate him on his appointment to his new position. Since the minister has been charged by the Prime Minister with the responsibility for conducting a study into the whole question of foreign ownership and control of the Canadian economy, may I ask

him how soon we may expect his report to be ready for presentation to the cabinet? I recognize that this is a large subject. Will the presentation be ready in a matter of weeks, months or years? Can the minister give us some approximate date when this report will be ready for presentation to the cabinet?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minisler of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, first let me thank the Leader of the New Democratic Party for his words of congratulation. I am happy to inform the House that the work I am supervising is relatively far advanced. It is my expectation that it can be in the hands of the cabinet this fall.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Is it the government's intention, after it has had adequate time to study this report, to make it available to the public?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker, that will not necessarily follow. At some point we will have to disclose the government's policy on this matter.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: But not its reasons.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Whether the report will be in a form which can suitably be presented to the House is a matter we shall have to consider when we see the report. I am hopeful that when we are in a position to state our policy we will do so. In the meantime I hope the New Democratic Party will find a way of making up its own mind, without waiting for this report.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, we have made up our minds.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Whose minds are made up?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We have made up our minds but anybody waiting for the government to bring down the report will never be able to make up his mind, because this report has been a long time in the making. Now the Prime Minister tells us it is not going to be available to the public. May I ask the Prime Minister, at what point does the government intend to
October 7, 1970

make known to the House and the country what its policy is with regard to foreign ownership? Is it the government's intention to bring down a White Paper, or is it the government's intention to bring down legislation during the next session of Parliament?


Gerald William Baldwin: That will be part of the government's next election campaign, Tommy.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the same answer applies.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What about participatory democracy?


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
The news is that the federal government would spend millions of dollars to fight smoking which is causing so many Canadians to cough as some television programs have shown. Yet the same government is spending millions of dollars to help tobacco farmers.
Could the minister explain the logic of these government expenditures, namely encouraging tobacco production on the one hand and trying to get people to stop smoking on the other hand?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will agree that his question is rather controversial and I do not think it is in order.


FINANCE
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Is it the intention of the minister to call together in the near future the heads of the chartered banks of Canada and advise them that there is no justifiable excuse for Canadian chartered banks not following the lead given by the Bank of Canada and United States chartered banks in lowering interest rates in order to stimulate production and increase employment? If the
Inquiries of the Ministry minister is not planning to hold such meetings, would he give immediate consideration to holding meetings of that kind in the very near future?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I always consider proposals put forward by the hon. member. Answering the first part of his question, I have no such intention for the near future.


NATURAL RESOURCES
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Has the minister received a report on the continuing and serious deterioration affecting wildlife and other resources in the Peace River and Athabasca Delta? If so, is he able to file that report or advise the House of its contents?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, my department has carried out studies on the situation that would be created by the very low water level in this area due to the erection of the Bennett dam in British Columbia. These studies are solely of a departmental nature and I wonder whether their findings should be tabled. I will study the matter and see if this can be done.


Gerald William Baldwin: Because of the urgency of the situation and because the divided jurisdiction makes it difficult for any individual to secure redress, will the minister consult with the Minister of Justice and the ministers in the provinces about the possibility of a constitutional amendment in the form of a bill of rights for natural resources guaranteeing the enjoyment by the people of Canada of the natural resources of Canada and the right to secure remedies and redress in any part of Canada?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to convey the hon. member's suggestion to my colleague the Minister of Justice.

October 7, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue in his capacity of being in charge of the study on foreign ownership. I would first like to sincerely congratulate my former colleague on his elevation to his new portfolio. We all know what a hard worker he is and wish him every success.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sylvester Perry Ryan: In view of the apparent takeover of the W. J. Gage textbook division by an American company and the potential impact of United States control of the textbook industry, will the minister inform the House if the government has any policy on foreign takeovers in this crucial area, particularly as advocated by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board? Are we-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member is asking the minister to make a statement of policy. In those terms the question is not acceptable at this time.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence will no doubt remember, if he has not had more slippage, that I asked him a question yesterday with regard to information from the United States concerning the deployment of ABM's and also with regard to AWACS and any discussions taking place between our authorities and American authorities on this subject?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member asked if the Canadian government had been informed about the future ABM plans of the United States and the deployment of any ballistic missiles near the Canadian border. The answer is yes, we have been informed. With regard to AWACS, offi-

cials from both the United States and Canada have already had discussions on the proposed AWACS program. We are being kept informed of developments in this technical field, but it will be some couple of years before decisions by Canada on the AWACS system would be appropriate.


David Lewis: I ask the minister whether Canada's participation with American scientific people in discussing the AWACS system implies that the government has made a decision to participate in the development of the AWACS system whenever it may come into operation?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It does not have that implication, Mr. Speaker.


ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILES-AWACS PROGRAM -CONSULTATION WITH HOUSE COMMITTEE
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: A supplementary question. Can the minister assure the House that decisions with regard to the installation of new systems, either AWACS or some complementary system to the ABM system deployed in the United States, will not be made without consultation with the House through the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: My recollection is that there has been some consultation already on the general principle of the AWACS system. Of course the government will have to make its own decision in that regard. Naturally these decisions are reviewable by the House through its committees.


ANNOUNCEMENT OF POLICY ON ANTIBALLISTIC MISSILE SYSTEM
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: wish to direct a further question to the Prime Minister. In view of commitments made earlier by the right hon. gentleman to make public the government's policy on ABM's after both United States decisions had been made and the Canadian foreign policy review had been published, when can we expect an announcement of the government's policy and decision on the ABM system?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I answered this question several months ago, Mr. Speaker. I have no further statement to make at this time on the subject.
October 7, 1970


FUTURE ROLE FOR CF-5 AIRCRAFT-ADHERENCE TO TENDER PRICE
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: I wish to direct my question to the Minister of National Defence. On Monday the minister said he would check to see whether there were change orders involved in the purchase of the CF-5 airplanes. Has the minister checked that? Also, will he advise the House if tenders were called or was the price simply negotiated?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, my information is that the contract at the present time is within the financial limits approved by Treasury Board. As the hon. member knows, the contract has not yet been ultimately completed and is subject, of course, to any intervening contingencies. As to whether it was subject to tendering, I cannot answer that offhand but I can inquire.


FISHERIES
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Fronlenac-Lennox and Addington):: My question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. It arises out of serious financial losses to fishermen and fish dealers in the lower Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River regions as a result of last summer's seizure, condemnation and destruction of their products by the Department of Fisheries and Forestry because of an alleged prohibitively high mercury content. Will the minister and his department give favourable consideration to compensating these operators for their losses which, of course, are unforeseen and no fault of their own?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minisier of Fisheries and Forestry):: The answer is essentially yes, Mr. Speaker. The department will give favourable consideration. As the hon. member knows, where closures have taken place loans are advanced on a 50-50 basis, shared with the province. With respect to the fish that have been condemned, certain lots are under consideration for compensation to those who bought them.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I respectfully point out to you, sir, that loans are of no value to the operators at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member cannot point anything out to the Speaker, even respectfully.
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


ABDUCTION OF SENIOR BRITISH TRADE COMMISSIONER-PRESENT SITUATION-OFFER OF REWARD BY TORONTO BUSINESSMEN
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, sometimes angels fear to tread, but the fact that there has been silence here today with regard to a matter that has the attention of Canadians everywhere prompts me to ask either the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the silence today is due to the fact that there is hope for the survival of Mr. Cross? I ask this question so that Canadians may be restored in their faith in our administration of justice.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, hope still exists.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister not prepared to go any further than to state that "hope still exists"? Hope is eternal in the human breast! Is the Prime Minister not able to say something regarding the present position of a matter concerning which members realize anxiety is being felt in all parts of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I answered the right hon. member's question in the terms in which he asked it, whether hope still existed. I can only say it does. I do not think I can usefully add anything at this time. Mr. Cho-quette, the Attorney General of Quebec, made a statement last night. The Secretary of State for External Affairs made a statement to the House last night. These are the positions of the two governments. They are well known to the public.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether a number of businessmen in Toronto have stated that in view of the failure of the government to join in providing a reward they would be prepared to go to the extent of putting up $50,000 to assure that action is taken?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure if the reward is for the delivery of the abductors or of the abducted. Could the right hon. member be more precise?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I suggest the Prime Minister should not be facetious with regard to a matter as serious as this.


Some hon. Members:: Order!

October 7, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Yesterday he was smiling when questions were asked in this regard.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


John George Diefenbaker: I ask the Prime Minister whether such an offer has been received or whether the government has given any consideration to making a reward available? It has worked in the past even though the Prime Minister does not seem to be aware of that.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, if the right hon. member cannot answer my question as to supplementary details, he has not given it any thought, either.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Is the right hon. member rising on a supplementary?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the answer of the Prime Minister indicates-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I was wondering whether the right hon. gentleman wished to ask a supplementary question.


John George Diefenbaker: No, Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege. The facetious manner in which the Prime Minister treats this House of Commons indicates that he has complete contempt for it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the answers given by the Prime Minister to the right hon. member for Prince Albert, which might create some confusion, will the Prime Minister answer this question: Has the federal government opted out of negotiations with Mr. Cross' abductors but is permitting the Quebec government, through the Quebec Minister of Justice, to do the bargaining with the FLQ?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Is the minister aware of reports that the Chateau Laurier is not complying with the new minimum wage
tMr. Diefenbaker.]
law? If so, does the minister plan to take any action?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have the impression that this is the kind of question that should be considered at the time of adjournment. At the same time I realize that there is prorogation today, so in view of the special circumstances perhaps the question may be allowed and replied to by the minister.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minisier of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the fact that the CNR has refused to extend minimum wages to those employees working in their hotels. Because of the fact that it has been traditionally considered by the Department of Labour that these people come under federal jurisdiction, I have given the necessary instructions to proceed with a prosecution against Canadian National Railways.


Mr. James A. McGrath (Si. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. May I ask him whether this applies to all CNR hotels across the country and, if not, why not?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, as I say, this matter has traditionally been within the jurisdiction of the Department of Labour and the Canada Labour Relations Board. Therefore, to be consistent it would apply as far as we are concerned to all hotels where the CNR or any crown corporation is violating labour standards.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Are discussions being held with the Quebec government about the eventual transfer of jurisdiction with regard to Indian affairs within Quebec territory?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we have formed, with the Quebec government and the Indians of that province, a tripartite committee to study the problem. A year and a half ago, we made offers to the Indians with regard to the eventual right of Canadian Indians to political assistance; the whole matter is being studied, on the national as well as provincial level, by this three-member committee.
October 7, 1970


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Alastair Gillespie (Etobicoke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Revenue in his capacity as the minister responsible for proposing policies on foreign ownership. What action, if any, does the federal government intend to take with respect to the proposed sale of the leading Canadian textbook publishing enterprise, the publishing division of W. J. Gage Limited, to Scott Foresman Company?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question asked by the hon. member sounds very much like one asked earlier today. Although the original question asked the minister to give a statement on policy and I thought that in those terms it was perhaps too broad, perhaps the minister might want to indicate in reply to the first question whether a general statement will be made at a later date and at the same time reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Etobicoke.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, as I think I indicated in reply to a question from another member, I am not yet in a position to state a definite time with respect to the making public of a general statement on policy in the area of foreign ownership. With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, may I reply very briefly to both questions in this area in a form that you may consider acceptable.
There is no current federal legislation on the basis of which action can be contemplated at this time with respect to this transaction. However, there appears to be a certain jurisdiction on the part of the provinces arising out of their authority to deal with the acceptability of textbooks. It had been my intention to contact the Ontario Minister of Education and other provincial ministers about this question. However, I am pleased to see that, according to news reports, the Ontario minister is proceeding to take action under his jurisdiction, and I would be happy to discuss the matter with him further.


Alastair William Gillespie: Recognizing the importance of a Canadian-owned educational publishing industry, is the government prepared to consider extending financial incentives to Canadian publishers in the same way that they are extended to manufacturing industries in Canada?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps this question might be answered when the minister makes his statement on policy.


FISHERIES
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister indicate whether he will be discussing the question of the conservation and management of our marine resources when he visits the Soviet Union in the near future?
Righf Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, our two governments are now in the process of trying to establish an agenda for the talks that is agreeable to both sides. Until such agenda is agreed to I would prefer not to make any comment, but I will certainly take the hon. member's representations into account.


John Howard Lundrigan: In view of the alarming exploitation of our marine resources, mainly by foreign countries such as the Soviet Union, can the Prime Minister say whether Canada has formulated a clear position with respect to the management and conservation of our marine resources in waters adjacent to our territorial seas? Can the minister further indicate when he is prepared to make this position known to the Canadian people?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, we have been very concerned about over-exploitation of the fisheries resource near our coasts. We have also made our position quite clear. I think we must still use the Law of the Sea Conference in order to convince the long-distance fishing nations of the reasonableness of our case.


NEGOTIATIONS WITH SOVIET UNION RESPECTING FISHING OFF PACIFIC COAST
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the discussions now going on between representatives of the Canadian government and representatives of the Soviet Union on the whole question of fishing, and particularly some of the difficulties that have arisen recently on the Pacific coast, may I ask the Minister of Fisheries, who is representing Canada in these discussions, what progress, if
8882

October 7, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry any, is being made toward reaching a mutually satisfactory agreement?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the discussion is taking place at the official level. In other words, officials from the federal Department of Fisheries are involved on the Canadian side and officials from the Russian side are meeting with them here in Ottawa. The officer in charge of the Pacific operations of the Russian fishing fleet is here for the discussions. We have representatives from all segments of the industry on the west coast who are acting in an advisory capacity to our officials.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A further supplementary question. Are these discussions that are going on mainly between scientists and officials, or is the minister or any person closely associated with government policy sitting in on the discussions?


John (Jack) Davis: I am not personally sitting in on the meetings, but , .any people who are knowledgeable of thw fishery in this country are involved in an advisory capacity and know, day by day, what progress the talks are making.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Gander-Twilliu^ate is rising on a point of order.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister will want to correct the statement he made that everyone knowledgeable of the fishery is involved because everyone on the east coast of Canada has been left out of these negotiations.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is hardly a point of order.


CANADIAN POSITION AT LAST ICNAF CONFERENCE
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Fisheries what position Canada took at the last conference of the International Commission on the North Atlantic fisheries? May I also ask whether Canada is proposing to call another meeting of the commission?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, basically the position taken was this: that over-fishing should not occur, that fishing operations over our contitMr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands).]
nental shelf area should be on a sustained yield basis, and that Canada's share should expand as the years went by.


James Aloysius McGrath: A further supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think we ought to pass on to another subject. I know how important this question is to hon. members, but there are many other members waiting for a chance to ask questions. We might return to this point if we have time toward the end of the question period.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the report that the Soviet Union intends to divert three rivers emptying into the Arctic Ocean, thereby draining off some 50 per cent of the supply of fresh water to the Arctic seas, is a factual one? Is this of concern to Canada in respect of its potential effect upon the Arctic seas and perhaps upon our own climate?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think I must have listened to the same program as the Leader of the Opposition, and my curiosity was piqued too. I shall try to satisfy it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, when the
Secretary of State for External Affairs satisfies his curiosity, will he be good enough to make a report to the House to enlighten us also?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If there is anything useful I can convey to the House, I certainly shall.



LABOUR RELATIONS


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. Will he inform the House whether his department has involved itself in any way in trying to bring to a conclusion the six months-old strike of deep sea trawl fishermen on the east coast?
October 7, 1970


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, we became involved many months ago. In co-operation with the province of Nova Scotia we set up an industrial inquiry commission under Judge Green. As I remember it, at the moment the case is before the Court of Appeal of that province, and anything I might say at this moment would be quite inappropriate.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, in view of Judge Nathan Green's recommendation that the Minister of Labour should publicly state that the federal government would introduce the necessary legislation to formalize the collective bargaining rights of fishermen, can the minister now say whether he has accepted the recommendation and has publicly made that statement?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to make no statement on a case of this importance that is before any court of the land.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, has the Prime Minister under active consideration the filling of the 18 Senate vacancies and, if so, is he considering the appointment of persons such as the Minister of Finance, who would be more favourable to the white paper on taxation if he were in the Senate?



HEALTH AND WELFARE

[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry National Health and Welfare. Will he also make an early statement describing the projected program within Canada and its cost?
John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As I have already announced, the government has set up within the Department of National Health and Welfare a unit-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question, as I understand it, is whether a statement will be made. The question is acceptable only to that extent.



IMPORTATION OF RUSSIAN ARTERIOSCLEROSIS VACCINE

Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Was a request made by a Soviet manufacturer to the Food and Drug Directorate to get a license for selling in Canada a vaccine under the name of Margoulis-Schoubladze, for the treatment of multiple sclerosis?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the question should normally be put on the order paper, but given the present circumstances, maybe the minister wishes to answer.



NATIONAL PARKS


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of his very welcome statement to the media on September 19 that the government is now prepared to help with birth control at home and abroad, and in view of the fact that almost four babies were born into the world every second in 1969, will he make an early statement to the House giving details of the overseas program and the expenditure to be allocated to it?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, if any relevant question should be put on the Order Paper I will see that an answer is expedited.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of
22478-72}



BONNE BAY, NFLD.-REPORTED AGREEMENT BY PROVINCE TO PROVIDE LAND

Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-Sl. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Will the minister advise what action he is taking in view of the announcement by the province of Newfoundland that it is prepared to sign an agreement to hand over the land for the establishment of a national park at Bonne Bay?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that, but I have not received any official information from the government.


Jack Marshall: I would like to say that I am glad to hear it too, because what appears in the papers is altogether different from what really happens.

October 7, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry HOUSING



POSSIBLE SUBSIDIZING OF INTEREST RATES AND PRINCIPAL PAYMENTS FOR LOWER INCOME GROUPS

Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing I address my question to the Minister of Finance. Has the government given consideration to the possibility of subsidizing interest rates and principal payments on mortgages for lower income groups and, if so, with what result?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the question as notice.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion in the absence of the minister. In view of the time that has elapsed since the announcement that Regina and Saskatoon would be established as special areas under the program of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, will the Parliamentary Secretary indicate when there might be program announcements which would have the effect of giving some real meaning to the minister's earlier announcement?


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, the designation of these two cities means that we are prepared to accept applications at any time for projects that will come forward.



POLLUTION


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Has the source of mercury contamination of fish in Lake Huron been determined, and if so, what action has been taken?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, one source has been determined definitely but there may be other sources.


Percy Verner Noble: In view of the fact that many tons of fish are being condemned, has any thought been given to carrying out the necessary research to determine whether mercury-contaminated fish might be used for animal food?


John (Jack) Davis: An investigation is under way but it is not conclusive, as yet, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will he advise whether there are in contemplation any further measures for assistance to Jordan, where the situation is grave?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as members of the House may know, we have recently made two grants for the relief of conditions in Jordan-a $25,000 grant to the Red Cross and an additional $150,000, I think, over and above the very large amount already granted for the assistance of refugees. We have no further requests under consideration. I believe it is considered that Canada has made a very generous contribution.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
I have no doubt that the Minister of Agriculture is aware of the open warfare between the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, or, as it were, between the egg and the hen, because the situation involves egg producers on the one part, and chicken producers on the other.
As it seems that only the Supreme Court could settle the question, I would like to know whether the Minister of Agriculture, in the best interest of both provinces involved, has tried to meet the representatives of those provincial governments or if he is planning to do so.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on several occasions. I
October 7, 1970	COMMONS DEBATES	8885
would say that the best interests of both these provinces as well as of Canada as a whole would be served by passing Bill C-197 quickly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, is the minister's department or the government represented in the proceedings before the Supreme Court of Quebec for the purpose of advocating the unconstitutionality of the proceedings in Quebec, or is this matter too sensitive for the minister to become involved in it?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the government and this department get involved in all things that are useful to the farmers of Canada. I will take notice of the question, which should properly have been referred to the Minister of Justice.


Gerald William Baldwin: You are pretty late in the day.



SHIPPING


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the warning issued last week by Captain T. C. Pullen, official Canadian observer aboard the Manhattan, that Canada is in danger of losing the Canadian Arctic to the United States unless we initiate a crash construction program of coastguard ships, can the Minister of Transport say what steps he is taking to improve the operational capability of our coastguard fleet? Is the department preparing to instal navigational aids in the Arctic, and is it planning to expand our ice reconnaissance capability?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that this is a far reaching question which normally should be replied to by way of a statement on motions.



EDUCATION


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State.
Would he tell us when he intends to set up an advisory committee on culture?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, this committee is being set up and should hold its first meetings in the fall.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
Has the minister consulted with the provinces before creating that committee, since culture is a provincial matter, and will the members of that committee be selected jointly by the provinces and the federal government?


Gérard Pelletier: I do not acknowledge the validity of the hon. member's opinion, Mr. Speaker, but I must say that we have entered into negotiations with all provincial ministers involved in cultural affairs and the fact that the federal government intends to co-ordinate the initiatives of its agencies in this field has not as far as I know given rise to any objection from the provinces.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Barry Mafher (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Having in mind the reports of turmoil existing in Bolivia, can he indicate the situation there with regard to Canadian citizens?


Mitchell William Sharp: We are following developments in Bolivia very closely. If it appears to us that special precautions have to be taken for the safety of Canadians, we are prepared to do so.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. It arises out of the fact that evidently nobody knows what happens in Newfoundland in regard to matters involving the federal government. Would the minister make a statement on motions outlining the plans of his department arising out of the cabinet's acceptance of the Newfoundland government's white paper proposal to develop two national parks, an all-weather paved highway between Deer Lake and St. Anthony, air strips in Newfoundland and

October 7, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry Labrador and the development of historic sites on the west-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Parliamentary Secretary might indicate whether a statement will be made.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I will draw the question to the minister's attention.



NATURAL RESOURCES


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development which is supplementary to one asked a few moments ago by the hon. member for Peace River. Will the minister consider giving assistance, by way of research, counsel or financially to the town of Peace River and the large number of residents in northern Alberta who have indicated they are taking action for damages against the province of British Columbia or its agencies in connection with the Athabasca situation?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have been consulted on this point by the Indians involved and I gave them assurances that they would receive all the assistance that my department can provide concerning the claim.
As to financial aid, I believe that the inhabitants of this area should be able, given their number, to finance their own legal proceedings.



POLLUTION


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. What specific action is being taken by the Department of Fisheries and Forestry to ensure that the rivers in the Ottawa area are cleaned up in order to allow their use for fishing and other recreational purposes next summer?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member will appreciate that this, too, is a very far-reaching question and should be the

subject of a reply of a general nature under motions. The minister might indicate whether this kind of statement is contemplated.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the Fisheries Act is delegated for administration to Ontario and Quebec. While we are in close consultation with the relevant departments in those provincial administrations, we are not at this time directly involved in any planning process on the Ottawa.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to the order of business for today. It has been indicated that there is one remaining item, namely, Bill C-196. There have been indications that there is a general desire that this bill might go through, but in view of an announcement read from the Chair a while ago I raise the question whether there is sufficient time between now and 4:45. I wonder if the government would consider-because, after all, it is in the hands of the government-recommending to His Excellency the Governor General that prorogation of this session be delayed for the rest of today, or for another day or two if necessary, so that this important piece of legislation might be completed by the House as well as by the other place, and thus become law.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, we are quite prepared to proceed with the debate on the measure for as long as possible. I would point out, however, that there are 44 amendments at the report stage, all of which on close examination are amendments designed to greatly improve the bill and facilitate its use for the grain farmers of Canada. In addition, on third reading two objections will be taken concerning the validity of the bill, both of which would be fatal to it. I thought this point should be in the mind of the minister when he considers the situation.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest a compromise. From what the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has stated today, it seems unlikely that in the next several days it would be possible to complete the bill. However, I repeat to the House what I today suggested to
October 7, 1970

the representatives of the parties privately. It might be possible to make an agreement, with regard to this bill comparable to that which I understand has already been arranged in respect of other bills, that is, a special order of the House might be made to advance the bill to its present state of progress so that it would not be necessary to repeat what has gone on before.
Such procedure would not complete the study of the bill in the next day or so, but it would mean that in the next session we would be able to utilize the necessary time in order to pass the bill. The order that would be made could be made only in the new session, but I suggest this procedure as a compromise.


Gerald William Baldwin: It is true, Mr. Speaker, that we did make this agreement with regard to one bill, not bills as the minister mentioned. However, it all depends on the question of discussion later and the extent to which the government is prepared to rectify its bungling incompetence and bring in a better bill.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Rising on the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say I am perfectly willing to sit as long as possible in order to sell my ideas and my amendments to the government. If the government wants to sit until midnight tonight, I am perfectly willing to do so. If the government should accept the amendments, I assure them that I will do my utmost to facilitate the early passage of this bill at the next session. But if the government should reject all the amendments on the Order Paper, I cannot guarantee my assistance in passing the bill because I do not think it is good without all the amendments being included.


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt that we will achieve any kind of unanimous agreement on the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. If there is to be an agreement, perhaps it should be reached by consultation outside the House. If there is a feeling on the part of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that the matter might be advanced in some other way, I will hear him further or hear the minister.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I think any condition set down to reach unanimous agreement that involves total acquiescence to one member of this House of 264 members is complete lunacy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Canada Grain Act


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It would seem that my assessment of the situation was the correct one. I doubt that we can reach agreement at this time. I suggest to hon. members that if they think they can reach agreement on that point, it might be discussed outside the House in private consultation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I on this point address just one question to the Minister of National Defence in his capacity as Acting House Leader? Do we have his commitment that if Bill C-196 is not completed at this session, a bill like it will be brought in early in the new session?


Gerald William Baldwin: How much like it?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: You have that commitment, sir.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, October 6, consideration of Bill C-196, respecting grain, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture, motion No. 1 (Mr. Horner).
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the House
ready for the question?


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, the time in which we may discuss this measure in this session is running out. I intend to be fairly brief in discussing this amendment and indeed in discussing the bill. Let me say at the start that when this amendment was discussed in committee, the legal advisers who were available to us pointed out that this particular clause simply defined an elevator in the clear and concise terms that were necessary so that an elevator would have a legal definition and the bill could be effective and workable in the legal sense.
This bill was exhaustively discussed and examined in the committee. At times the committee sat three times a day when the bill was before it. We called before us all the witnesses who wanted to appear, and we invited some others. So far as I am concerned, out of that committee came as workable a bill as we are every likely to get. If the bill is

October 7, 1970
Canada Grain Act
passed by the House, it will adequately serve the interests of the farmers in western and in eastern Canada. This is what interests me primarily.
The most central factor in the bill is a change in our standards of grading to allow us to meet the competitive conditions which we are now having to meet and will have to meet if we are to sell our product and merchandize it well in today's markets. Anyone who listened at noon today to the farm broadcast would have heard a European marketing expert speaking to the Agricultural Economic Research Council saying that Canada's sales of wheat to Europe have declined mainly because of what he termed "damn poor merchandizing." He added that Canadian farmers have placed too much stock in the myth that Canadian grain is the best in the world. Canadian growers, commented the European trade expert, have failed to keep up the standards, with the result that customers have walked away.
This bore out my own observations in London, England, where I talked with people responsible for marketing who told me that our competitors, the U.S.S.R., Australia and the United States were taking an ever larger share of that market simply because they were able to and did guarantee a uniform content of protein in the wheat which they provided to the British millers.
It was said in the House just yesterday that there was no need to pass this bill because under the old measure we could effectively market wheat on a protein-grading basis. That is utter nonsense. Our wheat is sold on the basis of a certificate final, and all that can be put on that certificate final is what is allowed in the grain standard under the present Canada Grain Act. Perhaps there are some smart operators who manage to run in a little wheat in this corner or that corner and say to the buyer, "We know it is this kind of grain." This is something like a bootlegger appearing at the door with a bottle of whisky which he assures the buyer has not been cut. This is no way to market Canadian wheat. We can no longer afford to take second place, and that is what we are doing in the quality markets of the world. If any hon. member wants that statement substantiated, he should just take note of those areas in which sales have been increasing. They have been increasing in the low-quality markets but they have been decreasing in the high-quality markets. That is what this bill is concerned with and that is at the heart and core of it.

Certainly, the Canada Grains Council could come to the committee, as they did, with an armful of amendments to protect the interests of the grain trade. Do hon. members want another name for the Canada Grains Council? Call it the traders, call it the grain trade and call it the elevator companies. While they are playing games, the farmer is paying the shot. They have a guaranteed income. I will tell the House who has a guaranteed income: it is the grain companies, not the farmer.
I am prepared to criticize the government. I do not suppose that any member in the House has criticized the government more than I have at times with regard to their grains policy. I told them what I thought of their Lift program when they brought it in, and my mind has not changed. When the government of the day brings in a measure designed to help sell and market grain and to allow us and the Canadian Wheat Board to do a better job, I will support that measure and I will not quibble, dodge around corners or nit-pick over a few amendments that are supposed to make the legislation more palatable to the grain trade.
When the minister requested last night that the House sit for two extra hours to consider the amendments, some hon. members on this side of the House rose and said they were not ready to sit for two more hours to consider this measure which is so important to the western Canadian farmer-one of the most important measures that will come before the House in this calendar year.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Alfred Pullen Gleave: What is the matter, do they need to go to bed?


David Lewis: They could sleep here.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: And they do.


Gerald William Baldwin: They might find you under the bed.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: We are here to do the job on behalf of the farmer. The bill as it is presently drawn is not an imposition on the grain companies. In my book, it does not work any greater hardship on them than was worked under the previous Canada Grain Act. It merely makes the act more operative and permits the incoming commission to be more efficient. Yet some hon. members talk about an imposition on the grain companies and about "little amendments."
October 7. 1970

[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, the Board of Grain Commissioners for years have had control of life and death over the grain companies. They set the tariffs which the companies may charge. They decide their gross income. If the Board of Grain Commissioners wanted to work a hardship on the grain companies, all it had to do was cut off their money. The same thing exactly would apply under this bill. This is the essence of it, and no government is going to permit any commission to put the grain handling industry of Canada in jeopardy, because the grain handling industry is absolutely essential to the Canadian farmer. Hopefully, no government would set up an act or give a commission power to confer favouritism on the grain handling trade. This is the heart of the issue.
Under this new bill, if passed, we would permit mixing at terminal elevators. Mr. Speaker, as an individual I have always been unalterably opposed to mixing at the terminal. But this bill would permit mixing with permission of the commission and we have to accept it because of changing conditions. Anyone who is close to the grain trade knows that we have been stuck at the west coast with high grades of grain which we could not mix but which buyers were not prepared to purchase because it had the No. 1 label on it, because it was not high-protein wheat and was not necessarily the package they wanted to take to their home countries. These are the realities we have to face; these are the facts of life. This is what the farmer out in western Canada wants. He wants all members who represent him in this Parliament to be concerned about this matter. He wants Members of Parliament to be concerned, to move his product and allow him to hold his place in the competitive markets of the world.
One of the reasons we have lost sales in the quality markets is that we did not move sooner to do what this bill proposes to do. Anyone who is closely connected with the trade knew this, not only in 1970 and 1969 but in 1968 and 1967. That is why we had professional and well-informed people from the Board of Grain Commissioners and in the appropriate department of government working out a bill clause by clause, a bill that would be bring us into the 1970s and not leave us sitting back in the 1950s.
I cannot understand members of this House who have dillied and dallied, who have spent endless hours nit-picking in committee and
Canada Grain Act
who now sit here while this bill dies on the Order Paper. Certainly, the charge could be made that the government should have referred the bill to the Standing Committee sooner than it did. That is a charge that the government will have to meet, if it is levelled against it. But be that as it may, we are now in this place and we are faced with making a decision. It will help nothing to look back and say this person or that person should have done something else.
This new bill will license elevators; it will license agents; it will control rates; it will control tariffs; it will change the grading system. But, Mr. Speaker, the old act controlled rates, it controlled tariffs, it licensed elevator agents and it licensed off-track storage. It permitted or did not permit off-track storage. A dealer had to be licensed if he was to handle grain and deal in it. This new bill does not change that situation.
Let me read part of a press release sent out by the Palliser Wheat Growers' Association. These people appeared before our committee and said that certain amendments were needed. But this is what they said on October 2;
Mr. Nelson said the Palliser association understood some amendments "which we feel are essential" received support before parliament's summer recess and the legislation should not now be held up. He called on Mr. Olson to take "positive action" to have the government give the legislation priority before the House prorogues and the act dies on the Order Paper.
This is not an old organization. It claims to have 8,000 members who were enrolled within a couple of years in what is called the Palliser triangle in western Canada, the wheat country. I know its members dug into their pockets and put up the money for membership. If we had time we could talk to the National Farmers' Union and the Federation of Agriculture, two major organizations. If any member wanted to call them on the telephone right now, I know they would say, "Yes, we want the bill passed. We want it put into effect." If this is the case, who is saying no?


An hon. Member:: Horner.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the trade is saying no.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: And their mouthpieces in here.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Ask Mr. McNamara.

October 7, 1970
Canada Grain Act


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Those who want to carry the ball for the grain trade in here will have to take their responsibility in time to come.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I have been a grain grower all my life. I have made a living at it. I live in the centre of the wheat growing area of Saskatchewan and I am not here to promote the interests of anybody but the farmers. I have seen them sit on their farms with grain stored in their granaries which, under an adequate grading system, should have been moving into the prime markets of the world. That is what we ought to be doing now.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Well, aren't we?


Alfred Pullen Gleave: No.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Grain is not moving?


Alfred Pullen Gleave: We ought to be putting this bill into effect, Mr. Speaker. I say that those who do not support it, and those who have not made every move to bring the bill into effect before the session dies, have been doing a disservice to the western grain farmer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I would have been happier had the government acceded to the request made to continue this session until the bill was passed. I think the bill is important enough to keep the session going until it is passed, until it becomes the law of the land and enables our selling agents to do the job which they want to do in the markets of the world, the job which they are ready to do and have the capability to do. We have had good men in this field. Mr. McNamara, who retired, was one of the great men in the grain industry. We will have other great men, but we will not arm them with the necessary tools for the job by bringing in 44 amendments in the dying hours of this session so that the bill will not be passed by the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, no matter how good are the men who run the Wheat Board, and no matter how good are the men in the private trade, they must have the tools with which to do the job. We are on the threshold of new developments. Here we are talking about protein grading in regard to wheat. We will be making changes in the grading system to handle rapeseed, barley and some of our other farm products. In fact, some of the

changes in prospect are not even now being considered. I predict we shall eventually move to the point at which rapeseed will be subject to variety control in the field, and that we shall follow this control through right to the selling point. It will have to be variety pure. We shall have to deliver what the consumer wants. We cannot stand still while time marches on. We must match the technology and know-how which exists on the farm with technology, efficiency and knowhow in the grain handling system. If we cannot match what the farmers are doing, we shall have failed them.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You know what you are talking about there.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Thank you kindly. I would be very happy if I could say the same for the hon. member. I have made the points I wanted to make this afternoon, Mr. Speaker.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, we have listened to a very good speech. I compliment the hon. member on it. I would have been more impressed by the speech if it were not for the fact that members of his party showed a considerable amount of approval when they agreed to the second reading of the farm products marketing bill, though it is true they did indicate demurrers to some of its provision. When this bill was brought before the committee it met with the unqualified disapproval of most of the farm organizations.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is absolutely wrong.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is absolutely correct. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) was playing games elsewhere. He was not in the committee, but I was there and heard what was said. True enough, some of the briefs stated, as we have said, that the principle involved was good. But in effect they asked Parliament to jack up the principle and run a new bill under it. Some organizations were more restrained than others in their opposition to the bill. But when I hear hon. members to my left being exceedingly critical of us for exercising our parliamentary duty and carrying out our responsibility-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Abusing it.


Gerald William Baldwin: -I would point out it is our duty to ensure as far as possible that bills passed in this House are good bills, bills which will meet the needs of economics, bills which are good in law and, in this instance,
October 7, 1970


Thomas Miller Bell: Shame!


Gerald William Baldwin: If so, he reminds me very much, in a political sense, of the chameleon which, it is said, if placed on a red rug will turn red, if placed on a brown rug will turn brown, and if placed on a Scottish plaid will go mad.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I do not support the hon. member's interpretation.


Gerald William Baldwin: Since the bill has been
thrown open as a result of various amendments, I will not discuss any proposed changes to the bill. However, I should like to read an editorial which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press. That newspaper certainly does not support my party. I know it is having difficulty supporting the government at this time and I do not know where it stands now. Perhaps it supports my friends to my left.


An hon. Member:: It could have changed.


Gerald William Baldwin: This editorial of August 19, 1970, reads in part:
Because of the failure of Bill C-196 to be approved at the last session of Parliament, western wheat farmers are being penalized.
The bill failed to pass because opposition members, rightly, did not want to hand life-and-death control of the grain industry over to a few bureaucrats-which the legislation would have done. The government refused to remove the offending portions of the bill-
It refused to remove them in committee, and it is still refusing.
-and, as a result, it failed to get parliamentary approval-
There was universal approval for grading regulations under the Canada Grain Act, because they provided protection for the farmer in an era of uncertainty.
The government does not really understand simple things, but it would have been simple for the minister and the government to have sought an amendment to the old act and then, if further changes were needed, to have brought them in during the next session of Parliament. The proposals which would put large powers with regard to marketing and transport into the hands of bureaucrats who would control agriculture in this country are,

I am convinced, not acceptable to the farmers of this country and will not be accepted. But the government does not see that; it wants the bill, the whole bill and nothing but the bill.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Our farmers have been asking for this bill for years.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is the minister's
interpretation.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Did the grains council want this bill?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I said the farmers wanted it.


Gerald William Baldwin: The farmers of this country did not ask for this bill in its present form. They will become aware of what the government really wants, as they became aware of its intentions in connection with Bill C-197. It wants to secure a death-grip on the whole Canadian agricultural industry and run that industry from the ivory towers of the Department of Agriculture in Ottawa. If my friends to my left want that, they can have it. I do not want it and I know that the farmers in the Peace River country do not want it. I am convinced that most Canadian farmers do not want it.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is another wrong
interpretation.


Gerald William Baldwin: If it should happen that every amendment presented at the report stage of the bill is passed, even then I say there would be a technical and major objection to the third reading of this bill. I will not become involved at this time in a discussion of the points of order which will have to be raised during the remainder of the present session or the next session, on third reading. I merely give the minister notice of a caveat.
This bill is objectionable because the consent of the Crown has not been secured to certain of its proposals. Also, it is bad because it is in direct violation of section 54 of the British North America Act. Those are fatal objections. Having the utmost faith in the judgment of the incumbent of the chair and in his application of law and common sense to the precedents of this House, I am convinced from my close examination of the bill that he will toss it out. I do not see how the bill can get past these fatal objections. I earnestly suggest to the minister that he look at it again. I will be only too glad to co-operate and give him the benefit of my opinions both in a legal and parliamentary sense.
October 7, 1970

Like all hon. members of the House, I want to see sound legislation which falls within the four corners of the law of the land. It appears to me that the government is attempting to bring in legislation which is defective not only as to substance but as to law. I offer this advice in the hope that before we again deal with the bill the minister will take another look at it.


Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise and speak on this bill. Although I was not present during all the committee hearings on the bill because I was a member of the Finance Committee when it discussed another government botch, the white paper on taxation, I think I am fully qualified to speak on the bill in view of the fact that, as is the agricultural spokesman for the NDP, I am a grain farmer. I have made a good living from being a grain farmer and think I know as well as anyone in the House the problems that arise in this area.
The impression that has been created by several speakers is that this bill must go through in great haste or, it is implied, Canadian grain sales will suffer. Due in part to better salesmanship and, I suppose, to unfavourable weather conditions in many parts of the world, grain sales in general have increased rapidly in the past six months. The entire picture has changed for the grain farmer.
I can imagine what would have happened had this bill been passed last spring or last winter. Approximately 107 pages containing increased bureaucratic controls and regulations would have been given as the factor behind our increased grain sales. I can imagine the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) saying, "What a wonderful thing we have done. We have a new grain act. Look at all the grain sales in the country. We have more grain sales in prospect than we can possibly move to the markets. It will strain our transportation facilities to sell it. All this is the result of this glorious bill that introduced protein grading and various other provisions." I do not deny that some provisions of the bill may be worth considering; I am simply saying that under the existing rules applicable to grain sales all these sales have been made without any help from this bill.
A great deal is made of the protein grading provisions. Protein grading is said to be the "in" thing if you want to sell grain. In some areas protein grading probably will be beneficial. I submit that only a small amendment to
Canada Grain Act
the present grain act would have been needed to bring in protein grading. We do not need 107 pages of controls which will result from a bill such as this one. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) made a very eloquent presentation on this subject, but in common with almost everything else the New Democratic Party proposes, his suggestions entail controls, controls and more controls. The more control they have over every individual in this country, the better they like it. That is what their presentations boil down to on whatever subject they speak. The Canada Grains Council was appointed by the government. They recommended the majority of these amendments but as was pointed out earlier, very few were accepted. I think the amendment regarding the inclusion of trucks as well as railway cars is an important one. It becomes increasingly important when we consider future possible railway line abandonment. The government, as well as many others, have suggested that eventually the number of delivery points across the Prairie region should be cut to 50. I think there are a great many impractical points in this argument. There are now 1,800 delivery points. If this number is reduced to 50, there will be 36 times the number of deliveries to each elevator. The mechanical problems involved would be astronomical.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
If deliveries to an elevator were multiplied by 36, grain could be handled if deliveries were evenly spread over the whole year. However, weather conditions must be considered, and times when the agricultural industry is occupied with seeding, harvesting and other necessary work. It is impossible to spread unloadings from farm to elevator so there will not be a complete bottleneck in an area. In the future we may have three classes of elevators. Naturally, there will be the terminal elevators. We may also have on-track delivery points,-a larger, more consolidated unit-as well as off-track delivery points where it would be necessary to move the grain out of this type of elevator by truck. Movement of this kind is not impractical when we consider that many railway boxcars today handle only 1,300 or 1,400 bushels of grain. I think there are cars that handle only 1,300 bushels. There are trucks for highway travel that carry 1,000 bushels. The element of cost as between the two types of transportation is not significant. There are two elevators within 15 miles of the town in which I live. Although the tracks were removed

October 7, 1970
Canada Grain Act
during the last few years, deliveries are still made there. The grain is moved from these points to the on-track elevators. This system may become increasingly practical in the future.
Last night and on other occasions the minister stated to the press that this bill, which is supposedly the cure-all and the end-all of the problems of the producer, is being held up by opposition members, particularly those in the Conservative Party. I remind the minister that it was brought into the House erratically. Last night the minister spoke for 35 minutes, talked it out until ten o'clock and then asked us to stay until midnight. I do not know whether he intended to continue speaking. This is a point he has failed to let everyone know.
I do not intend to speak further in this regard. In summary 1 wish to point out that we are not holding up any grain sales by considering the bill further because we have moved these amendments. The sales now in prospect will more than utilize our transportation facilities in the months ahead.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I declare the motion negatived on division.


Thomas Miller Bell: No, Mr. Speaker; we want a recorded vote.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I understand it is usually the practice to defer the vote, but there is a measure of similarity between the first amendment and the second. The motion might well be put. If, as I suspect, the good sense of the House prevails and the first amendment is carried, the government might see fit to give its approval to the second one. This might save some time of the House. For this reason I suggest that with the consent of all parties we vote at this time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: At this stage all I can do is read Standing Order 7501). Being at the disposal of the House, I will then be ready to hear comments. Standing Order 7501) reads:
When a recorded division has been demanded on any amendment proposed during the report stage of a bill, Mr. Speaker may defer the calling in of the members for the purpose of recording the "yeas" and "nays" until any or all subsequent amendments proposed to that bill have been considered. A recorded division or divisions may be so deferred from sitting to sitting.


Gerald William Baldwin: I recognize that Your Honour is perfectly correct, but the determining word is "may": there is a discretion. Obviously, if the government does not see fit to accept our very reasonable suggestion, Your Honour would be quite right to call the next amendment. I hope that sweet reason is now residing within the breast of the minister and that he will agree to this suggestion.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned last night, I took the time to deal as briefly as I could with all 44 amendments because the second proposed amendment was in fact discussed in the committee over a rather long period of time. I should draw to Your Honour's attention that 25 amendments were accepted in the committee and many other subject matters were dealt with, including the substance of proposed amendment No. 2. As far as the one before the House is concerned, that too was voted on in the committee on June 16 and defeated.
It seems to me that while hon. members have every right to make this kind of proposition and to revive the subject matter of the amendments in the House-I do not question that at all-we have, as some hon. members have already pointed out, spent long, hard hours drawing up a bill that seems to be the best that can be reached. I think we should try to get on with dealing with all these amendments. If we can go through the rest of
October 7, 1970

the amendments and then take a vote on all of them at the end, that would be satisfactory to me.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I have taken into consideration the remarks of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and also the remarks of the minister. The Chair does have latitude to permit a vote at this stage, but I think a ceremony that will be taking place in half an hour will limit the Chair in its decision. Therefore, it is my opinion that the vote should be deferred.
The hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Downey) moves motion No. 2 as follows:
That Bill C-196, an act respecting grain, be amended by striking out the words "way cars or ships," line 28, page 2 thereof, and substituting therefor the following, "way cars, ships, or motor vehicles of an undertaking operating by licence issued under the National Transportation Act,"-


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member for Battle River (Mr. Downey) has greater belief in my eloquence than I have, because he was satisfied I would persuade the Chair and the government that it was wise and sensible to have a vote at this time. Consequently, he thought he would be summoned by the bell, and he is not here. Therefore I would ask that the motion stand at this time and that we proceed to the next one.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it
agreed that motion No. 3 be put at this stage, and that we stand motion No. 2?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 2 stands.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That Bill C-196, an act respecting grain, be amended by deleting subclause 17 of clause 2 and substituting therefor:
"(17) "grain dealer" means a person in the western division who, for reward, on his own behalf or on behalf of another person, deals in or handles western grain;"
He said: Mr. Speaker, this amendment is not what I would call a major amendment, but in tidying up a poorly-drafted bill one has to deal with some of the details of the bill. The amendment seeks to add the words "a person in the western division" to clause 2(17), which as the bill reads now is all-inclusive and refers to a grain dealer in any part of Canada handling or dealing in western grain, including any person in eastern Canada or anywhere else. The old act pretty well spelled out that a grain dealer was a person in the western division handling western grain. The amendment merely provides that
Canada Grain Act
the definition of "grain dealer" applies only to persons located in the western division who for reward deal in or handle western grain.
As I said, as presently drafted the bill leaves in doubt what is meant by the expression "grain dealer". The whole question of grain dealing and grain dealers was thoroughly examined by the Canada Grains Council, a body appointed by this government at the time of the last election. I personally felt at that time that the appointment of the grains council was rather a political thing; but the government has made an attempt to solicit from the grains council what might be considered wise counsel in the drafting of this bill.
I should like to read what the grains council had to say in regard to this question, and perhaps others, as reported in committee proceedings No. 34 at page 9. The Canada Grains Council was discussing the study that had been made and had this to say:
The Canada Grains Council, at the request of the Minister of Agriculture, undertook a thorough review of the old Canada Grain Act and, more recently, a review of Bill C-196. During this review, 45 meetings have been held by the Canada Grain Act Committee in conjunction with other associations. The details of these meetings are contained in the document I am now reading and the report before you.
This was a report that they filed with the committee, with a sheaf of amendments, some 50 in number.
Based on the meetings held and the personnel involved, it is estimated that the review of the Canada Grain Act by the Canada Grains Council consumed 4,320 man hours, equivalent to 2.2 man years. Therefore, the report being presented to this Committee today represents a comprehensive review of the legislation affecting Canadian grain by personnel knowledgeable of, and intimately affected by, such legislation.
They go on to make a number of suggestions. The brief of the Canada Grains Council has this to say, as reported at page 10:
In the submission to the Grains Council, the CGA Committee was requested to express the great dissatisfaction of the industry to the limited deadlines set for study. To elaborate on that, gentlemen, we had all of the grains community that we could possibly approach in the short period of time for the preparation of this document, actively engaged in sessions, many of which were delayed for various reasons, some because of the inability to get copies of Bill C-196.
That statement immediately brings to mind our inability all summer long to get copies of Bill C-197. But that is another matter with which I shall not deal at this moment. The brief continues:
I appreciate in this day and age that we have means of communication but these things do hap-

October 7, 1970
Canada Grain Act
pen, and we do have some difficulty occasionally approaching all of the grains community, particularly members of the producer group who do not have ready access to information at times.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
In the same committee proceedings, at page 12 they say-this is very important because this is a board and council set up to advise the government-in their concluding remarks:
Reports received from various reporting subcommittees appear almost unanimous that the Governor in Council and the Canadian Grain Commission have been invested with powers which in present form, appear too broad. There is genuine concern that strict adherence to the letter of the proposed legislation, as presently formulated, could impose restraints and decrease, rather than increase, the efficiency of the grain handling system.
Let me repeat those words for emphasis, "decrease, rather than increase, the efficiency of the grain handling system." That statement was made by the most knowledgeable men in the grain trade. What persons compose the Canadian Grain Council? Who are they, and what do they do? They are comprised of producer groups, the UGG, the Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba wheat pools. In fact, up until very recently even the National Farmers' Union was a member of the Canada Grains Council. That organization withdrew its support for political reasons-something to do with their political survival. In any case, these are the most knowledgeable men in the trade. They state at page 12 that the study has been too rapid and that there is grave concern that if the bill is followed exactly it will impose restrictions and bring about decreased rather than increased efficiency in the grain handling system. This is a major complaint against this bill by these knowledgeable people who are directly responsible to their grain producers, the grain farmers.
I do not want to make a wide-ranging speech about this clause of the bill, but it provides that "grain dealer" means a person anywhere in Canada who handles western grain. Does this mean that "grain dealer" will include the Canadian feed board, commonly known as the eastern feed board, which was set up by this government a couple of years ago? Within this meaning they will be considered grain dealers. If this wording is interpreted correctly, they are grain dealers. I do not think this was ever the intent or that the grain commissioner should have authority over the eastern livestock feed board or the Canadian livestock feed board, whichever is the right name I certainly do not think that was the intent.
The old act was certainly worded differently. It stated, as my amendment suggests, that "grain dealer" means a person in the western division who for reward, on his own behalf or on behalf of others, deals in or handles western grain. This is part of the difficulty in trying to fully understand Bill C-196. To me it causes a great deal of confusion and will continue to do so unless some amendments are accepted. This is why myself and as others have felt that amendments ought to be made to it. The bill in its present form should not be allowed to pass quickly. Rather than facilitate a more clear understanding within the trade, this would cause great confusion.
This clause indicates that anybody, even, the eastern feed board, who handles western grain or is concerned with the distribution of western grain-even to a large extent throughout eastern Canada, Quebec, the Maritimes and Newfoundland-would be deemed to be a grain dealer. He would have to abide by the act and, I suppose, obtain a licence from the Board of Grain Commissioners. Surely that was never the intent. If it was the intent, the minister should say that everyone is covered, nobody misses out. He should make it clear that everybody has to obtain a licence to handle western grain, no matter in what part of Canada.
I should like to go along with this bill, but I want the government to clarify its position and accept some of these amendments. With certain amendments the bill would be a great deal more sensible. My amendment suggests that "grain dealer" means a person in the western division who handles western grain. That might be only a small improvement but it is one which would bring about greater clarity and acceptance across Canada. It would create less confusion and fear in the licensing system which will be established under this bill, particularly in eastern Canada including Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes. It is a small amendment but I urge the minister and the House to accept it. It involves the addition of the two words "western division". I seriously urge the House to forget its prejudice and accept this small amendment, because it will make for greater clarify in eastern Canada in respect of the handling of western grains.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson) is seeking the floor for the purpose of tabling a committee report. Does the House agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

October 7. 1970



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Second report of Special Committee on Environmental Pollution-Mr. Anderson.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-196, respecting grain, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture, motion No. 3 (Mr. Homer).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the
House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Before the question is put, Mr. Speaker, would the minister comment on the point I made? His fellow members may be looking to him for guidance in deciding how they vote. I think they pretty well accept my argument and I appreciate that, but I wonder whether the minister would clear up this matter.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the only comment I make is that amendment No. 3 was discussed in the committee on June 16, as reported at page 28 of report No. 40. It was defeated on June 16, as indicated at page 49 of that report.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All those in favour of motion No. 3 will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: In my
opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Pursuant to Standing Order No. 75(11), the recorded division on proposed motion No. 3 stands deferred.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Until when?
Canada Grain Act


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That Bill C-196, an act respecting grain, be amended by deleting subclause 50 of clause 2 and substituting therefor:
"(50) "weigh-over" means
(a)	in respect of a licensed primary elevator, the weighing up of all grain in the elevator;
(b)	in respect of a licensed terminal or transfer elevator the weighing up and inspecting of the grain, grain products and screenings contained therein for the purpose of determining the amount of grain of each grade, grain products and screenings therein for the purpose of determining the stock of each such grade in the elevator and whether there is an overage or shortage of grain of any grade, grain products or screenings."
He said: Mr. Speaker, for a moment or two I thought the House was about to adopt the amendment without hearing my persuasive arguments. Naturally, that would be very acceptable to me. This amendment is not quite as simple nor as clear as the last one. I say that for the benefit of those not fully knowledgeable on the question of weigh-overs and elevator companies. Having said it is not quite as clear, I hope hon. members will give me their undivided attention so that when I am through they will be very clear as to what this amendment purports to do.
The system regarding of weigh-overs has always been a very important part of the operations of the Board of Grain Commissioners. There is no question that in the grain trade this board has acted, in essence, as a policeman. Up until this time the board has been very careful in checking the grading, dockage and shrinkage to which producers may be subject at the elevators when they deliver their grain. In doing so, the weigh-overs in the elevators must be checked very closely to make certain there is no build-up of grain purchased over the years because of faulty scales or by taking off too much for dockage, and so on. It may well build up. The bill before the House of Commons suggests that weigh-over means the weighing and inspection of all grains of any grade. Grades and grain in a terminal elevator may well change, because the primary elevators today have the right to mix grain. If I take in a load of No. 4 wheat and my neighbour takes in a load of No. 2, the primary elevator can mix those two grades and come up with a No. 3 grade.
Up until this time in the terminal elevators the first four grades of wheat could be mixed, but in the primary elevators, to which this clause applies, there can be no mixing because the clause says that weigh-over means the weighing and inspection of all grain of any grade in an elevator. Basically,

October 7, 1970
Canada Grain Act
my amendment suggests that the words "of any grade" be taken out particularly when they refer to primary elevators. The proposed amendment to this clause will distinguish between weigh-overs which occur at primary elevators as opposed to terminal elevators. This distinction is important because the Board of Grain Commissioners must inspect weigh-overs in each type of elevator.
This clause of the bill does not make any such distinction, although there is a distinct difference in the procedure at terminal elevators and country elevators. Until this time the terminal elevators have not been allowed to mix the four first grades of wheat. The primary elevators can mix them, and therefore there might be overages or losses in respect of a given grade at the time of weigh-over in a particular primary elevator. Basically, that is the purport of the amendment.
On this and other points it is interesting to note what the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool representatives had to say in their brief, as reported at pages 99 and 100 of report No. 34 of the proceedings of the Committee on Agriculture. Mr. McLeod, research co-ordinator of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, made the statement to which I refer. The suggestion has been made in the House this afternoon that this bill will not benefit the producers. This is what the Saskatchewan wheat pool, which is directly responsible to its membership and producers participating in the pool, had to say about this clause. I quote from page 100 of the proceedings and evidence of the committee:
It would appear that the extensive powers proposed would place a very heavy load of responsibility on the shoulders of members of the proposed Canadian Grain Commission for wide-ranging decisions affecting a very large and very important Canadian industry.
They go on to say that very great care must be taken in regard to appointments to the Canadian Grain Commission, perhaps even more care than has been taken in past years. I just point that out. Even the largest producer-owned co-op handling grain in western Canada admits that this bill gives wide-ranging powers to the Canadian Grain Commission which it did not have until this time. The wide-ranging powers are there because losses and overages do occur. Until this time weigh-ups have been a regular part of the duties of the Board of Grain Commissioners. There should be no misunderstanding. If wide-ranging powers to operate something are to be given by the government, Parliament or the people there should be no misunderstanding

in the interpretation and in the wording of the bill. Subclause 50 of clause 2 provides that a weigh-over means the weighing and inspection of all grain of any grade in an elevator for the purpose of determining the amount in stock of grain of that grade in the elevator. It does not distinguish between terminal and primary elevators, and it is a "must" that that distinction be made because in one elevator there has been freedom to mix.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Even after this bill passes, in the terminal elevators there will be mixing only under special conditions and under the supervision of the Board of Grain Commissioners. But no supervision is carried on now, and even if this bill should pass there would be no supervision of mixing at the primary elevators; any man could mix as he desired. So there is in the two types of elevators a distinction between the operations in the mixing of grades. Therefore, this clause should be amended before such wide-ranging powers are given to the board.
I do not profess to know too much about the grain handling business; I just sell wheat to the elevators once in a while. I am not hooked on Operation Lift. I do know that this clause in the bill is not clear and I hope I have cleared it up in the minds of hon. members. I also hope that the minister will act in a spirit of co-operation, which I know at times he can develop. I hope he understands the point I am trying to make, that a distinction must be made between primary and terminal elevators. I dealt with this point in the committee and I urged the government to consider the point I am now making. This is not an earthshaking amendment; it will not block the operations of the Board of Grain Commissioners but, rather, it will clarify the wide-ranging powers that this bill would give to the board.
If we are giving the board such wide-ranging powers we should at least make them clear, so that those powers are used in the best interests of the producers of Canada. I am not asking for a great change in the bill or that the bill to be scrapped. This is just a small amendment to clarify the duties of the board that will be set up under the act. Surely the minister and the House can see some logic in the arguments that I have put forward in this regard. I hope that hon. members who are not knowledgeable regarding the grain trade now see the reason for the amendment I propose and will support it.
October 7. 1970


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Surely my persuasive argument has not been made in vain and the minister will comment on it without referring to a page in the committee's proceedings.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I must remind the hon. member that his point was made earlier. If the minister wishes to rise to speak to the point, he can do so. The Chair cannot call on the minister to speak.


Gerald William Baldwin: We will allow him unlimited time, if he wants it.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I will reply to the hon. member. In spite of his eloquence he forgot to say one thing, that is, that his amendment is designed to limit the weigh-ins or weigh-overs at primary elevators to the total grain stored in that elevator, and in my view that is unacceptable.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Are they going to weigh-over other grain that is not stored in the elevator?


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75 (11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain) moved:: That Bill C-196, an act respecting grain, be amended by striking out the word "pleasure" in line 39, page 9 thereof, and substituting therefor the words "good behaviour for ten years".
He said: Mr. Speaker, my amendment this afternoon, although a short one, is very important. But before making my comments
Canada Grain Act
to support the amendment I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) for his comprehensive review last night of a number of amendments now on the Order Paper which ran contrary to the dissertation and pleadings of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) in trying to defend himself against the 44 amendments now on the Order Paper.
I would also like to compliment the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) who this afternoon brought to the attention of the House and a number of hon. members who were not aware of them, some of the constitutional inadequacies in this bill which would make it impossible for the House to pass it. This prevents our making progress so far as these amendments are concerned.
I was quite concerned and in fact astonished at the glaringly political speech of my friend and colleague from Saskatchewan who spoke this afternoon. He left the impression that God is in his heaven and all is right with the world. I suggest that there would not be 44 amendments on the Order Paper if everything was right with this bill. True enough, we had considerable discussion in the Standing Committee on Agriculture, but even there it was only after pleading with the chairman of the committee that I, as a temporary member of the committee, could persuade the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) and the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas) that we should not proceed without hearing witnesses.
When we did hear them, one of the main organizations referred to this afternoon by the hon. member for Crowfoot, the Canada Grains Council, presented no less than 83 amendments to this so-called perfect bill, 50 major amendments and 33 minor ones. I say this just to give an example of how defective is this bill. Therefore, I am not making any apology to the government or to any member of the House for supporting my colleagues and for asking that further consideration be given to amending some of these defects?
My amendment to Bill C-196 deals with the appointment of commissioners to the new Canadian Grain Commission and, more specifically, relates to their tenure of office. I shall read my amendment to clause 3 of the bill. Part I, setting up the Canadian Grain Commission, is entitled "Constitution of the Commission and Commissioners", and clause 3 reads as follows:
There shall be a commission to be known as the Canadian Grain Commission consisting of three commissioners to be appointed by the Governor in Council to hold office during pleasure.

October 7, 1970
Royal Assent
This commission is at the very heart of the bill and the success of the bill depends on it, because the interpretation and the application of this legislation will be no better and no worse than the people we appoint to the commission. Therefore, this is a very important amendment. It reads:
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
That Bill C-196, an act respecting grain, be amended by striking out the word "pleasure" in line 39, page 9 thereof, and substituting therefor the words "good behavior for ten years."
As I said, Mr. Speaker, the present proposed clause suggests that these men be appointed at pleasure. I wish to make the following points to support my amendment. There is always considerable difficulty in finding qualified personnel unless a reasonable tenure of office is assured. Appointment at pleasure is too indefinite. Normally it takes several years of experience in a new post, at first hand in a job like this, before a man can be expected to contribute his maximum effort. Under the present clause nominees may just be reaching the peak of their efficiency and may then be replaced, as the Prime Minister did recently in his shuffling of Parliamentary Secretaries.
By accepting my amendment this government and any succeeding government would be relieved of any temptation to practice political patronage. Last but not least, a member of the commission should have a longer tenure of office guaranteed than at pleasure, for another important reason.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Lieutenant Colonel A. Fortier, Assistant Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, it is the desire of the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General that this honourable House attend him immediately in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
In the Senate chamber, the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An Act to provide for the establishment of a Standards Council of Canada.
An act to amend the Canada Corporations Act and other statutory provisions related to the subject matter of certain of those amendments.
[Mr. Southam.j
An act respecting Hudson's Bay Company.
An act to exempt certain shipping conference practices from the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act.
To these bills the royal assent was pronounced by the Clerk of the Senate in the following words:
In Her Majesty's name, the Right Honourable the Deputy Governor General doth assent to these bills.

[Stage Direction]
After which the Deputy Governor General was pleased to close the second session of the twenty-eighth Parliament of Canada with the following speech:
Honourable Members of the Senate:
Members of the House of Commons:
The second session of the twenty-eighth Parliament was opened on October 23, 1969. During this period, you have approved legislation of far-reaching importance to the well-being of Canada and all Canadians, and you have considered a number of significant policy proposals for the future.
Canadians were honoured by the visit of Her Majesty the Queen, the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Edinburgh and the Princess Anne, all of whom assisted in the celebrations of the Centenary of the Province of Manitoba and of the Northwest Territories. Their visit to our northern and arctic regions helped to remind the people of Canada of this vast frontier's great potential for growth and development.
Recognizing the promise of the North, you have enacted legislation to promote its development. You have enacted amendments to the Yukon Act, the Northwest Territories Act, and the Territorial Lands Act to provide the residents of those territories with greater responsibility in the administration of their respective governments. You have enacted amendments to the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, and have passed the Northern Inland Waters Act, and the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act in order to assure that the development of the North's abundant resources will not be accompanied by destruction of its undespoiled environment.
Your concern for the quality of our environment in all regions of Canada also moved you to enact the Canada Water Act which will provide the framework for the preservation and restoration of this most essential of our resources.
You have adopted a number of measures to assist the development as well as the conservation of our natural resources. You have enacted the Saltfish Act and amendments to the Fisheries Act and the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. You have amended the Territorial Seas and Fishing Zones Act creating, in so doing, new, exclusive fishing zones and protecting this resource from the danger of total depletion.
In order to provide for the more effective administration of our energy resources, you have enacted amendments to the National Energy Board
October 7, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Act and have passed the Dominion Coal Board Dissolution Act. To offer protection from possible hazards resulting from the development of our energy resources, you have passed the Nuclear Liability Act.
In addition to your actions for the responsible development of our resources and preservation of our environment, you have enacted legislation intended to protect and assist the consumer and improve the quality of our life. You have passed the Textile Labelling Act, the Radiation Emitting Devices Act and the Standards Council of Canada Act. You have received for consideration Proposals for Metric Conversion in Canada in order that our country can study the advantages of adopting this widely accepted basis for international measurement and standardization. You have enacted the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a measure which will make more secure, travel on our highways, and assist in combatting air pollution in our cities.
Protection of the fundamental liberties of all Canadians was extended by amendments to the Criminal Code with respect to hate propaganda, and by the passage of the Expropriation of Land Act. By enacting the Criminal Records Act, and amendments to the Supreme Court Act, you provided for more effective and enlightened reform of offenders and for the better administration of justice. In order that our laws can be reviewed more comprehensively and made to respond more quickly to the needs of a rapidly changing society, you passed the Law Reform Commission Act.
You have taken steps to assist the farmers of Canada by enacting the Prairie Grain Provisional Payment Act 1969-70 and amendments to the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act. You approved Operation Lift which brought financial relief to hard-pressed farmers by reducing production costs and stockpiles of grain.
You provided further assistance towards the education of our young people when you enacted amendments to the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act and to the Canada Student Loans Act.
Constantly aware of the need to maintain high standards of health for the people of Canada, you enacted amendments to the Canada Shipping Act (Part V) and you passed the Quarantine Act. Deep concern about the harmful effects on the individual and society of the non-medical use of drugs moved the Government to receive the Interim Report of the Commission of Inquiry into this controversial subject.
By enacting the Statute Law (Supplementary Retirement Benefits) Amendment Act 1970, you provided more adequate pensions for public servants who have devoted their energies to the service of our nation.
Consistent with Canada's desire to strengthen the effectiveness of the United Nations, the Government submitted proposals for the procedural and organisational reform of the General Assembly. In the world body, Canadian representatives exercised a leading role in negotiations to achieve international agreement on the peaceful use of the seabed and ocean floor.
Following a comprehensive review of Canada's external relations, the Government continued to undertake new diplomatic initiatives in different parts of the world. A ministerial mission was dispatched to the Caribbean and negotiations were continued with the representatives of the People's
Prorogation of Parliament Republic of China with the aim of establishing formal diplomatic relations with that government. Consistent with its desire to give full expression to two official languages and to exchange cultural and technological information with the franco-phonie, the Government ratified the Convention of the Agency for Cultural and Technical Cooperation among French-speaking countries.
The Prime Minister visited with Secretary-General U Thant at the United Nations. The Government's desire to expand diplomatic and trade relations with the countries of the Pacific rim was illustrated by the Prime Minister's visit to New Zealand, Australia, Malaysia, Singapore, and Japan, including Expo '70 at Osaka.
The Prime Minister and his colleagues received a number of leaders of other countries, including the President of Cameroun; the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom; the Premier of the British Honduras; and the Foreign Ministers of Israel, Upper Volta, and Turkey.
In order to assist the under-developed nations of the world, you have increased the total aid budget by sixteen per cent and undertaken to increase this budget year by year. You have enacted legislation creating the International Development Research Centre so that methods of assistance might be studied and improved.
The past year has been marked by an abatement of inflationary pressures. This was the direct result of the Government's economic policies and the strict control it has exercised over its own expenditures. Rising costs, however, continue to jeopardize price stability and the Government must not relax its efforts to bring about a greater consistency between future cost increases and productivity growth.
Favourable balance of payment trends led to a strengthening of the Canadian dollar. Upward pressure on the dollar intensified this year and on May 31, 1970, the Canadian dollar was allowed to seek its natural level. The Canadian Government declared, however, that it intended to resume its obligations under the IMF articles of agreement when circumstances would permit.
You have continued in your efforts to eliminate regional economic disparities and to encourage the development of our economy. You have enacted amendments to the Industral Research and Development Incentives Act. You have also enacted amendments to the Small Business Loans Act, to the Quebec Savings Bank Act, to the Foreign Insurance Companies Act, the Trust Companies Act, the Loans Companies Act and to the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act.
You have made provision for a more just and equitable administration of our financial and commercial affairs by enacting amendments to the Bills of Exchange Act and the Canada Corporations Act.
Committees of both the House of Commons and the Senate have considered the Government's Proposals for Tax Reform and have made recommendations thereon. Committees in the Senate have continued their studies of the mass media, of poverty, and of science policy. In the House of Commons, committees have studied a great variety of matters including veterans' pensions, interest rates, external affairs, defence policy, electronic eavesdropping, and unemployment insurance.
The Constitutional Conference continued the difficult task of seeking a national political con-
[Stage Direction]
October 7, 1970
Prorogation of Parliament sensus that will reflect the needs and aspirations of all Canadians. To assist in achieving this objective, you have established a Special Joint Committee on the Constitution.
Many other important initiatives have been taken during this session; much legislation of administrative importance has also been enacted; we have accomplished a great deal. But our immense task has only begun. We must continue to work together, to combine our strength, our will, and our imagination in the building of a peaceful, dynamic and prosperous society.
Members of the House of Commons:
I thank you for the provision you have made for the public services in the previous and the current fiscal year.
Honourable Members of the Senate:
Members of the House of Commons:
May Divine Providence continue to bless our country.
This concluded the second session of the twenty-eighth Parliament.