1970-06-17

PRIVILEGE


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege in respect of which I have given Your Honour notice. It relates to the extent to which a report which is to be given today by the Minister of Labour and/or accompanying material were made available to or obtained by the press some time before the minister was due to make the statement today.
To begin with, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the information I have is that the publication and also radio reports took place at a time that would indicate that this material must have been in the hands of the people who used it either last night or early this morning. We have here another instance of the extent to which matters which should be withheld until they are made public in the House are made available to outside sources.
Mr. Speaker, not in anticipation of this event but because of the gravity of the situation I read what was said yesterday in respect of the question of the pre-publication of documents and material which should be withheld until the time of presentation in the House. I have read what Your Honour said and what was said by others. I was the first person to raise the question last Friday in connection with the matter of the LeDain report.
I submit that what has happened today places a completely different picture on the situation. This is a repetition, and the situation has become so serious that Your Honour, this House and all of us must take the most careful note of what has happened and is happening as well as the effect it is having on this institution. Are Parliament and this House to be only a peg for the purpose of our being regaled by the public relations' competition of ministers and other people? Mr. Speaker, I do not like to think so. I do not like to think it is just a matter of competing political personalities, squabbling, shoving 22478-29$
and squealing like pigs in a trough for a position of advantage. I think this is a place for grave and deliberate debate dealing with the affairs of the people of Canada.
[DOT] (2:10p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gerald William Baldwin: It may well be that the people of Canada think differently. I do not believe so. I think they rely on this place as a forum for proper intervention between the government and the people. God knows, there has been a rapid enough deterioration of the parliamentary process during the course of the last little while. Therefore this situation should be faced in the most serious way. I think this practice has to stop and I hope we are all agreed on that. I hope the government agrees that it has to stop.
Your Honour made a decision yesterday with which I am in agreement. 1 feel that there must be some way to deal with this situation. I am not in a position now to attach any blame to the minister. The motion I propose to move, if accepted, will give him the opportunity he should have to appear before a committee and make a statement indicating what in his view did take place. But I say that this practice must come to a stop.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell):
That the question of the manner and nature in which the report and accompanying material of the Minister of Labour in connection with unemployment insurance was obtained by or made available for the media prior to a statement of the minister in the House be referred to the Committee on Procedure and Organization and that the committee do make an interim report on this on or before June 26, 1970.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minisier of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of attention to the hon. member for Peace River and I share his views to a large degree. As Minister of Labour I could say with accuracy that the source of the information which was printed in the Toronto Star early edition today did not come from me, did not come from my personal staff, nor did it come from
8212	COMMONS
New Unemployment Insurance Program any official or member of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. But like the hon. member for Peace River I have been a member of this House for eight years, first as a backbencher, then as a Parliamentary Secretary and recently as minister, and like the hon. member and others in this House I have a great degree of affection and respect for the traditional rights of the House of Commons.
I may be considered a traditionalist or a conservative in my view that the House of Commons has been downgraded all too frequently. I know that one of the rules of the House is that the word of an hon. gentleman is accepted without question. But this is can only remain valid if ministers and other members of the House are honest, frank and open.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: So it is tempting simply to say that as a result of investigations I have made I have found that the source of information to which the hon. gentleman quite properly takes objection did not come from my office, did not come from myself in person, and did not come from anyone associated with the Unemployment Insurance Commission, and I would then have the full right to expect that to be accepted. But since I believe that to be objective and consistent we should be frank and open, I think the House is entitled to an explanation as to how this information came to appear in the Toronto Star.
I think it has been customary when tabling white papers, which are a medium of communication of the government, to place an embargo on the Press Gallery and to take them into full and absolute confidence before the fact. This is not a new procedure. This is a procedure that has been in effect since time immemorial, and it is one that the Press Gallery as well as Members of Parliament respect, or should respect.
On this particular occasion, Mr. Speaker, two members representing the electronic medium contacted my department yesterday to find out whether they should pre-empt time this evening, after the fact of tabling the report, if this white paper was deemed to be of sufficient interest to the Canadian public. I felt that this was something that only they could determine. So they were invited to the Department of Labour and made acquainted with some of the highlights, under the same

DEBATES	June 17, 1970
type of embargo that was placed on members of the Press Gallery this morning.
One of the two people thus privileged respected that embargo. The other presumably honourable gentleman presumed to take these two pamphlets and give them to a reporter of the Toronto Star. So I think the question of privilege is one that members of the Press Gallery should want to raise amongst themselves-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: -because, Mr. Speaker, we have a good press gallery collectively. They depend on their relationship with Members of Parliament, and to a great degree we depend on their integrity. If there is to be a breakdown in that communication because of a lack of integrity on either side, that happy relationship will come to an end.
All I can do is apologize to the House for this unhappy occurrence, this unexpected and certainly unpredictable leak.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, in light of what the minister has said about the situation, I would not be unwilling to withdraw my motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: I believe I have done my duty as I have seen it. The terms of the general motion which was before the House, moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, may well permit the standing committee to conduct that full and impartial inquiry which is so essential and in light of which I made the remarks that I did.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is grateful to the hon. member for Peace River in that I am not now placed in the position where I have to make a difficult ruling. I would suggest to hon. members, in view of the fact that a motion which is very close to this one is before the Committee on Procedure and Organization, that perhaps that committee would take it upon itself to look into both situations brought to the attention of the House yesterday and today.



MR. KORCHINSKI-OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN DISCUSSION IN AGRICULTURAL COMMITTEE

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which I believe affects all Members of Parlia-
June 17, 1970
ment. It arises out of the fact that I was denied, as a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, during consideration of Bill C-196 in a clause by clause study, by the vice-chairman of the agricultural committee who was in the chair at the time, an opportunity to participate in a discussion on a clause of the bill to which an amendment had been proposed, despite repeated requests by me directed to the Chair for recognition.
The incident arose during last night's sitting of the committee on Agriculture. An amendment had been proposed by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). In fairness to the chairman I should say that I was granted one opportunity to comment on the amendment, after the opening remarks by the mover of the amendment.
Subsequently the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) presented his rebuttal to the amendment, at which time certain arguments were presented which I felt should have been corrected. I requested recognition from the Chair and patiently awaited my turn for recognition. However, after points of order had been raised during which I participated, at the conclusion of my contribution to the points of order I requested that I be heard at the appropriate time on the amendment to the pertinent clause which was under discussion. The present committee system and the reporting of the proceedings do not permit me to produce the report of the proceedings, which would attest to the fact that I verbally requested recognition before the amendment was put, because the report is not yet printed.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
Under the previous system where the entire membership of the House participated in clause by clause discussions it may not have been necessary for a member to rise on several occasions to present arguments for or against a particular clause of a bill because other members had an opportunity to contribute and often covered the point. You will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that this practice was allowed and that on no occasion was a member denied the right to speak, and only when all arguments had been assessed was the question put.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley James Korchinski: Under our present committee system the Committee on Agriculture has on it eight members of the official opposition, which is 11 per cent of the total composition of the membership of the official opposition in
Agricultural Committee Discussions the House of Commons. Because of the inability of the other 89 per cent of members to be present during committee proceedings because of commitments to other committees, the case for presenting arguments for or against a clause rests heavily on those members who comprise the committee.
In hearing evidence presented in the form of briefs there has been an arrangement worked out whereby equal opportunity has been granted to all members to participate in the questioning of witnesses. This had general approval by members of all parties in the committee. However, when the committee is charged with the responsibility of studying a bill and a clause by clause study is being carried on, the situation is somewhat different from the hearing of briefs. Because of the heavy responsibility that is placed on individual members of our party, who constitute only a small percentage of our total membership in the House, adequate opportunity should be granted for a thorough discussion of a given bill.
I was denied that opportunity to pursue an argument following a statement by the Minister of Agriculture. The vice-chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, who was in the chair at the time, showed his political bias by ignoring requests by me for recognition to speak on the particular clause and allowing himself to be guided by the persuasion of the supporters of the government to put the question.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Stanley James Korchinski: The majority of the government members on the Committee on Agriculture last night were members who have displayed little interest in the grain industry and who, because of their background, have a limited knowledge of the consequences of the passage of this bill. The bulk of the government supporters appeared to have only one interest in mind, and that was the swiftest passage of the bill through committee in order that it may be brought back to the House prior to the summer adjournment. It was suggested by a member who was drafted to the committee last night that a time limit be imposed on the proceedings.
Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is complicated by the fact that all the rules that have been drafted in the House pertain to the proceedings of the House of Commons. The rules are not drafted to take into account committee proceedings. To argue that the committee is master of its own proceedings

8214	COMMONS
Agricultural Committee Discussions leaves a member, who has a greater responsibility in particular during consideration of a bill than would be imposed upon him had the proceedings been undertaken in the House, without the protection that other members have who participate in House deliberations. The House, through an order, granted me the right to sit on the committee as a member and to participate in all the deliberations and votes in that committee. By denying me the right to speak, the chairman of the day denied a ruling of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley James Korchinski: I think you will agree with me that there is now and has been in the past a feeling that Your Honour has, as have other Speakers, displayed a sense of fairness in allowing equal opportunity to all members of the House of Commons, who have the right and the duty to speak on all matters during consideration in the House or in committee.
In the House of Commons, when it is intended to impose closure on debate, proper notice is usually given. This is not the case in committees, and members of committees are then at the mercy of the majority of government supporters who are preoccupied with the idea of getting the bill out of committee and back into the House before the summer recess.
In the past I have raised other questions of privilege pertaining to the committee system.
I believe I have no other recourse than to appeal to you on this occasion to display a sense of justice and allow this question of privilege. If you so rule, I would be prepared to move the following motion seconded by the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth):
That the committee proceedings, particularly as they apply to the study of bills, be reviewed by the Procedure and Organization Committee in order to establish certain guidelines for the protection of all members of the committee which would be comparable to the protection afforded by Your Honour during proceedings in the House of Commons or by the chairman during proceedings in the Committee of the Whole.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the point raised by the hon. member for Mackenzie concerning incidents that would have occurred at last night's regular sitting of the Committee on Agriculture, I should like to reply at least to the reference the hon. member made to my behaviour as chairman of that committee, to

DEBATES	June 17, 1970
the effect that one of the rulings I handed down in the course of the proceedings was biased.
The hon. member claims that the chairman was not fair to the members of the opposition who wished to take part in the clause by clause discussion on Bill C-196.
I wish to point out to the House that I have never prevented anyone from availing himself of his privileges and his rights. In all fairness, however, I believe that a committee chairman must direct the debates so as to divide the time available among the committee members; more particularly, he must give every member the opportunity of expressing the views of this party as well as his own on the legislation under study. That is what 1 have been trying to do and that is what I will try to do again if I continue to sit as Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture. When hon. members read the proceedings of last night's committee meeting and read what was said between 8 and 10:30 p.m. they will realize that opposition members and particularly the hon. member for Mackenzie had ample opportunity to express their views on the four clauses that were examined during the evening. The hon. member himself admitted that he had participated in the debate on the clause in question. He contends that I prevented him from taking a greater part in the debate, that he asked to be recognized before the question was put on the clause concerned. He may have done so and I did not see him. In any event, the member had the opportunity to talk on that clause as any other member and I do not think I failed in my duty as chairman of the committee. I do not have a guilty conscience about the work I did last night.


Mr. Woolliams:: Don't give us that nonsense. I never heard anything like it.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Mackenzie has presented his case in a very clear way and the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean has expounded his position in reply to the matter brought to the attention of the House by the hon. member for Mackenzie. This is a particularly difficult situation. As the hon. member for Mackenzie has quite rightly said, while our Standing Orders apply generally to our debates and proceedings in the House of Commons, there is very little said about proceedings in committees. I believe it is recognized, and the Standing Orders so provide, that the rules which apply to the governing of
June 17, 1970	COMMONS
debates in the House also apply to the debates which take place in committees, and members, chairmen and acting chairmen are subject to the same rules there as they are in the House of Commons.
Whether the matter might be looked into further by a committee of the House or the Committee on Procedure and Organization, as suggested by the hon. member, is another question. I assure him that I consider this as a serious matter. If hon. members agree, I should like to have an opportunity to look into it a little more closely and, if hon. members do not think it an untoward action, to have a discussion with the Clerk of the committee, receive a report from him, and perhaps look at the evidence. At that time it might be easier for the Chair to determine whether this is the kind of situation that ought to be considered by the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. I must say that while, generally speaking, it is a commendable action for the House to refer to a committee a matter of principle on which there can be debate in the committee and a recommendation made to the House, I have always had some hesitation about suggesting that proceedings in one committee be considered by another committee. I wonder what might come of it.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
The motion proposed by the hon. member is very sensible in that the hon. member does not ask that an investigation be carried out in this particular instance, but rather that the general application of our Standing Orders to committees should be studied by the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. It may well be that hon. members might agree that this question ought to be studied by that committee. With the consent of the House I will take the matter under advisement, study the evidence and communicate with the House later on this subject.


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in connection with the ruling, there was an occasion last week of which Your Honour is aware and I have some reason to know that it is an impropriety to make critical remarks within this House about the conduct of a chairman of a committee. In the course of his remarks, the hon. member for Mackenzie made an allegation of partiality against the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Agriculture. I do not intend to propose a motion at this point in view of the ruling of the Chair, but I would like to
DEBATES	8215
New Unemployment Insurance Program bring this question to Your Honour's attention. In view of that allegation, and the clear rule of this House, I think the House will also have to consider the remarks of the hon. member for Mackenzie this afternoon. They are clearly against the rule.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether we should pursue the matter. I will look into all aspects of the situation. I can assure the President of the Privy Council, the hon. member for Mackenzie and the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean that I will look into the situation and either reach a decision or make a ruling which might be acceptable to hon. members.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government, it gives me great pleasure to table a white paper outlining a proposed new unemployment insurance program. My statement is rather brief.
The plan is the culmination of a relatively long period of consultation and study. It takes into account a number of the recommendations in the report of the Gill Committee and incorporates many representations received from labour, management and other interested groups.
The proposals contained in the white paper confirm the desire of this government to promote social policies that build the country not simply for progress but for people, people who must be adequately nourished, whose potential must be met and whose children must be well educated and, above all, people who must have jobs. The new emphasis will be on individual development coupled with adequate income support.
To this end, the plan will provide for a series of up to three interviews for all those who suffer from interruptions of earnings due to loss of work. These interviews are intended primarily to aid the individual in his search for employment. They will also help, however, to identify those persons who should not be receiving benefits.
8216	COMMONS
New Unemployment Insurance Program
Coverage will become universal. Some will call this an unnecessary imposition on those who apparently are secure in their employment. Perhaps they need not fear unemployment in the classical sense. But surely there is no one any more who can say with certainty that he or she will never suffer a temporary interruption of earnings.
The benefit rates are to be substantially increased in order to provide meaningful income support during the employment search or training period.
The benefit rate will be two-thirds of average wages during the qualifying period, rising to three-quarters in the later stages for persons with dependants. The maximum benefit, however, will be $100 per week.
Employee contributions will be significantly lower than at present while the employer cost will vary from well below the present costs to slightly higher, depending on their lay-off pattern. For example, the employee who earns $100 per week presently pays $1.40, this will be reduced to 79 cents under the new plan. The employer now pays $1.40 for that same employee and this rate could drop to as low as 79 cents. Persons already in the labour force excluded under the present Act will enter at a preferred contribution rate with a maximum of 50 cents per week.
Benefits will also be extended to those who suffer loss of income due to sickness, pregnancy and retirement. These benefits will be for a 15-week maximum, with the exception of the retirement benefit which will consist of a three-week lump sum.
In harmony with our intention to return to the insurance principle, certain welfare features that have crept into the plan will be discontinued. For example, the seasonal benefits as well as the provisions that permitted retired persons to draw up to 18 months of benefits will be dropped. However, eligibility will be expanded to allow those persons with as few as eight employment weeks to draw some benefit.
In addition, the government is not only proposing to help the unemployed and the less advantaged by providing an expanded system of income support during an adjustment process, it is also ready to assume the cost of extra unemployment insurance benefits when national unemployment rates exceed 4 per cent or when regional unemployment is over 4 per cent and exceeds the national average by more than 1 per cent.

DEBATES	June 17, 1970
Finally, it is important to point out that the 4 per cent level is not to be taken as a rate of unemployment acceptable to the government. A benchmark of 4 per cent, based on a long term average national unemployment rate, was used to set the lower limit for government contribution. It is in no way intended to be a definition of full employment for the economy.
I cannot, Mr. Speaker, in the time allotted to me, even attempt to outline the proposals in detail. However, a measure as comprehensive as this one deserves the immediate attention of all Canadians, especially those who are in the most pressing need of a more effective unemployment insurance program. With this in mind, I would hope there might be immediate agreement among the members to refer the white paper to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my thanks to the minister for his kind co-operation and courtesy in forwarding a copy of his statement to this side of the House. This is not an unusual action for this minister. Also, I wish to commend him on his forthright and refreshing statement today concerning the matter raised by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). His frankness and honesty should be noted by some of his colleagues.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Muir: This is a welcome statement, Mr. Speaker, however long overdue. In fact, it is approximately eight years overdue. After much labouring "mountainous Mackasey" has brought forth not a mouse but a Trojan horse. This Trojan horse appears to be a gift to the masses. However, with this government nothing of that sort can be accepted without criticism. The white paper on higher taxation is an example.
I wish first to deal with the good aspects. Improvement and rationalization of benefits is good, as well as the reference to cleaning up the funds welfare aspects and putting emphasis on more clearcut insurance principles. Many will undoubtedly welcome the provision for payments in the case of pregnancy. Certainly, some improvement was required in this area. It will be popular. However, the committee will have to make a long and careful study of this aspect.
June 17. 1970

[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
We also welcome the attempt to encourage employers to phase out lay-offs more carefully than is sometimes the case. Here I refer to previous comments made in the House by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) and also the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) in reply to representations made about the matter by hon. members on this side. I refer particularly to the Hawker-Siddeley close-out in the city of Sydney which overnight put 3,000 people out of work, the Dunlop decision in Toronto, and many similar situations across the country.
At this moment, the unemployment insurance scheme has far too many weaknesses and abuses built into it. The idea proposed of three job interviews for people drawing unemployment benefits will be a step in the right direction. We wonder whether this represents the final victory of the Minister of Labour over the Minister of Manpower. The minister, quite correctly, placed emphasis on individual development. With this attention to full and meaningful employment, the minister has properly extended the perspective of this white paper to include responsibility for job placement, counselling and retraining. In doing so, he made reference to the Department of Manpower and Immigration and this is very timely.
However, I am very disappointed that he did not go further. The white paper speaks only of an efficient "pipeline" to the services and the responsibilities of the whole government, and this is not enough. If the minister is really ambitious about bringing our manpower, counselling and job opportunity efforts up to contemporary standards, the white paper should have gone much further. A counselling service under the aegis of the Unemployment Insurance Commission will be of little help if it is simply a referral service to the incompetent and inadequate Department of Manpower.
In accepting the totality of the challenge, the white paper should have either made a thorough analysis of the state of the manpower department or it should have called for an immediate and open investigation of the manpower department. This cannot be evaded. The Department of Manpower and Immigration is ultimately responsible for these services and it must be reformed. In fact, I would not hesitate to suggest that it should be reformed to the extent that this minister should be made responsible both for manpower and for unemployment insurance, because
8217
New Unemployment Insurance Program the present Minister of Manpower does not seem to have very much influence in the cabinet under this Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
Until we have further details we must remain cautious about the effects of this new scheme on workers who regularly undergo prolonged seasonal unemployment. While some mention is made of exempting selfemployed fishermen, we must have more details than are available to us at this time before being too enthusiastic about the proposals in this area.
However, if one wants to rationalize the universality of the scheme there should be no mistake about the effect. It is a great new tax increase being imposed on very substantial numbers of Canadians, at least 1.16 million wage earners. Whether they will be satisfied with the government's proposed attempts to buy them off with sickness and pregnancy insurance remains to be seen.
This Trojan horse is being paraded before us as reform of unemployment insurance. Many will be so concerned about seeing that present abuses are eliminated that the bootleg compulsory sickness insurance scheme may be overlooked. This scheme involves compulsory sickness insurance. It may be a good thing, but it is not something that this government should embark on without long and careful discussion by the members of this House, by the members of provincial governments who might well think this matter lies within their jurisdiction, and by the Canadian public. This proposal should receive the kind of thorough-going public attention that was accorded to the previous compulsory welfare schemes-pensions, hospital insurance and medical insurance.
I wonder where the Prime Minister's statement that there will be no more medicare fiascos stands now? This compulsory sickness insurance program has all the attributes of another medicare scheme. What of the costs involved here? We are led to believe that as long as unemployment remains below 4 per cent the new fund will be self-sustaining, that it will not require assistance from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Unemployment in this country has not been below 4 per cent, even at the best time of the year, for almost three years. This fund will require substantial amounts of money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Where will the fund get that money form? How much will it amount to? The government has not even given us any estimates. Does it not know? If it does not, then it is being horribly irresponsible here as

June 17, 1970
New Unemployment Insurance Program it has been in other matters. If it does know, the government is absolutely obligated to give us those estimates. The country must know what it is getting into.
It will be clear, I think, why I regard this program as a giant Trojan horse. It may very well be a pig-in-a-poke as well. I welcome the government's attempts to move positively in this area. However, I think we must insist on the most careful scrutiny and widest possible public discussion before we become committed. This discussion should take place only when all the facts are available.
One final note. The timing is rather interesting. Just before we might expect the next federal election the government promises goodies without pasting us all with the increased taxes that go with them. That is pretty blatant electioneering

and this far ahead, Mr. Speaker!
In conclusion, I am pleased to see the sizeable increase in benefits in relationship to weekly income. I am happy, too, that for the five million people covered there will be a fairly substantial reduction in weekly contributions. I am particularly pleased to see that the federal government will absorb the cost of the plan when the rate of national unemployment reaches 4 per cent. This feature should remind the Department of Finance that the high rate of unemployment which its fiscal and monetary policies have created will, as far as this plan is concerned, cost the federal government some substantial sums of money. Perhaps in the final analysis the minister and the government will reflect a little more on the implementation of fiscal and monetary policies of the sort that are causing large-scale unemployment in this country.
I also welcome the regional aspects of the plan which take into consideration the high rate of unemployment in less-favoured areas of the country. Likewise, I welcome the suggestion that this white paper be referred immediately to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration where the proposals can be studied in greater detail. I wish the minister well in his continuous battle with the millionaires row in the cabinet. In view of the comments made by the Prime Minister of this country and his callous attitude toward labour, I can only refer to that old Ukrainian folk saying: "The sheep are in trouble where the wolf is the shepherd."


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I should like first of all, on behalf of this party, to congratulate the minister for supplying us with a copy of his statement. I, too, am pleased that he made a forthright statement in the House today indicating that the confidential nature of this white paper had been breached by somebody else, not by himself. I am sure that as far as the many thousands of Canadians now unemployed, and the many more who expect to be unemployed in the near future, are concerned, as long as this government continues its 18th century policy the proposed reforms will be welcome.
I am sure many people across the country will welcome some of the reforms included in his announcement today. I am sure also that legislation is needed to protect the unemployed. But I suggest that provision of jobs would better protect the workers of the country than provisions to assist those who become unemployed, and it is the creation of such employment that should be our goal in a modern society.
The manpower policy of the government is urgently in need of reform, and perhaps the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen) will make a statement in the House about sweeping changes to be made in his policy in line with the proposals made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) today. I also hope that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration will give consideration to the fact that the statement made today recognizes the need of the people of Canada for a social policy. I hope, therefore, he will announce how his department is going to coordinate its efforts with those of the Department of Labour.
I further suggest that many of the responsibilities presently assumed by the Minister of Manpower should be transferred to the Minister of Labour so as to effect better co-ordination of effort in looking after those who are unemployed and who need retraining under the manpower retraining scheme. We fully realize that under the present circumstances unemployment insurance alone does not sufficiently meet the needs of the unemployed. They need retraining. There are too many areas in the manpower department-manpower mobility is an example-which should come under the Minister of Labour so that actions could be co-ordinated. We note that many of the proposals made are proposals in respect of which this party has been urging the government to take immediate action.
June 17, 1970	COMMONS
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
As the hon. member who just spoke said, some aspects of the plan are like the universal medicare scheme. I suggest to the minister that we would congratulate him and support him wholeheartedly if he were to bring in an unemployment insurance plan similar to the medicare plan to cover all Canadians. I am sure we are pleased to see the unemployment insurance program return to the original concept of insurance protection. While it is expected that fishermen will be excluded in time, we are also pleased to hear that for the present they will still be covered under this legislation. We will be waiting with interest to see what type of legislation will be brought in to cover the fishermen.
Without question, we in this party support the concept of universal coverage. I am pleased to note in the statement today that universal coverage is one of the main points the minister makes. We welcome without hesitation the fact that people who become ill when employed and women who are pregnant, sometimes, under difficult financial circumstances, will be looked after. We welcome the fact that those people who are now excluded will be included in this comprehensive plan. There is one aspect of this scheme about which many of us wonder and which will be discussed at length during the committee hearings. We question the reason why some of the selfemployed people are being left out. We welcome the fact that full-time housekeepers will be included. We agree with the idea of universal coverage and suggest that this white paper should be studied by the committee on manpower and labour so that consideration may be given to those points about which we have some questions.
[ Translation]


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, the minister's statement on the white paper includes several points which are worth emphasizing. However, as I have just seen that document and since it is referred to the committee for consideration, we will undoubtedly have the opportunity to study it thoroughly and state our views.
What has especially held my attention is the reference to universal coverage. I immediately thought of the Canadian workers, 7,000 or
8,000	of whom find work in the United States each year. For 20 years, representations have been made to the Canadian government to enable those workers to draw unemployment insurance benefits. So, if I understand the meaning of universal coverage, I presume 22478-30J
DEBATES	8219
New Unemployment Insurance Program that the provisions concerning the application of the regulations will be flexible enough for those citizens who cope, to a certain extent, with the present problem of unemployment in Canada by finding themselves a job in the United States to take advantage of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
There remains another point to be considered and which I have also noticed. It is the following statement:
In harmony with our intention to return to the insurance principle, certain welfare features that have crept into the plan will be discontinued.
I wonder whether the Unemployment Insurance Commission should not get a new name and simply be called an insurance company, because I doubt very much that this legislation will retain any social characteristics. The first concern is to look after the fund, as insurance companies usually do. That is fine, because it is their responsibility, but social legislation must take into greater account the needs of the unemployed and not the protection of the fund. I have seen this happen thousands of times while I was involved with the labour movement and also since I have been a member of the House of Commons.
I thank the minister for having made that statement, for having tabled the white paper, which we intend to consider. However, I wish the new act will be flexible so that the unemployed, who in most cases have not had the benefit of a higher education, can understand those provisions.



REFERENCE OF WHITE PAPER TO STANDING


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, in his comments the Minister of Labour suggested, and the suggestion seemed to find support, that the white paper he tabled should be referred to the committee. I wonder whether the House might be agreeable to giving unanimous consent to the following motion:
That the white paper on unemployment insurance tabled this day be referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the President of the Privy Council. Is the motion agreed to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
June 17, 1870
[Stage Direction]
Canada Labour (Safety) Code LABOUR CONDITIONS

Mr. Waller C. Carter (SI. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. This motion arises out of the desperate situation in which the 7,000 residents of the Argentia area have been placed by the United States government's announcement to phase down the American naval station at Argentia. The phase-down, which will be completed within 13 days, has affected the economy and prospects of the entire area. The government recognized the urgency of the situation by appointing a task force to go into the area and to report and recommend counter-economic measures. Early in May that task force reported to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. The
7,000	residents of the Argentia area, the various municipal authorities, and the Newfoundland government have not been advised what plans, if any, the government has to relieve their plight. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That this House urges the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion to forthwith table under S.O. 41 the Task Force Report on Argentia which was submitted to him by the Task Force early in May, 1970, and under motions this afternoon make a statement as to the government's intention to assist this economically crippled area.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for St. John's West. This motion can be considered only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity. The motion cannot be put.



CANADA LABOUR (SAFETY) CODE AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE SHIP REPAIR WORKERS, LONGSHOREMEN, ETC.

John Leroy Skoberg: for leave to introduce Bill C-223, to amend the Canada Labour (Safety) Code (Marine workers).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the only purpose of this bill is to ensure that all repair workers will be included under the legislation. There

appears at the present time to be a no-man's land. I am sure that with this clarification this bill will close the gap which is evident.


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

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

Mr. Thomas (Moncton): 1.	When was the committee studying air traffic patterns in the Atlantic Provinces set-up?
2.	What are the specific terms of reference of the committee?
3.	What is the expected date for the committee to make a final report?
4.	Will the report be made public?


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliameniary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. A study was commissioned to Professors Stevens and Wilson of the Department of Civil Engineering of the University of New Brunswick. Work on the study was commenced late in July, 1969. The contractual relationship is with ADI Limited of Fredericton, N.B. of which Professor Stevens is a Vice President.
2.	Terms of reference of the study are as follows: (a) An analysis of the existing transportation market by all modes, (b) The development of 20-year passenger traffic forecasts for all modes of transportation, including an estimate of the share of the aviation market, and the development of models for such forecasts. (c) A review of past and present air cargo traffic records, the establishment of trends and estimates of air cargo traffic twenty years in the future, (d) The development of a system of aviation services which would be compatible with the demand, (e) An examination of the compatibility of the airports system in southern New Brunswick with the future needs of aviation services, including recommendations on the development of such a system.
3.	A preliminary report has just been received and is now being studied by officials of the ministry. A final report is expected by the end of July.
4.	A decision has not yet been taken regarding the publication of this report.
June 17, 1970

Questions


DISPOSAL OF FERRY &quot;PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND&quot;
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	How many tenders were received for the purchase of the ferry, Prince Edward Island and, what was the amount of each?
2.	For what reason was this disposal handled by the CNR rather than Crown Assets Disposal Corporation?
3.	What was the cost of removing and transporting the wheel house and other parts for location at the National Museum of Science and Technology at Borden, P.E.I.?
4.	(a) Was any study made of the feasibility of beaching the ship at Borden for conversion to a museum and/or restaurant (b) what was the estimated cost of such a project?
5.	Did the Government of Prince Edward Island make any offer for the ferry, Prince Edward Island and, if so, in what amount?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Department of Transport and the National Museums of Canada as follows: 1. Eight bids were received ranging from $400 to $20,000.
2.	The ferry vessels are operated by Canadian National Railways on behalf of the Government and disposal of the vessels by CNR is an extension of this role.
3.	Cost $314.34 for transportation of wheel house and other parts by CNR from Borden, P.E.I., to Ottawa.
4.	No, not by Department of Transport. Negotiations were carried out between the two levels of Government with a view to the Province of Prince Edward Island acquiring the vessel. Subsequently, the Province indicated that it did not want to acquire the vessel.
5.	No.


TRANSPORT-PROJECTS PLANNED FOR CAPE BRETON-THE SYDNEYS
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton-: The Sydneys):
What projects are planned by the Department of Transport in the coming year in the constituency of Cape Breton-The Sydneys and what is the estimated cost of each project?


Gérard Loiselle: Sydney-South Bar, replacement of light tower and semiautomation, $40,700. Scatari light station, replacement of fog alarm building, $20,000. Louisburg light station, semi-automation, $14,000. Low Point light station, semi-automation, $16,600. Glace Bay light station, semiautomation, $7,000. Point Aconi light station, semi-automation, $6,700. Black Rock Point light station, semi-automation, $5,300. Wreck removal Point Edward, $70,000. Construction of passenger walkway between terminal and vessels at North Sydney, $150,000. Installation of 250 feet of chain link fencing at North Sydney terminal, $3,900.


VETERANS AFFAIRS-ENGAGEMENT OF CONSULTANTS
Mr. Robinson: How many consultants have been engaged by the Department of Veterans Affairs 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?


Mr. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: (a)	(b)	(c)
1950				
to 1953	No records available			
1954	i	$ 514.03	Professional advisor in planning subdivision for the construction of houses.	Qualified staff was not available.1956	i	100.00	"	"1959	2	6,138.90	"	U1960	1	2,311.25	"	M1963	1	78,972.00	Survey of Financial Management.	Outside impartial viewpoint of Department's financial practices and assistance in the implementation of the Glassco Commission Report.1966	1	14,400.00	Assisting the Department in the planning and promotion of a National Remembrance Ceremony.	Lack of Departmental resources in the publicity and promotion field needed to provide mass coverage.
Questions

June 17. 1970
1967	1
1968	4
1969	4
1970	1
(a)
fb)
(c)
19.862.00	Architectural consultant on renovation of Qualified staff was not available.
hospital.
12.230.00	Two consultants on "Books of Remem- Specialized field of Heraldry.
brance".
Two architectural consultants on renovation Qualified staff was not available, of hospital areas.
21,990.64 One consultant to advise regarding the con-tion of the land on which a house was built. One consultant in Heraldry.
One consultant in interior furnishings.
One consultant on anniversary ceremonies.
Qualified staff was not available.
No personnel specialized in field of Heraldry.
Professional services.
Qualified staff was not available.
32,497.12 Consultant in public relations to provide Specialized technical assistance required counselling services, advice and technical for major projects, assistance.


POLLUTION-BANNING OF PHOSPHATES
Mrs. Maclnnis: How many letters, telegrams, signed protests or other communications were received by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources from January 15 to February 28, 1970, demanding legislation to ban phosphate detergents?


Mr. R. J. Orange (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy. Mines and Resources):: Between January 15 and February 28, 1970, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources received 413 letters, telegrams, signed protests or other communications concerning legislation to ban phosphate detergents.


CONSTRUCTION OF CAUSEWAY TO LENNOX ISLAND
Mr. McQuaid: Has the Government of Canada arrived at a decision as to whether it will construct a causeway to Lennox Island and (a) if so, when will construction commence (b) if not, how soon may one be expected?


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: No, the construction of a causeway to Lennox Island is still under consideration. It is not possible to forecast when a decision will be made.


TRANSPORT-ENGAGEMENT OF CONSULTANTS
Mr. Robinson: How many consultants have been engaged by the Department of Transport 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?
IMr. DubA]


Gérard Loiselle: The requested information is not readily available in departmental records. To provide a complete and accurate answer would entail costly expenditures and the hiring of additional staff to undertake the large amount of work which would be required to gather this information. However, Question No. 223	(Hansard of
December 17, 1969, page 2069) has given information on consultant studies engaged by the Department during the years 1968-69 and 1969-70.


ARGO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED CONTRACTS
Mr. Alkenbrack: 1.	During the past six years have any contracts been awarded by the federal government to the Argo Construction Co. Ltd. and, if so (a) which ones (b) where is the head office of the company located (c) what is the name of the president of this company (d) what are the names of the principal shareholders (e) what are the names of all executives and members of the board of directors?
2.	What are the names of the incompleted contracts and projects now being performed by Argo Construction Co. Ltd.?
3.	On all these past and present contracts did the government employ their own government inspector on each and, if not, who was responsible for the inspection of these projects?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Department of Public Works and the Dominion Bureau of Statistics as follows: 1. (a) Cowansville, Que., Phase 2, Medium Security Institution. Ste. Anne des Plaines, Que., Maximum Security Institution, Satellite No. 1. Ottawa, Ont., General Purpose Office Building, Tunney's Pasture. Mill-
June 17, 1970

haven, Ont., Maximum Security Institution, Satellite No. 1 and Service Buildings. Mill-haven, Ont., Maximum Security Institution, Central Heating Plant.
*(b) The head office of the company is located at 3901 Jean Talon Street West, Town of Mount Royal, Quebec.
(c)	The president of the company is H. A. Hallward.
(d)	The company reports no shares held by other corporations. It is not required to report principal shareholders which are not corporations.
(e)	The executives and members of the board of directors are H. G. Hallward, F. R. Bibeau, B. M. Hallward, P. R. D. MacKell and J. G. Elliot.
*There is no available return for an Argo Construction Co. Ltd. The above was taken from the annual return of Argo Construction Ltd., for the fiscal period ending February 28, 1969.
2.	Millhaven is incomplete. Ottawa is complete with the exception of deficiencies. Although Cowansville and Ste. Anne des Plaines are technically complete corrective action arising from warranty clauses has not been entirely resolved.
3.	The consultant architects employed by the Department of Public Works are responsible for the inspection of these projects. For the projects listed in Part 1 (a), the consultants are: Cowansville, Quebec, Mr. O. P. Tre-panier; Ste. Anne des Plaines, Quebec, Mr. Jean Perreault; Ottawa, Ontario, Mr. Ronald Ogilvie; Millhaven, Ontario, (Satellite No. 1 and Service Buildings), J. L. Richards and Associates Ltd.; Millhaven, Ontario, (Central Heating Plant), J. L. Richards and Associates Ltd.


INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT EMPLOYMENT OF BILL WUTTUNEE
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,707
Mr. Howard (Skeena):: Is Bill Wuttunee of Alberta employed by or under contract to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and, if so (a) on what date did he enter into such employ or contractual arrangement (b) for what period of time (c) at what salary and expense allowance (d) what, in detail, are his duties?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: No, but
Mr. Bill Wuttunee of Alberta was employed under a contractual arrangement to provide
Questions
a consultation service, (a) February 9, 10 and 11, 1970. (b) Three days, (c) Salary at $200 per day; Expense allowance at $35 per day for three days and air fares at $248. (d) The purpose of the contract was to engage Mr. Wuttunee to ask him his opinion on some particular points connected with the review of the Indian Act.


AGRICULTURE-RESEARCH STUDIES
Mr. Robinson: 1.	What research studies have been carried out by, or on behalf of the Department of Agriculture 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?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Records do not permit the compilation of answers to these questions in their present form. Interpreting the word "studies" to be synonymous with biological research projects, the Research Branch of this Department had approximately 3,500 such projects under way in 1960. These have been grouped into larger units with the result that there are now about 1,200 projects. Approximately 120 projects are completed or discontinued each year and an equivalent number of new ones instituted. It has not been feasible to maintain the detailed cost accounting records necessary to price each project. However, in recent years projects have been grouped into activities. Costing at this level is presented in new format of the Main Estimates Blue Book.


POLLUTION-BANNING OF PHOSPHATES
Mrs. Maclnnis: How many letters, telegrams, signed protests or other communications were received by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources from March 1 to April 30, 1970, demanding legislation to ban phosphate detergents?


Robert John (Bud) Orange: From March 1 through April 30, 1970, 1,678 letters, telegrams, signed protests and other communications were received by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, concerning legislation to ban phosphate detergents.

June 17, 1970
Questions


STUDY OF BAY OF FUNDY TIDES
Mr. Coates: 1.	What was the final cost of the study carried out by the Atlantic Tidal Power Programming Board and, of that amount, how much was assumed by each of the governments involved?
2.	Of the estimated cost of constructing the dams to harness the tides of the Bay of Fundy from a power point of view, did the Board consider the cost per kilowatt hour amortized over a 75 year period at a 1%, 2%, 3%, 4%, 5%, 6% and 7% rate of interest and, if so, what would be such costs?
3.	Does the federal government, either alone or in co-operation with the Governments of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, intend to continue any form of investigation into the matter?


Robert John (Bud) Orange: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: 1. The estimated final cost of the study carried out by the Atlantic Tidal Power Programming Board is $2,257,540. Under the federal-provincial Agreement of August 1966, the federal government assumed two-thirds of this amount and the Governments of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia each assumed one-sixth.
2.	Cost estimates were made for a singleeffect development at Site 8.1, Economy Point to Cape Tenny in Minas Basin, for interest rates of 3, 5, 7 and 9 per cent. These preliminary estimates gave costs per kilowatt-hour of 2.8, 4.2, 5.9 and 7.8 mills respectively based on initial optimization studies. Subsequent refinements in the final optimization study for a single effect development at Site
8.1	gave a value of 5.6 mills per kilowatt-hour using a seven per cent interest rate. These estimates were based on an amortization period of 75 years.
3.	No further tidal power investigations are planned by the federal government at this time.


USE OF CANADIAN FACILITIES BY WEST LINE LIMITED
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Is West Line Limited using Canadian facilities for its cruise vessels, including ports of call and inside waterways and, if so, which ones?
2.	Are the vessels owned or chartered by West Line Limited under Canadian registry and, if so, what are the names of such vessels and which are owned by that company?
3.	Has the company indicated it intends to abandon Canadian registry at any vessels and, if so, which ones?

4.	(a) Has the Department of Labour been advised of lock-out activity by the company and, if so, what steps has it taken (b) has the Department found that the company proposes to replace Canadian crew members with foreign crews and, if so, has it been indicated from which country such would come?
5.	What restrictions, if any, govern the use of Canadian facilities by vessels of non-Canadian registry, engaged in the tourist and cruise trade on the West Coast?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Departments of Transport and Labour as follows: 1. Yes. Vessels of West Line Limited currently use Victoria, B.C. and Prince Rupert, B.C. on an unscheduled basis. Canadian waters used are Strait of Georgia, Discovery Passage, Johnson Strait, Queen Charlotte Strait, Queen Charlotte Sound, Fitzhugh Sound, Milbanke Sound, Finlayson Channel, Grenville Channel and Chatham Sound.
2. As of May 6, 1970, ships registered in Canada in the name of West Line Limited were: Glacier Queen, Polar Star and Yukon Star, all of Vancouver. There is no information regarding ships that may be chartered by West Line Limited.
3.	On May 7, 1970, West Line Limited terminated Canadian registry on the Polar Star on transfer to Panamanian flag. We have no knowledge of their plans for the two ships remaining on Canadian registry.
4.	(a) The Department of Labour was advised informally but was requested to take no action pending further word; (b) It is reported that the Company has hired Spanish Crews for two vessels operating out of Seattle. Other vessels owned by the Company in Canada are not operating.
5.	None.


TORONTO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Have the public lounge and nursery at Toronto International Airport been removed and, if so, for what purpose?
2.	Is it planned to provide these facilities elsewhere at the airport and, if so, on what date?
3.	(a) Is there a lounge for first-class passengers at the Airport (b) is it proposed to remove this facility?


Gérard Loiselle: 1. Yes, in order to permit work to proceed with carrying out improvements to the transborder check-in and pre-clearance facilities.
June 17, 1970

2.	Yes. The nursery facilities have been relocated in the basement level adjacent to the elevator lobby, and will reopen shortly. The lounge will be reinstated early next year in the existing east court area which is to be closed in for this purpose.
3.	(a) No; (b) N/A.


CONSUMER DEBT 1960-69
Mr. Robinson: What was the total consumer debt for each year 1960 to 1969 inclusive and what was the percentage increase for each year?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports that:	The Dominion
Bureau of Statistics publishes a monthly bulletin on "Credit Statistics" (D.B.S. Catalogue No. 61-004) which covers only that part of consumer indebtedness as measured by the balances outstanding on the books of selected holders, such as, sales finance companies, consumer loan companies, the chartered and Quebec Savings banks, life insurance companies, department stores, furniture and appliance dealers, motor vehicle dealers, other retail dealers, oil companies credit cards and Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires. The attached table shows outstanding balances and the percentage increase each year, since year end 1960. It must be emphasized however that this data on consumer credit excludes mortgages, home improvement loans, and fully secured bank loans and it does not include the sizeable volume of debt arising from inter-personal loans, professional fees owing to doctors and dentists, bills for service by hotels, and transportation and utility companies, loans from brokers and investment dealers, and credit from the use of all-purpose convenience credit cards, for which statistics are not available.
According to a special survey conducted by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and published as Catalogue No. 13-525 under the title "Incomes, Assets and Indebtedness of Non-Farm Families in Canada-1963" consumer credit accounted for about one-fifth of the Canadian family's total indebtedness while residential mortgages amounted to almost 75 per cent of the total, and other personal debt (fully-secured bank loans, home-improvement loans, medical bills, interpersonal (non-family) debt and unpaid taxes) composed the balance of five per cent.
Questions
Table showing year-end outstanding balances of selected holders of consumer credit from 1960 with annual percentage
increase.	Outstanding	AnnualYear	balances	PercentageEnd	(millions of dollars)	Increase1960	4,020	+ 8.91961	4,250	+ 5.71962	4,694	+ 10.41963	5,270	+ 12.31964	6,056	+ 14.91965	6,943	+ 14.61966	7,556	+ 8.81967	8,372	+ 10.81968	9,584	+ 14.31969	10,837	+ 13.1Source:	D.B.S. publication "	Credit Statistics" (Catalogue No. 61-004).


VANCOUVER INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT-PURCHASE OF LAND
Mr. Goode: Does the Department of Transport plan to buy a part of all the Burkeville residential subdivision located on Sea Island near the Vancouver International Airport?


Gérard Loiselle: The Department plans to buy only that property in the Burkeville residential subdivision which is required in the relocation of the road system.


CANADIAN PRODUCTION OF STEEL IN 1969
Mr. Matte: 1.	How much steel did Canada produce in 1969?
2.	Was this a reduction as compared to 1968, and if so, what are the reasons for this reduction?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports that: 1. Production of steel ingots in 1969 totalled 10,152,000 tons.
2. This was a reduction from the 1968 total of 11,109,000 tons. The Bureau is not in a position to state the reasons for the reduction but it should be noted that there was a strike of about three months duration at the plants of two of the major producers.
Questions

June 17. 1970


INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT-RETENTION OF PUBLIC RELATIONS FIRMS
Mr. Sulaiycky: 1.	Has the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development retained or employed from time-to-time, from outside its own permanent employees, any public relations firm or person, or any advertising firm or person for any purpose in the past five years and, if so, for what purpose?
2.	What are the names of such firms or persons so employed in the past two years?
3.	What was the total expenditure made for the service of such persons or firms in each of the past five years?


Russell Clayton Honey: 1. Yes. To advise the Department on matters pertaining to public relations and to organize new information programs as required.
2.	Williams and Wilson Ltd., Berger, Tis-dall, Clark and Leslie, Ltd., Paul Phelan and Perry Ltd., Steiner Public Relations Ltd., Jacques Guay Associates, Crockett Writers Ltd., Profile, Ltd., and Desroches, Jasmin and Associates Inc.
3.	1965-66, $14,839; 1966-67, $37,970; 196768,	$83,340;	1968-69,	$48,555.55;	1969-70,


$71,079.57. AGRICULTURE-COST OF REPORT &quot;CANADIAN AGRICULTURE IN THE SEVENTIES&quot;
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	What were the total costs for the compilation and preparation of the report entitled "Canadian Agriculture in the Seventies"?
2.	What were the total costs of printing the report?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: 1. The total cost of the Federal Task Force on Agriculture to March 31, 1970 was $622,979. Additional cost of preparing the report for printing is estimated to be $12,274.
2. Total cost of printing the report is estimated to be $26,900.


DECLARATION OF HOLDINGS OF DEPUTY MINISTER OF ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES
Mr. Aiken: 1.	Did the government require Mr. Jack Austin to declare his holdings in resource based companies upon his appointment as Deputy Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources?
2.	If so, has he been requested to dispose of such stock absolutely or place them in trust?

3.	What previous federal employment has Mr. Austin had (a) what was its nature (b) for what periods?


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: 1. On his own initiative, Mr. Jack Austin, prior to his appointment as Deputy Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, outlined his holdings in resource based companies.
2.	On his own initiative, Mr. Austin, prior to commencing his present duties, had disposed of all his interests and those of his family in resource based companies to a Trust, with full power to the Trustees to sell any of the assets of the Trust absolutely upon such terms as the Trustees think fit. For the period of his appointment as Deputy Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Trustees have a positive obligation not to disclose to Mr. Austin the assets of the Trust or the nature of any transaction relating to such assets.
3.	Mr. Austin was Executive Assistant to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources from May 15, 1963, to September 24, 1965.


USE OF COMPUTERS IN PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Privy Council Office 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 said office?


James Edgar Walker: 1, 2 and 3. The Privy
Council Office does not use a computer in its day to day operation. However, a text editing service is provided to the Secretariat of the Constitutional Conference by the Computer Services Bureau (Department of Supply and Services) through a typewriter terminal in the Conference Centre.
4.	The terminal was installed in December 1969 and the annual rental is $6,852.
5.	Nil.


'SASKATCHEWAN-SECOND NATIONAL PARK
Mr. Souiham: Has an agreement been reached with the Saskatchewan Government for a second National Park
June 17. 1970

In that Province, and (a) if so, when will development start and where will it be located (b) if not, what are the reasons for the delay?


Yves Forest: The answer to the first part is, no, not applicable. Active negotiations are continuing for the acquisition of an area of shortgrass prairie in the Val Marie area of southern Saskatchewan as a national park. The precise size of the park and a mutually acceptable boundary delineation are currently being negotiated with the government of Saskatchewan.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Robinson: 1.	What research studies have been carried out by, or on behalf of, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources 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.


PUBLIC SERVICE-RECREATION AND LOUNGING FACILITIES
Mr. Broadbent: 1.	Are recreation and lounging facilities provided for male and female employees in the various departments of the public service?
2.	What is the number of chairs and couches available and their ratio to the number of employees served?
Return tabled.


INCENTIVE GRANTS
Mr. Burton: 1. Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion under the Regional Development Incentives Act authorized or provided an incentive grant to the following firms and, if so, what is the amount of each grant (a) Lance Publishing Co. Ltd., St. Vital, Manitoba (b) Lessard Machineries Inc., St. Wenceslas, Quebec (c) Olands Brewery Limited, Saint John, N.B. (d) Produits Forestiers M.P. Inc., St. Thomas Didyme, Quebec (e) S. W.
Questions
Bell (1967) Ltd., Fredericton, N.B. (f) Scotian Gold Co-operative Limited, Kentville, N.S. (g) Laiterie Chagnon Ltee., Waterloo, Quebec (h) Kap Cement Limited, Kapuskasing, Ontario (i) International Cooperage Company of Canada Limited, Niagara Falls, Ontario (j) Ingraphics Limited, Winnipeg, Manitoba (k) Chemcell Limited, Montreal, Quebec (1) Canadian Ingersoll-Rand Company Ltd., Montreal, Quebec (m) Blezard Piping & Welded Products Limited, Sudbury, Ontario?
2.	Who are the directors and executive officers of each firm and what is the address of each?
3.	To what extent is each company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
4.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership of each company?
Return tabled.


NET FARM INCOME
Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	(a) What are the figures for net farm income in the four western provinces for each of the last ten years (b) to what can the changes be attributed?
2.	(a) What are the figures for net farm income in Ontario and Quebec for the past ten years and what are the reasons for the changes from year to year (b) what are the figures for net income in the Maritime Provinces for the last ten years and what are the reasons for the changes from year to year?
Return tabled.


IMPORTATION OF DAIRY PRODUCTS 1967-69
Mr. Gauthier: 1.	By country, what quantity of butter was imported during the years 1967, 1968 and 1969?
2.	By country, what quantity of powdered milk was imported during the years 1967, 1968 and 1969?
3.	By country, what quantity of cheese was imported during the years 1967, 1968 and 1969?
4.	By country, what quantities of canned dairy products were imported during the years 1967, 1968 and 1969?
Return tabled.


Mr. Thompson:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could draw your attention to the fact that on March 12 I asked question No. 1,500 relating to the salaries of the grain commissioners, in other words, the Wheat Board. To this date there has been no answer. It seems to me that the question requires a simple answer. I draw this question to the attention of the minister in charge of the Wheat Board.


Yves Forest: I will look into the matter, Mr. Speaker.

June 17. 1970
Motions for Papers



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions Nos. 32, 192, 388, 449, 457, 459, 467, 470, 479, 483, 487, 498, 499 and 513 are acceptable to the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the notices of motions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



TRANSPORT TASK FORCE REPORT ON FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 32-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the report of the task force established within the Department of Transport on the functions and responsibilities of the department and other agencies and bodies involved in the transportation industry.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 192-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report by Peat, Marwick, Livingstone, USA, undertaken for the Department of Defence Production on preliminary design work for a systematic cost-benefit approach to foreign military marketing, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the past Session.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 388-Mr. MacDonald (Egmonl):
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all brochures, catalogues and other sales promotion materials, including "Canadian Defence Commodities" used in the sale or advertisement of Canadian military arms or equipment to the United States, other foreign countries, groups or individuals since 1968.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 449-Mr. Sallsman:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all representation received by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce on imports of 
machinery and equipment financed under foreign government programs as mentioned by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in a speech delivered on April 16, 1970 to the Brantford Regional Board of Trade.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 457-Mr. Broadbenl:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all programs and measures now being considered by the Public Service Commission to improve career opportunities for women in the public service, as indicated in answer to Question Number 1,627 and reported in Hansard of May 6, 1970 at pages 6625-26.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 459-Mr. Barnett:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of any tender called to fill the position of caretaker at the Fatty Basin project of the Fisheries Research Board, on Useless Inlet, since January 1, 1970.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 467-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study by P.-Y. Pepin undertaken for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion regarding the editing of Saguenay Lac St.-Jean report 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. 470-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study by Giles Beaudet undertaken for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion regarding the study of Parent radar station conversion 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. 479-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study by Benjamin Higgins undertaken for the Department of Regional Economic
June 17, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Expansion regarding the study of socio-economic problems in Quebec 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. 483-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study by F. Martin undertaken for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion regarding the study of socio-economic problems in Quebec 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. 487
Mr. Burton:: That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study by A. Raynaud undertaken for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion regarding the study of socio-economic problems in Quebec as mentioned in answer to Question Number 897 and reported in Hansard of March 18, 1970 at page 5163.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
1969-70 STUDY, "CONTRACT RESEARCH EVALUATION OF 'DEPOT PROVERA'"
Motion No. 498-Mrs. Maclnnis:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study undertaken in the fiscal year 1969-70 and funded by the Department of National Health and Welfare on "Contract Research (Food and Drug Directorate) Evaluation of 'Depot Provera' ".
Motion agreed to.
1968-69 STUDY, "CONTRACT RESEARCH EVALUATION OF 'DEPOT PROVERA' "
Motion No. 499-Mrs. Maclnnis:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study undertaken in the fiscal year 1968-69 and funded by the Department of National Health and Welfare on "Contract Research (Food and Drug Directorate) Evaluation of 'Depot Provera' ".
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 513-Mr. Harding:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the large scale survey of the mercury content in Canadian foods undertaken by the Food and Drug Directorate of the Department of National Health and Welfare as mentioned in the Departmental Press Release of May 28, 1970.
Motion agreed to.
Motions for Papers
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions Nos. 37, 339, 444, 460 and 492 are acceptable to the government, subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential papers and to the authorization of the government authorities 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. 37, 339, 444, 460 and 492 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



OSHAWA AIRPORT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 37-Mr. Broadbent:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study by Dr. R. W. Crowley, Assistant Professor of Economics at Queen's University, regarding the Oshawa Airport prepared for the Department of Transport.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 339-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the research studies undertaken by the Economics Service Branch of the Department of Fisheries and Forestry for the fiscal years 1968-69 and 196970 as mentioned in answer to Question Number 34 and reported in Hansard of Wednesday, January 14, 1970.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 444-Mr. Burton:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence between the Government of Canada and each of the provinces regarding the selection of special areas under the Department of Regional Economic Expansion as announced by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion in Parliament on March 11. 1970.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 460-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all telegrams, correspondence and other documents exchanged between the government or any agency or branch thereof and any other person since January 1, 1963 relating to the property occupied by HMCS Chatham in Prince Rupert which,
[Stage Direction]
June 17, 1970
Motions for Papers
for more particular identification, was set aside other data received by the Government of Canada for use by Native Indians as a cultural and com- commenting on the proposed Loan Companies Act munity centre.	amendment.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 492-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and any other person since January 1, 1969 relating to any aspect of the fish canning industry in B.C. and particularly to the possibility that canneries along the North Coast area may be owned, managed and operated by Native Indian people.
Motion agreed to.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, would you be kind enough to call notices of motions Nos. 166,	167,	168,	169,	193,	258,	282,	332,	381,383,	405,	408,	445,	450,	452,	462,	463,	464,466,	468,	469,	471,	472,	473,	474,	475,	476,477,	478,	480,	481,	482,	484,	485,	486,	488,489,	490,	491,	493,	494,	495,	496,	497,	500,501,	502,	503,	504,	505,	506,	507,	508,	509,
510, 511, 512, 515 and 516?
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.



INVESTMENT COMPANIES BILL

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 166-Mr. Saltsman:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all letters, communications, reports, memoranda and other data received by the Government of Canada commenting on the proposed Investment Companies Bill.
Hon. Herb Gray (Minister without Portfolio):: For the most part the communications received were copies of material submitted to the Senate committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce. It is considered that other communications received should be treated as confidential since they frequently contain information concerning the internal affairs of individual companies, and as a result I would ask the hon. member to consider withdrawing his motion.


Mr. SalSsman:: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



LOAN COMPANIES ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 167-Mr. Saltsman:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all letters, communications, reports, memoranda or
(Mr, Howard (Skeena).]
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The communications which the hon. member is requesting are regarded as confidential. Their publication would impede the free flow of information, ideas and suggestions to the department and so make it more difficult for the department to carry out its duties effectively. I therefore ask the hon. member to consider withdrawing his motion.


Max Saltsman: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



TRUST COMPANIES ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 168-Mr. Saltsman:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all letters, reports, memoranda or other data received by the Government of Canada commenting on the proposed Trust Companies Act amendment.
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: My comments on the previous motion will apply to this one as well.


Max Saltsman: So will mine.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



CANADIAN AND BRITISH INSURANCE COMPANIES ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 169-Mr. Saltsman:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all letters, communications, reports, memoranda or other data received by the Government of Canada commenting on the proposed Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act amendment.
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: What I have just said would also apply to this notice of motion.


Max Saltsman: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



MARKETING OF CANADIAN DEFENCE PRODUCTS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 193-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report by Kendall Associates, Ottawa, Canada, undertaken for the Department of Defence Production on the development of an effective. system for collection, indexing, collation, storage, retrieval and dissemination of information for use in formulating plans and policy for the marketing of Canadian defence products, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the past Session.
June 17, 1970
Yves Forest: The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is willing to table copies of the consultant's study with the exception of one page which has been extracted from the study. This extraction refers to prices, and his deemed to be of a proprietary nature to the company concerned. If the hon. member accepts this reservation the minister will table this study immediately.


John Leroy Skoberg: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that Notice No. 193 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 258-Mr. Yewchuk:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and all other documents exchanged between the Department of Regional Economic Expansion or any agency or division thereof, and the Government of the Province of Alberta or any agency or division thereof, pertaining to special designation for the region of Lesser Slave Lake and plans for regional economic development of that area.
Mr. Martin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Some of the documents requested are working papers exchanged by officials and as such are privileged. If the hon. member wishes, we would be pleased to table correspondence exchanged at the ministerial level if the consent of the province of Alberta is obtained.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that Notice of Motion No. 258 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[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
Motions for Papers
Department of Transport as mentioned by the Minister without Portfolio in Hansard of November 26, 1969 on page 1291.
Gérard Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, as the review on user charges and fees paid by private aircraft using the facilities provided by the Department of Transport is not yet completed, it is not possible to table a copy of it. As soon as it is completed, consideration will be given as to whether or not it is appropriate to do so.
In the circumstances, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


John Leroy Skoberg: I ask that the motion stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand. Notice of Motion No. 322.


Yves Forest: No. 332.



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.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion No. 332 is acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential papers and to the authorization of private industry concerned.


John Leroy Skoberg: Agreed, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: This answer refers to notice of motion No. 332?


Yves Forest: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mine is 322, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: There appears to be some confusion here. The Chair called motion No. 322 and the Parliamentary Secretary appears to have replied to 332. The motion which I have here is motion No. 322 in the name of the hon. member for Moose Jaw. Shall this motion stand?


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe he acknowledged that motion.

June 17. 1970
Motions for Papers


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, we did not call 322.


Mr. McCleave:: Yes, it was called.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, it was not
called.
Motion stands.


Max Saltsman: Has motion No. 332 been called?


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


Max Saltsman: Yes. Motion No. 332 is in my name and I am not quite sure of its disposition.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, maybe I could read again the answer to motion No. 332, which is in the name of the hon. member for Waterloo.



RETENTION OF COPPER OUTPUT FOR DOMESTIC MARKETS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 332-Mr. Saltsman:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all directives and correspondence between the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Canadian copper producers regarding the retention of their copper output for domestic markets.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, this notice of motion is acceptable to the government, subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential papers and to the authorization of private industry concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that motion No. 332 deemed to have been adopted.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 381-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the feasibility study on marginal dairy farming undertaken for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in the fiscal year 1967-68, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the past Session excluding confidential references to individuals or individual firms.
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, the study requested

was research undertaken for use by officials in programs planning and was intended solely for internal use. I would, therefore, request the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I think we should know about the program planning that they have in mind, and so I call for a vote.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



RESEARCH STUDIES UNDERTAKEN BY CTC

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 383-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all the research studies undertaken by the Research Division of the Canadian Transport Commission as mentioned in answer to Question Number 12 and reported in Hansard of February 18, 1970 at pages 3736-37.
Gérard Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, the government will accept this motion as far as the final reports of these studies are concerned, except those that contain confidential information from industry, or that have been prepared only for internal use.
In the circumstances, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.
IEnglish]


John Leroy Skoberg: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



TARIFF CONCESSIONS, MICHELIN RUBBER COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 405-Mr. Saltsman:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of the correspondence, arrangements, etc. between the Government of Canada and the Government of Nova Scotia and Mi-chelin Rubber Company of France regarding the removal of automobile tires customs tariffs and the establishment of a tire plant in Nova Scotia.
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the correspondence in question contains confidential information about the planning and future operations of this company and it is considered that tabling of correspondence of this nature would be prejudicial to future full disclosure of such information by industry generally. However, I
June 17, 1970

would be happy to meet with the hon. member and discuss the matter with him in order to provide some background that he may find useful. In the circumstances I would request the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Max Saltsman: I accept that in view of the minister's co-operative attitude.


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



STUDY OF URBAN PROBLEMS BY PROFESSOR LITHWICK

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 408-Mr. Gilbert:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study of urban problems in Canada undertaken by Professor Harvey Lithwick for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for housing and urban affairs.
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I move this motion on the hon. member's behalf.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, the report referred to was commissioned as a working document for the internal use of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and of the office of the minister responsible for housing. As such it is considered confidential and not in the public interest to table. In these circumstances I hope that the hon. member will be willing to withdraw the motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh,
no. Let us have the question.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Transfer.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION-ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL AREAS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 445-Mr. Burton:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence, reports, memoranda and other documents exchanged between the federal government and the governments of the provinces in consultations engaged in prior to the establishment of special areas by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I move this motion on the hon. member's behalf.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, the correspondence
Motions for Papers
requested in this motion will be tabled if the consent of the provinces concerned is obtained, under our acceptance of notice of motion No. 444. All other documents requested are working papers exchanged at the official level and as such are considered privileged. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I thought the Parliamentary Secretary was suggesting that the government would agree to something subject to reservations. We are prepared to accept the reservations.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that notice of motion No. 445 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 450-Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the comprehensive agreements between the Government of Canada and the motor vehicle companies referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board in Hansard, April 16, 1970, at page 5978.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, the agreements referred to are contained in letters tabled in the House on April 25, 1965, and on September 16, 1968. The minister could forward copies to the hon. member if he wishes. In view of this the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce would ask the member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, do I understand the Parliamentary Secretary to say that the minister is prepared to forward the letters to me?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: They are already in the possession of the House.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In that case why not table them?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: They have been tabled.

June 17. 1970
Motions for Papers


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In that case I withdraw the motion.


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



REASONS FOR CLOSING DUNLOP TIRE PLANT. TORONTO

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 452-Mr. Gilbert:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all memoranda, correspondence, etc., showing the reasons given to the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce for the closing of the Dunlop tire plant in Toronto as mentioned by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in Hansard of April 30, 1970 at page 6452.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I move it for the hon. member.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce wishes to inform the hon. member that the reasons given by the company in question to the department were of an oral nature. However, two statements to the press were received by the department and these can be tabled. A third item is of an internal nature as it contains information proprietary to other companies and cannot be tabled. If this is acceptable to the member, the minister would immediately table the two items just referred to.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that motion No. 452 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 462-Mr. Nystrom:
That an Order of the House do Issue for a copy of all studies and reports undertaken by the special Task Force set up in the Department of Regional Economic Expansion regarding employment and growth opportunities for Argentia, Newfoundland.
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, the special task force mentioned does not make studies and 
there is, as yet, no report available. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Nystrom:: In that case I will withdraw it.


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



STUDY OF EMPLOYMENT AND GROWTH OPPORTUNITIES, FOGO ISLAND, NFLD.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 463-Mr. Nystrom:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all studies and reports undertaken by the special Task Force in the Department of Regional Economic Expansion regarding employment and growth opportunities for Fogo Island, Newfoundland.
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, there is no special task force in the Department of Regional Economic Expansion regarding employment and growth opportunities for Fogo Island. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I will withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.


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



STUDY OF EMPLOYMENT AND GROWTH OPPORTUNITIES, BELL ISLAND, NFLD.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 464-Mr. Nystrom:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all studies and reports undertaken by the special Task Force in the Department of Regional Economic Expansion regarding employment and growth opportunities for Bell Island, Newfoundland.
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, this is a similar answer. There is no special task force in the Department of Regional Economic Expansion regarding employment and growth opportunities for Bell Island and I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I will do that, Mr. Speaker.


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



B. G. COOK STUDY OF RESEARCH IN INFORMATION SYSTEMS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 466-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study by B. G. Cook undertaken
June 17, 1970
[Stage Direction]
lor the Department of Regional Economic Expansion regarding research in information systems as mentioned in answer to Question Number 897 and reported in Hansard of March 18, 1970 at page 5163.
Mr, Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, there are quite a few motions in the name of the hon. member for Regina East who is not able to be here today. I wonder if these could stand until he is able to be present?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that this is the last occasion before the House meets next fall on which we can respond to these motions. In the circumstances would the hon. member not prefer to have the information now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then I move all 20 of the hon. member's motions on his behalf.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, in answer to motion No. 466, the services of this consultant were retained for the preparation of a computer program. This has now been incorporated in the work of the department and there is no report which could be tabled. I would therefore ask that the hon. member withdraw his motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


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



ABT STUDY OF EVALUATION OF N.B. FRED PLAN

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 468-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study by ABT Associates undertaken for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion regarding the evaluation of N.B. FRED Plan as mentioned in answer to Question Number 897 and reported in Hansard of March 18, 1970 at page 5163.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I move it.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, this study was
requested in notice of motion 380, which was accepted by the government with the provision that the consent of the province concerned be obtained. I would therefore ask that the hon. member withdraw his motion.
Motions for Papers


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has
the consent of the province been sought?


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion dropped?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps this one could stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion stands.



F. BAYLISS STUDY OF NEWSTART GRAPHICS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 469-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study by F. Bayliss undertaken for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion regarding NewStart graphics as mentioned in answer to Question Number 897 and reported in Hansard of March 18, 1970 at page 5163.
Stanley Howard Knowles: move it, Mr. Speaker.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, this was a service contract and there is not report. I would ask that the hon. member consent to withdraw this motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


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



CANADIAN BRITISH ENGINEERING STUDY OF GAULTOIS WATER SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 471-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study by Canadian British Engineering undertaken for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion regarding the Gaultois water supply study as mentioned in answer to Question Number 897 and reported in Hansard of March 18, 1970 at page 5163.
['Notices of Motions No. 484, 485, 482, 486, 488, 489, 490 and 491 in the name of the hon. member for Regina East will stand.\nMotion stands.']
Stanley Howard Knowles: move the motion on behalf of the hon. member.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, this is a confidential report relating in part to a private company, publication of which would be detrimental to the competitive position of the company. I would ask the hon. member, therefore, to withdraw his motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.

June 17, 1970
Motions for Papers CERTEC INC. CONSULTANT REVIEW OF IMPLEMENTATION STUDY
Motion No. 472-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of .the consultant study by Certec Inc. undertaken for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion regarding the implementation study as mentioned in answer to Question Number 897 and reported in Hansard of March 18, 1970 at page 5163.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I move the motion on behalf of the hon. member.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, these consultants were retained to brief senior management. There is no report suitable for tabling and I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


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



[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 473-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study by Bruce Cook undertaken for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion regarding the mapping systems study as mentioned in answer to Question Number 897 and reported in Hansard of March 18, 1970 at page 5163.
Stanley Howard Knowles: move the motion on behalf of the hon. member.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, the services of this consultant were retained for computer programming. There is no report and I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


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


CREATIVE SIGHT AND SOUND LTD. STUDY OF NEWSTART AUDIO-VISUAL PROJECT
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 474-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study by Creative Sight and Sound Ltd. undertaken for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion regarding the NewStart audio-
visual project as mentioned in answer to Question Number 897 and reported in Hansard of March 18, 1970 at page 5163.
Stanley Howard Knowles: move this motion on behalf of the hon. member.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, these consultants were engaged to make a tape slide presentation on the Nova Scotia Newstart program. There is no report and I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


ERNST AND ERNST STUDY OF ANALYSIS OF EXPERIMENTAL PROJECTS IN HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 475-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 the analysis of experimental projects in human resources development as mentioned in answer to Question Number 897 and reported in Hansard of March 18, 1970 at page 5163.
Stanley Howard Knowles: move this motion on behalf of the hon. member.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, this was a contract for services of four consultants who came to Ottawa to brief senior management. There is no report which could be tabled and I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


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


ERNST AND ERNST CONSULTANT REVIEW OF PLANNING STUDY
[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.
June 17, 1970
Stanley Howard Knowles: move this motion on behalf of the hon. member.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, this is a continuing study and there is as yet no final report. I would ask the hon. member to withdraw this motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps it might stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.


GEORGE FRAIL STUDY OF AVON RIVER CAUSEWAY DAM
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 477-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study by George Frail undertaken for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion regarding the project engineer, Avon River Causeway Dam as mentioned in answer to Question Number 897 and reported in Hansard of March 18, 1970 at page 5163.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I move this motion on behalf of the hon. member.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, this motion relates to a contract for the services of Mr. Frail as project engineer on the Avon River Causeway Dam. As there is no report involved, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


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


HICKLING-JOHNSTON REVIEW OF THE INTERLAKE FRED MANAGEMENT STUDY
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 478-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study by Hickling-Johnston Limited undertaken for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion regarding the interlake FRED management study as mentioned in answer to Question Number 897 and reported in Hansard of March 18, 1970 at page 5163.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I move the motion on behalf of the hon. member.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, this is a confidential
Motions for Papers
study which was commissioned for the joint committee of federal and provincial officials charged with reviewing the Interlake plan. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


LALONDE VALOIS REVIEW OF TRANSPORTATION STUDY OF GASPE REGION
[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.
Stanley Howard Knowles: move the motion on behalf of the hon. member.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, this is a continuing study. The final report has not yet been received and I would therefore ask the hon. member if he would withdraw his motion.


Robert Jardine McCleave: What an abuse of parliamentary procedure!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.


JEAN B. LANCTOT REVIEW OF STUDY OF ADAPTIVE SERVICES TO MIGRANTS AND IMMIGRANTS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 481-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study by Jean B. Lanctdt undertaken for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion regarding the study of adaptive services to migrants and immigrants as mentioned in answer to Question Number 897 and reported in Hansard of March 18, 1970 at page 5163.
Stanley Howard Knowles: move the motion on behalf of the hon. member.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, the services of

June 17, 1970
Motions for Papers
these consultants were retained to brief senior management. There is no report which could be tabled and I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


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


Robert Jardine McCleave: Another abuse of parliamentary procedure!


An hon. Member:: Why should you be allowed to move these motions on behalf of somebody else?


Robert Jardine McCleave: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
a point of order, Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member loses his temper, I did ask that these motions stand until the hon. member comes back but the government felt that we should go ahead with them. I would say right now, Mr. Speaker, that if the answers to the rest of the motions of the member for Regina East are like those we have been getting, perhaps we should just transfer all of them.


Robert Jardine McCleave: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I raised it initially and I asked-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is a point of order before the House at the present time. I believe the President of the Privy Council was seeking the floor for the purpose of addressing himself to the point of order. I would recognize the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants in a moment.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, from time to time there have been suggestions that this side of the House was not responding to questions and motions but apparently the trouble today is that we are responding too much. The fact of the matter is that when there is a motion for papers and there is no paper at all to enable us to respond to the motion, it seems to me there is no point in having it stood. The motion should be removed from the Order Paper. Equally, if there are other valid reasons, whether competitive reasons involving a private company or international negotiations, that a motion should not be accepted, it should be dealt with. I share with the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants the concern that the time of the House is being used in this way but I think he should direct his

remarks to the hon. member for Regina East who put all these motions on the Order Paper in the first place.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants on a point of order.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Sit down!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I am going to insist on my rights-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please! I believe the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants is rising to the same point of order. He has the floor.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Yes, indeed I am, Mr. Speaker. As a backbencher I have listened for many days since this Parliament started this sort of thing where there are fishing expeditions, where the hook is thrown out without even any bait or without even any knowledge of anything relating to the facts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Jardine McCleave: The result is that we have spent about 40 minutes on this exercise this afternoon and heaven only knows how many many minutes before, without any serious attempt by the person who grinds this porridge machine to be responsible or to know what is going to come forth. As a backbencher I object to this procedure very strenuously.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Jardine McCleave: I hope there can be some correction of it, sir.
Mr. Douglas (Nana'imo-Cowichan-The
Islands): On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, members have a perfect right to seek information. They get little enough information in this House.


An hon. Member:: This is an abuse of privilege.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The only way they can get information is to put a motion on the Order Paper. The difficulty which the government finds itself in, Mr. Speaker, is not due to the fact that we have asked that these stand. The fact is that we are getting some answers today on motions that were tabled last October. The government now answers us on the last day.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: June 1.
June 17, 1970


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Of the questions that were answered today, No. 37 was placed on the Order Paper on October 23, 1969. If the government would answer these questions promptly or at least within a few weeks of their being put on the Order Paper, we would not be in the position of having to stand motions because the government is not able to give us any satisfactory answer or gives some spurious answer as to why they cannot give us the information.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if hon. members want to pursue the matter.


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: The point of order before the House now is that we are perhaps taking too much time on this order of business. If we pursue the matter on a point of order for another ten minutes, that ten minutes could have been used to clear up this order of business. At the same time, if hon. members consider the matter important they should be allowed to make their contribution in the next few minutes.


Mr. Fairweather:: Mr. Speaker, if I could get unanimous consent I would move under Standing Order 43 that the Committee on Procedure and Organization be asked to study a more expeditious and less boring way of dealing with notices of motion for the production of papers.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, if I could get unanimous consent that the hon. gentleman's motion would be passed by unanimous consent so that we do not have to use time debating it, I would agree.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have sat idly by observing what I think are quite irresponsible actions on the part of the government. These motions are not debatable. We find we have smuggled into every one of them a statement apologizing for or explaining why the information is not available. The government has no right to do that at all. They have one' of two procedures available: they can accept, or if they do not want to accept they can transfer for debate. There can be no explanation given; the explanation is due on the debate. In every one of these cases where the government makes an explanation there has been a definite breach of the rules, and I think this is the trouble we are facing.
Hon. members on the government side who are answering in this way have no business to do so at this stage. They can do this by
Motions for Papers
correspondence or by telephone calls. But there must not be these spurious debates that have been smuggled in on both sides.


Mr. Rondeau:: Mr. Speaker, we have
listened patiently to the arguments of all parties. I believe we should get information when we ask questions or put notices of motions on the order paper. The Creditistes certainly have not taken too much of the time of the House with notices of motions on the order paper.
I see that notice of motion No. 63 in the name of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) has been on the order paper since November 25, 1969 and that nothing has been done about it. The Ralliement creditiste can certainly not be accused of wasting the time of the House in this field.
I will conclude by saying that whatever the number of notices of motions put on the order paper they all seem to get the same treatment.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, there are two or three points that I should like to make, especially after the matter that has been raised by the newly attached Liberal member from Halifax.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Frank Howard: There is no fishing expedition-


Robert Jardine McCleave: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member kindly resume his seat. I believe the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants is now seeking the floor on a question of privilege. He should be allowed to state his question at this time.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind what is poured on me by the hon. member for Skeena but I would not like it poured on my leader. I am the member for Halifax-East Hants. The hon. member may make any remark he wishes to make about me.

June 17, 1970
Motions for Papers


An hon. Member:: Silly boy!


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I think that probably the shoe would fit in the other place just as well.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frank Howard: It is difficult to speak in a jungle, Mr. Speaker, but I shall try.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House will probably recognize that this point was raised ten minutes ago, and if we had accepted the suggestion of the Chair we should have completed this item of business. I doubt whether much can be gained by pursuing this matter much further. A motion has been proposed by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal but this motion cannot be put to the House under Standing Order 43 unless we have unanimous consent to revert to motions. I have to inquire whether there is unanimity in reverting to motions for the purpose of putting the motion advanced by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The motion proposed by the hon. member cannot be put. I would respectfully suggest to hon. members that perhaps we might continue with the order of business. A point of order has been raised and there has been consideration of it, which has been constructive I am sure, on the part of all parties on both sides of the House. I ask the co-operation of all hon. members to allow the Chair to pursue the business. We might be able to save a few seconds here and there in processing these notices of motions.


LA SOCIETE SOTAR REVIEW OF CANTONS DE L'EST TOURISM STUDY
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 484-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study by La Societe Sotar undertaken for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion regarding the Cantons de l'Est tourism study as mentioned in answer to Question Number 897 and reported in Hansard of March 18, 1970 at page 5163.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, speaking on behalf of the hon. member for Regina East may I again

suggest that the remaining notices of motions in the name of the hon. member for Regina East stand. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could advise him what the government wishes to do about them.


Mr. Speaker:: Notices of Motions No. 484, 485, 482, 486, 488, 489, 490 and 491 in the name of the hon. member for Regina East will stand.
Motion stands.


J. C. WICKET REVIEW OF STUDY OF NUTRITIONAL LEVELS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 485-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study by J. C. Wickett undertaken for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion regarding the study of nutritional levels in selected population areas as mentioned in answer to Question Number 897 and reported in Hansard of March 18, 1970 at page 5163.
Motion stands.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 482-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study M. W. Mackenzie undertaken for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion regarding the federal provincial committee for Saint John industrial complex as mentioned in answer to Question Number 897 and reported in Hansard of March 18, 1970 at page 5163.
Motion stands.

[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 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.
Motion stands.

[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.
Motion stands.
June 17, 1970

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 489-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do Issue for a copy of the consultant study by McGill Computing Science Centre undertaken for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion regarding a system for generating target populations as mentioned in answer to Question Number 897 and reported in Hansard of March 18, 1970 at page 5163.
Motion stands.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 490-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study by Alphatex Systems Limited undertaken for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion regarding the computer addressing system as mentioned in answer to Question Number 897 and reported in Hansard of March 18, 1970 at page 5163.
Motion stands.

[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.
Motion stands.
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 Welfare on "The Effect of Oestrogen-progestin Compounds on Platelet Surface Reactions in Women of Childbearing Age".
['Agreed.']
Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the circumstances involving in the hon. member's motion and since the hon. member was communicated with by letter from the minister, the hon. member may wish to withdraw motion No. 493 standing in her name as well as Motions Nos. 494, 495, 496, 497, 500, 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509, 510 and 511.
Motions for Papers


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the explanation given by the Parliamentary Secretary and since the studies have not yet been completed, I should like to ask that these notices of motions remain on the order paper until fall, in the hope that the studies will be completed.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
Motion stands.
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".
Motion stands.



[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, 6conomiques 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.
Motion stands.
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 Planiflca-tion Familiale, Montreal in the fiscal year 1970-71 funded by the Department of National Health and Welfare on "Projet de recherche aupres du milieu defavorise urbain Quebecois".
Motion stands.
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 Plani-fication Familiale, Montreal, in the fiscal year 196970 funded by the Department of National Health and Welfare on "Projet de recherche aupres du milieu defavorise urbain Quebecois".
Motion stands.
[Stage Direction]
June 17. 1970
Motions for Papers
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 1969-70 funded by the Department of National Health and Welfare on the "Physiological and Psychological Aspects of Oral Contraceptive Medication".
Motion stands.
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 1968-69 funded by the Department of National Health and Welfare on the "Physiological and Psychological Aspects of Oral Contraceptive Medication".
Motion stands.
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".
Motion stands.
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".
Motion stands.
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".
Motion stands.

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".
Motion stands.
1969-70 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.
Motion stands.
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.
Motion stands.
1967-68 STUDY, "AN EXPERIMENT IN COMMUNITY HEALTH CARE"
Motion No. 508-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 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.
Motion stands.
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".
Motion stands.
June 17, 1970
[Stage Direction]
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".
Motion stands.

[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".
Motion stands.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 512-Mr. Harding:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all studies prepared under National Health Grant Project 605-7-510 of 1969.
Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, in view of the circumstances involving this motion and since the hon. member was communicated with by letter from the minister, I would ask him to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Harding:: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the research has not been completed on this matter, and I would ask that the motion stand until the fall. I hope that the research will then be completed and that a report will be available.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.


SPEECH BY DIRECTOR OF RCMP SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE BRANCH
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 515-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the speech delivered to the Canadian Society for Industrial Security, in Toronto, by John K. Starnes, Director of the RCMP's Security and Intelligence Branch.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the 22478-31J
Motions for Papers
Solicitor General I am advised that there is no text of the remarks and that the remarks in fact were made in private and were given from notes. On that basis I wonder if the hon. member would agree to withdraw his motion?


Mr. Orlikow:: I would if the notes could be provided to me, Mr. Speaker; otherwise I would not agree.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


GOVERNMENT SUBMISSIONS TO ORGANIZATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 516-Mr. Salisman:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the submission by the Canadian Government to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development recently regarding Canada's future growth projections.
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the submission to the OECD regarding Canada's future growth projections was a confidential working document used in the preparation of the Report of the OECD on Growth Prospects for the 1970's, which will shortly be published in full by the organization. It has not been the practice of member countries to publish their individual submissions. In view of these circumstances, I ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Max Saltsman: Agreed, Mr. Speaker.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Chair should add a comment to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Peace River, which was of a different nature. Over the years the practice has developed under which a brief statement is made by the Parliamentary Secretary responding in the name of the minister or by the minister himself in explaining why a motion is accepted, refused, or to be transferred for debate. It has been understood from time to time by hon. members following this practice that it was actually saving time, because objections were taken by hon. members asking the questions or giving notice on the notice paper to the effect that no reason is given for the actions taken by the government.
I agree with the hon. member for Peace River that these explanations sometimes have
June 17, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry become a little too long and if there was some way to ask those who prepare the comments that explain the decision taken by the government to be briefer I think it would be helpful all around. I think perhaps the comments made also by private members who have brought forward these notices of motions should also be somewhat briefer. Practically every time these notices of motions are considered arguments occur between the government side and private members putting their motions. I would suggest that my remarks be taken into account next fall.


Gerald William Baldwin: I think 60 words for each side should be enough.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance whether, in view of the rejection by the Canadian Labour Congress of the guideline proposal put forward by the Prices and Incomes Commission, the 6 per cent guideline of the government is still the policy of the government? If so, does the government propose to take any measures to implement it?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, it is still the policy of the government.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the government propose to take any measures to implement this policy, or does it intend simply to leave it to the Prices and Incomes Commission to administer what perhaps might be regarded as one of the central responsibilities of the government?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the government at the proper moment accepts its responsibilities. We have agreed with the guideline, as have other governments, and the Prices and Incomes Commission will be watching to see Whether there is adherence to the guideline.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, we do not need a commission to watch that, the way things are now. My final supplementary is this: in view of the rejection of the proposal and in view of the proposal made by the Canadian Labour Congress that the government should convene a meeting of industry, labour and government to consider an appropriate course of conduct, does the government propose to convene such a meeting?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, organized labour has come a little late in making this proposal. This is the same proposal which was made by the Prices and Incomes Commission last fall and which labour refused to accept at that particular time.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: So the government is not going ahead.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, insasmuch as the
Canadian Labour Congress, following a meeting with the Prices and Incomes Commission, described voluntary restraints as being basically unsound, highly inequitable and totally unworkable and proposed that the government rather than the Prices and Incomes Commission convene a meeting between business and labour to work out more realistic and co-operative programs to deal with economic problems in Canada, did I understand the minister to say that the minister on the part of the government is rejecting this proposal for the convening of a meeting with labour and industry?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the government is considering this proposal. We have a Prices and Incomes Commission which has been trying to do exactly this for quite some time. Labour has refused to co-operate.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that the Prices and Incomes Commission is a commission of inquiry appointed under the Inquiries Act and is not an administrative body and the power lies with the government, is the government prepared to convene such a conference which labour has indicated it is prepared to attend?


Edgar John Benson: As I said in answer to the previous question, Mr. Speaker, the government is considering the matter. We have a Prices and Incomes Commission which tried to convene such a conference. Labour refused to attend.
June 17, 1970



INFLATION-RESTRAINT ON WAGES AND RESTRAINT ON OTHER FORMS OF INCOME

David Orlikow: supplementary question. Was the Chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission expressing government policy when he told the officials of the Canadian Labour Congress that if they would co-operate-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member. The hon. member knows that the rules do not allow him to ask whether a statement made outside of this House by an official is government policy. The hon. member can ask the question directly without reference to the statement.


David Orlikow: I will repeat my question. Can the Minister of Finance state whether the government is working on policies which will put tighter limits on the incomes of executives, professional people, stockholders and real estate operators in line with the policy of restraint on wages?


Edgar John Benson: That is a pretty broad question, Mr. Speaker. It deals with a great many matters. The government is, of course, studying the reasonableness of charges, etc., by all groups. Indeed, the Prices and Incomes Commission at their conference received certain assurances from certain groups mentioned by the hon. member.


David Orlikow: A supplementary question. In view of the often expressed views of the Canadian Labour Congress that the policies of the government are aimed directly at them, is the minister prepared to make a statement indicating how forms of income other than wages can be restrained at the same time wages are restrained?


Edgar John Benson: A good many statements have been made over the past few months with respect to this question. I will be glad to consider the question raised by the hon. member.



FINANCE


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Would he tell the House why the government is putting on the market $525 million worth of bonds at interest rates varying between 6.58 and 7.49 per cent?
Would he also tell the House why the government could not have redeemed the bonds becoming due on July 1st with the magnificent budget surpluses, in order to reduce our national debt?


Mr. Speaker:: The member will admit, I am sure, that his interesting question is rather argumentative. I doubt that it is in order.



LEDAIN COMMISSION INTERIM REPORT-TYPE OF INQUIRY INTO LEAK

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact it was stated yesterday an inquiry is being conducted with reference to the LeDain Commission Report leak, I ask the minister who is conducting the inquiry? Which personnel are conducting what type of inquiry?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The agency that will conduct the inquiry has not yet been decided.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Don't hurry!


John Carr Munro: I expect that decision will be made prior to the end of the week, Mr. Speaker. In the interval, I wish to advise that I and my staff are conducting preliminary investigations to ascertain the presence of all copies of the report. We have just about completed the record of where they are.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question. I was wondering if the minister was having trouble with his conscience. This is an inquiry. We are entitled to know how many of his staff are looking into this, what they are doing and who they are contacting.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, two of my staff are contacting each and every one who has received a copy of the report in order to identify the location of these copies. This type of study is now going on.


Robert Norman Thompson: My supplementary question relates to the very frank disclosure made earlier today by the Minister of Labour. Will the Minister of National Health and Welfare make a similar disclosure in order to end all the uncertainty-
8246	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Fronlenac-Lennox and Addington):: A supplementary question. In view of this investigation, will the minister at the same time investigate the obvious and flagrant collusion between three partners, Time magazine, the Globe and Mail and the Liberal party, as evidenced by the lucrative full-page ad-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Walter C. Carter: My
question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Can the minister state whether the special report of the committee appointed to investigate the Argentia situation has been received by him and whether it is being studied by the cabinet?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We have received the report. It is under consideration by the cabinet. I hope that very soon we will know the decision of the government.


Walter C. Carter: A supplementary. Will the minister give an undertaking that the report will be presented to the House before the proposed date of adjournment, June 26?


Jean Marchand: I think so, Mr. Speaker.



TAXATION


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: My
question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In light of the minister's letter to the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs on Thursday last, I directed a question to the Prime Minister. Will the minister now make a statement indicating what changes he or the government has decided to make to the white paper on taxation in order to avoid unnecessary consideration by the public and the committee in those areas where changes have been made?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think the minister should make that kind of a statement now. If he is going to make a statement, I suggest it should be made on motions.

DEBATES	June 17. 1970


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the government has not made decisions with regard to changes in the white paper. It is considering a great many matters in the white paper, as are two parliamentary committees. We are looking forward to receiving representations from the parliamentary committee in front of which I will be appearing, I hope, before the hearings are concluded.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A supplementary question. If the minister is taking that attitude, how does he explain the position that the surplus that will be available is now going to be much smaller?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's supplementary question is argumentative.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: My
question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister aware of certain difficulties with regard to patient care in British Columbia and the widespread concern expressed by the British Columbia Medical Association, registered nurses, hospital workers and others because of final cutbacks? Will the minister make an early statement on motions as to whether he is prepared to send experts from his department to British Columbia to investigate the situation and ensure optimum patient care?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is aware that under the Hospital Insurance Act this is a primary responsibility of the province, the cost of which we share in terms of roughly 50 per cent after we receive an accounting from them. There is some question as to how far the federal government can go with regard to intervening in matters such as the one referred to by the hon. member. I will look into the matter and consider making a more complete statement later.


Mark Willson Rose: A supplementary question. When the minister is considering his statement with regard to the question I raised earlier, will he also consider stating whether the government has any intention of establishing national medical standards of patient care along the
June 17, 1970

lines recommended by the federal task force? Will he consider making these standards part and parcel of any future federal-provincial agreements?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me the hon. member's supplementary is rather in the form of a representation which he can assume will be noted by the minister.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the President of the Privy Council.
In view of the fact that the 25,000 manufacturing milk producers who signed the petition tabled in this House on February 18, 1970, have asked that an emergency debate be held on the government dairy policy, and that, as a member, I signed that petition, I therefore ask the President of the Privy Council whether the debate requested will be held before the House adjourns?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it will depend on the progress made. If all the legislation discussed with the House leaders is passed, it might be possible to hold, before June 26, the debate mentioned by the member.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, so as to complete the question asked by the hon. member for Bellechasse, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the President of the Privy Council.
Since the farmers' petition was found acceptable by the House in accordance with Standing Orders, since moreover the President of the Privy Council has just replied to the hon. member for Bellechasse that the requested debate would depend on the time available and finally, since parliamentary business is planned in agreement with the various parties, is the President of the Privy Council prepared to commit himself to deal with this matter with the representatives of the opposition parties, so that this debate may take place before the end of this session?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to discuss the matter with the representatives
Inquiries of the Ministry of the other parties, but I emphasize that we should conclude first the business of the House.



POLLUTION


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the fact that the government of Alberta is now engaged in arranging for a committee of investigation into the oil spill in the Athabasca River, would the federal government be prepared to assist both financially and technically? I ask this question because of the very considerable involvement of the federal government in the northern territories in connection with pipeline construction, river crossings and so on which so deeply concern us all. Would the government of Canada be prepared to co-operate and assist with this investigation?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think we would be willing to cooperate with the Alberta government. They have been co-operating with us on this issue. I should like to inform hon. members of the House that the situation seems to be under control at the present time. The flow of oil has been stopped with booms, and so on, and I think plans are now being made to leave the area since the problem has almost been solved.



REPRESENTATIONS TO INTERNATIONAL BODY RESPECTING OIL SPILLS

Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs dealing with the same subject of oil spills. My question relates to the sighting of 1,400 miles of polluted ocean by the explorer Thor Heyerdahl. In view of this, and in view of the increasingly numerous oil spills taking place both on land and in the water, is the minister or the government giving consideration to raising the subject at the United Nations or before some other international organization immediately?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Canadian government has taken a number of initiatives in this field. First of all, we are one of the sponsors of a major conference that is
June 17, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry being held under the auspices of the United Nations in Stockholm in 1972 dealing with all problems of world environment. In Brussels, the Minister of Transport attempted to get more stringent international regulations governing oil spills; and the Food and Agriculture Organization is holding a technical conference in Rome in December, 1970, on marine pollution and its effects on living resources and fishing. This conference will be chaired by the Deputy Minister of Fisheries of Canada.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: A further supplementary question. Has the government yet established a plan or proposal to submit to the international organization for the control of oil pollution on the high seas?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have made a number of proposals along these lines. I can think of nothing more comprehensive than what we have proposed. I think anything less comprehensive would not meet the bill.



PUBLIC WORKS


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question that I have directed both to the Secretary of State and the Minister of Transport. My question relates to a matter I raised with both ministers about a week ago, which they took as notice. My question is: How much longer does the government intend to hold up commencement of construction on Project Metro in Toronto?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I deny the allegation, which I am sure is not intentional, contained in the hon. member's question. I should like to know what it is that we are doing to hold up the project. As far as I am aware, no impediment has been placed in the way.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I should have taken some exception to the question asked by the hon. member, which was in the form of an allegation rather than a question. The hon. member might be allowed a real question by way of a supplementary.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Would the Minister of Transport inform the House how soon it is expected work will start on project Metro in Toronto?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the information I have is that this is a joint venture, in the first instance, between Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railways. These two bodies are now working out the detailed plans. I repeat that except for the Canadian National advising us of their progress, we have not placed any impediment in the way. Indeed, we have been co-operating with them with regard to the transportation aspects of the project, particularly the establishment, quite possibly, of a downtown air terminal in the complex.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A supplementary question. Has the minister had any discussion with his colleague the Secretary of State with respect to the substantial interest in this project of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation? Is it approval of this project by the Corporation that is holding up construction?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question relating to the very disappointing forecast of growth for Canada made by the OECD for the current year, namely a growth rate of 2 j per cent, considerably lower than the forecast made by the minister himself. Is this due to the slowdown in our economy being greater than the minister had anticipated, or does it reflect the considered opinion of the OECD advisers with regard to the effect of the floating rate of the dollar on the growth rate of Canada?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it reflects the effect of the floating dollar, because when OECD were engaging in this consideration they had no knowledge that the dollar was going to be floated. We are looking at our own forecast, but I would be glad to report to my hon. friend after I have had more opportunity to examine the OECD figures, since I returned to the House only yesterday.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the minister completes his survey of the situation, would he make a statement to the House indicating what measures he proposes the government should take to effect a less disappointing result, in view of the disastrous employment consequences that

June 17, 1970	COMMONS
this slow rate of growth will mean to Canadians? Would the minister make such statement at his earliest convenience?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, not necessarily agreeing with the Leader of the Opposition's speech, I will certainly consider any suggestions he may make.


Mr. Barney Danson (York North):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. May I ask the Minister of Finance, when he makes his study of the OECD report, whether he would also take note of their encouraging long-range projections for Canada and relate them to the very wise measures now being taken, measures which, although they might have shortterm detrimental effects, promise long-term gains?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that at this point we are entering the field of argument. I think we should pass on to the next question.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a very short supplementary question. Will the Minister of Finance bear in mind some very wise advice given by an economist of former days, that in the long run we will all be dead.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



PUBLIC WORKS


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, could I ask a question of the Minister of Transport. Last Friday, June 12, in the absence of the minister I asked a question relating to certain lakeshore lands that had been vacated by industry in Kingston, Ontario. I asked whether the federal government would undertake to assert its interest in the land, if it has any, and would make sure that the land is not handed over to a private developer but is used for the construction of some public recreational facility. The Minister of Public Works undertook to draw this question to the attention of the Minister of Transport. I do not know whether or not the minister has any information about this today.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of 22478-32
DEBATES	8249
Inquiries of the Ministry Public Works did call this to my attention. I can report in a preliminary way that we are investigating the matter. There is some question as to the degree of the federal presence in that area. We have received a number of representations and I can assure the hon. member and the House that the public interest certainly will be taken into account, if indeed we have any authority in the area. Secondly, I shall be glad to give a more detailed report when current investigations are more complete.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary arising out of the fact that I was informed, I believe yesterday afternoon, that the provincial government has handed the municipality what might be termed a quitclaim of its interest. Would the minister be good enough to look into that aspect of the question to make sure that federally we do not do the same thing.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's supplementary is a representation.



BROADCASTING


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. It is further to previous questions I posed on the same subject. Is the hon. gentleman in a position to advise what progress is being made in respect of the series of meetings between the CBC, CTV, CRTC and Cape Breton Broadcasters concerning the provision of a second television channel in the Cape Breton area which could serve other regions as well.


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: have not received further information since the hon. member asked me that question, Mr. Speaker, but I will be pleased to ask the CBC how those negotiations stand.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Labour whether, before presenting his white paper on unemployment
June 17, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry insurance, he obtained clearance from the Minister of Finance with regard to going beyond a 6 per cent increase?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, before 1 announced the white paper I obtained clearance from the members of the cabinet. It is a good document and they endorsed it entirely.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Labour if a 32 per cent increase is not a violation of the announced policy of the Minister of Finance who a moment ago said the government did agree to the 6 per cent increase. Will the minister, on behalf of organized labour, ask his colleagues to refrain from blaming labour for any violation of the 6 per cent guideline when Ms own department is doing likewise.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the hardship imposed on Canadians living outside the larger urban centres by the shortage of ophthalmological services, and in light of the consensus on the matter achieved by the provinces participating in medicare, would the minister now assure the House that equal access to eye infraction care will be made available to all Canadians through optometric services being covered by the medicare program?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member did refer to what we require in terms of a consensus from the provinces. We will be having a meeting shortly, within the next couple of months, with the provincial health ministers at which we will again canvass for a consensus. As the hon. member knows, there have been changes of government in at least two of the provinces fairly recently and if a widespread consensus does occur the government will have to consider extended coverage under medicare.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, do I take from the minister's remarks that optometric services would be considered provided all provinces participating in medicare achieve a consensus on this point?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is very largely true; but as the hon. member knows

we have not been really prepared to discuss extended coverage under medicare until all provinces are, in fact, in medicare under its present terms and conditions. That is not the case as of yet.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wish to bring to the attention of hon. members that we will shortly rim out of time, and perhaps at tMs point we should limit the supplementaries.



POLLUTION


Mr. E. B. Osier (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the reported discovery of serious mercury pollution and death of fish in the Winnipeg River immediately below Kenora, Ontario, what steps have been taken to pinpoint the source of the pollution and to stop it? I see that the minister has left.



SHIPPING


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport if he is in a position to report what tangible result his efforts to date have had in alleviating the acute shortage of transportation on the Gulf of St. Lawrence between Newfoundland and Nova Scotia.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I can report on the next phase of the negotiations. Last week I indicated that we were dealing with a firm in Norway. Representatives of that company have now come to Canada. We have indicated we are prepared to enter into what is known as a bare-boat charter with them but it does involve these technical changes to which I referred. These are being discussed with officials of the department. I hope that an agreement will be reached within the next 24 hours.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, does the minister propose to proceed with the interim plan to use barges on the Cabot Strait?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: If necessary we will. We have located a couple in New York which we think will be suitable. The problem is obtaining a type of barge which will fit the facility at the end of the strait. I hope with the
June 17. 1970

acquisition of the vessels which we should get as quickly as possible, and the changes that will be made, this will not be necessary.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that the United States Food and Drug administration has now made it mandatory to put danger warnings on each package of contraceptive pills so that medical advice can be sought immediately by the patient, what steps are being taken to protect Canadian women who take these pills?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I did answer a similar question by the hon. member a few weeks ago. The Food and Drug Directorate sends out detailed directions and warnings which it feels are appropriate to all the doctors across the country concerning the way in which the pill should be handled, and the advice to be given to women who, in the doctor's opinion, require the pill. This program is being stepped up. There are other precautionary warnings given in the directions which go with the pill. If the hon. member is referring to the warning on the outside of the packages and so on, that is a matter now under study by a committee of Canadian experts. This committee is providing me with advice and, as I stated to the House last week, I expect the report of the committee very shortly. When I say "very shortly" I am speaking in terms of two or three weeks.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Acting Solicitor General or in his absence to the Acting Prime Minister. In light of the allegations that a member of the provincial legislature of Ontario has had a "contract" let on his life by the Mafia, and in light of the fact that the Ontario Provincial Police and Metropolitan Toronto police forces are taking these allegations very seriously, can the minister give assurance to this House that the RCMP is actively engaged in investigating the
22478-32J
Inquiries of the Ministry allegation in the hope of protecting the life of this member?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Well, Mr. Speaker, this primarily is the responsibility I suppose of the Attorney General of Ontario. If the co-operation of the RCMP is required it will be forthcoming.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister anything to tell the House regarding the unfortunate crash of the CF-5 aircraft yesterday while undergoing a flight test which is part of its acceptance trials? What sort of inquiry has been set up to determine the liability surrounding the matter, if any?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I join the hon.
member in expressing regret at this accident. All I can say is that the investigation was started this morning and we are looking first of all into the accident itself. We are also investigating the liability as to who is responsible.



CF PROGRAM

Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: wonder if the minister could tell us whether, owing to the short range of this aircraft, it has now been decided that the aircraft to be used for training under the CF program are to be mothballed?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I contest the allegation that this aircraft has a short range. I hope my hon. friend knows that it can be ferried across the Atlantic. The range is relatively short, but it is relatively long also.



THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
Can the minister tell the House whether the Quebec government, up to now, has opened discussions regarding the form of the oath of allegiance, and whether a request for amending it has been submitted to him officially with regard to section 128 of the British North America Act?
June 17. 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I did not quite catch the question of the hon. member. I shall read it tomorrow in Hansard and if an answer is required, I will reply.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Joliette rises on a point of order. It might be easier for him to repeat his question.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I believe I heard the minister say that he had not understood my question. Therefore, I shall repeat it.
I was asking the minister whether the Quebec government, up to now, had opened discussions with him concerning the form of the oath of allegiance and whether a request for amending the constitution, with regard to section 128 of the BNA Act had been submitted by the Quebec government?


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport how soon he thinks his department may be able to make a decision on whether or not they will be able to utilize the former Canadian Forces Base in Clinton for the new air services training school to be used by his and other federal departments?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The hon. member was good
enough to bring this matter to my attention some time ago. I have asked the officials of my department to take a look at it. It involves two other matters having to do with the possibility of combined training by our department and by one or two others. I have not received any late report on it but I will get it for the hon. member as soon as I possibly can.


Robert Elgin McKinley: I wonder if the minister would have a conference with his friend, the Minister of National Defence, because I understand that some of the fixtures are being moved off the base, something which the minister promised me would not be done prior to the phase-out?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. Allen B. Sulaiycky (Rocky Mountain):: My question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that University Hospital in Edmonton this week prohibited the use of any medication containing phenacetin, and in view of the fact that there has been evidence that this drug is harmful to the kidneys, will the minister undertake a study to determine whether restrictions on the public use of this drug are necessary?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker. With reference to this particular drug, I did announce that a committee of the Food and Drug Directorate, the Canadian Medical Association and other experts had been brought together here to determine what further action should be taken with respect to it. I would advise that, in the meantime, a strong cautionary warning is being issued along with this particular drug.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Frank Howard: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. It is based partly on the fact that tomorrow morning at ten o'clock in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia 45 people, mostly fishermen, are to arraigned and are liable to be sent to prison for contravening an injunction. In light of the fact that this incident arose out of their fundamental struggle for recognition as collective bargaining agents, something that has been available to most members of the labour force for 35 to 40 years, and the minister may have an opportunity to deal with this because-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member asking a question? He has had the floor for a while now.


Frank Howard: Like most hon. members, I have listened attentively and have learned that one must lay a base for the question one puts. I am just coming to the question now. Would the minister be prepared, because of the crucial nature of the situation, to introduce emergency legislation to provide these people with the opportunity to obtain collective bargaining rights?
June 17, 1970


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Because of the persuasiveness of the hon. gentleman some weeks ago, I did agree to set up an industrial inquiry commission into the propriety of extending collective bargaining rights to this particular group of employees. The terms of reference may or may not be under federal jurisdiction. In the interval, I must point out that if these men have run afoul of the law they cannot expect the Minister of Labour to do anything about this alleged disrespect of the law which will be ascertained tomorrow. Since the matter is before the court, it would be highly presumptuous of me to indicate whether or not I favour their actions.


Frank Howard: I wonder if the minister is aware that Mr. Justice Green, the industrial inquiry commissioner, appeared to act as if he favoured one of the parties-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question, of course, is out of order on many counts.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of National Revenue.
Since a brief addressed by the Association of Canadian Shoe Manufacturers to all hon. members indicates that from 1956 to 1969, the Canadian population has increased by 33 per cent, while the imports of shoes increased by 568 per cent, could the minister tell us if he is contemplating a review of the customs tariff in order to remedy the serious effects of this situation on the workers of this industry?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister of National Revenue):: This does not come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of National Revenue, Mr. Speaker, but under that of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to whom I shall convey the hon. member's question.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-Si. Barbe):: My question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Can he report now on the
Canada Elections Act
evidence of deterioration of rail lines in Newfoundland, as he indicated he would do in answer to the question of the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador on June 5?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I am sorry, would the hon.
member repeat the question?


Jack Marshall: Could the minister report on the evidence of deterioration of rail lines in Newfoundland and the resulting danger of accidents arising from this deterioration? He indicated on June 5 he would do this.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I referred the matter to the Canadian Transport Commission which has the authority and the personnel for carrying out such investigations. To my knowledge, no report has been received from them. I will make inquiries. If it has been received, I will make it available to the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe and to the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, June 16 consideration in committee of Bill C-215, respecting the franchise of electors and the election of members to the House of Commons-Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale)-Mr. Faulkner in the chair.
The Chairman:: Order, please. The House is again in committee of the whole on Bill C-215, respecting the franchise of electors and the election of members to the House of Commons. When the committee rose last evening, subclause 3 of clause 14 was under consideration with an amendment by the hon. member for Matane. Before proceeding, I might point out that subclause 8 of clause 13 was allowed to stand. We are, therefore, now considering subclause 3 of clause 14, which may be found on page 24 of the bill. The question now before the committee is the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Matane, which is as follows:
That subclause (3) of clause 14 be deleted.
On Clause 14, subclause 3-Certain British subjects deemed Electors.

June 17, 1970
Canada Elections Act [Translation]


Mr.   De Bane@: Mr. Chairman, as I was saying yesterday at the end of the sitting, my amendment is based on the following considerations: A federal Parliament such as ours must not be the champion of any nationality and indulge in any discrimination.
What is the present situation? We are granting privileges to a particular group, the British subjects, whatever their country of origin. As for immigtants from other countries, we demand of them that they become Canadian citizens if they want to vote.
Today, there are about a million and a half British subjects who did not ever deign to become Canadian citizens even though they have been living in Canada for many years. Besides, I wonder why they should become Canadian citizens since they enjoy the same rights as all Canadians. The preferential treatment they enjoy under this clause is found in other legislation, in other fields- even administrative-including the public service for instance where preference is given to Canadian citizens or British subjects.
In my opinion, the only way to check nationalism and intolerance by one group towards another is for the government not to favour one over another. The federal government must pass legislation which does not favour any ethnic group.
Obviously, the most important argument is this: We would not want to give preferential treatment to one group over another. However, there is another even more important: Parliament should not deprive certain persons of the rights they already have.
I would say to my hon. colleagues that no British subject would be denied the right to vote at the next federal election, if he is willing in the meantime, to take the necessary steps to become a Canadian citizen.
Indeed, under the bill now under consideration, any British subject enjoying the right to vote in 1968 would still have that privilege. Consequently, all those who were entitled to vote in 1968 and who at the next federal election would have been in Canada at least five years and wish to obtain their Canadian citizenship would have the right to vote.
I say frankly that this section seems to stem directly or indirectly from the conquest, and I hope we have all forgotten it. What we want, it is to build together a country where all the people will be equal, where one group is not given preference over another, where, in particular, French Canadians will not come up
[The Chairman.]
against a certain kind of provocation, though undoubtedly unconscious. In my opinion, Canada will not be able to survive unless it becomes the champion of equality between all ethnic groups.
Of course, it is but a detail without any significance to put one group before another. But I think that in a country like Canada where nationalist feelings are quite strong, it would be sheer folly not to heed all these small details in which, finally, some want to find a justification for their intolerance.
This is why I believe that Canadian citizens alone should have the franchise and that British subjects who have been living here for many years, and who are an asset to the country, should take the necessary steps in order to become citizens like the rest of us.


Mr. Macquarrie:: Mr. Chairman, I am interested in the hon. gentleman's supporting statements on his proposed amendment. I cannot believe that if the bill as presented or as the committee has recommended-and there is a slight difference here-should be enacted into law, the survival of Canada would really be seriously endangered. I think that was a bit extreme. Nor can I believe it is a vicious exercise in discrimination, or a recollection of the conquest.
I am not so concerned about the fact that citizens of another nation, another jurisdiction, namely, the United Kingdom, should find it in a sense easier to obtain the franchise here than others. I think there is another aspect to it to which the hon. gentleman does not advert and that is the fact that this is one part of a reciprocal arrangement. There are Canadians in Britain who will be voting tomorrow, because the United Kingdom parliament has extended this right to them.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Some might be elected.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Indeed, as the minister mentions, some may be elected members of the United Kingdom parliament.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: For Labour.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: There was a concept at one time that we might be able to extend, through the Commonwealth, a great generality of citizenship, and in modern days that we could have an expression as in the days of Rome, civis Romanus sum, indicating that a man from the very remotest region could be a
June 17. 1970

Roman citizen equal in status to the residents of that eternal city. Unfortunately, that has not developed, but there are still parts of the Commonwealth which grant this reciprocal right to Canadians.
The other day I read that the Prime Minister has become an enthusiast for the Commonwealth. I think that is a fine thing. I am not one of those who criticize people because they change their mind. It indicates that, in this regard, he has a mature point of view.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Can we not, even in committee, have a little cessation of interruptions?
The concept of the Commonwealth is surely meaningful. It is certainly a unique political organization. We do have rights that, for instance, are extended to our diplomats. There is a subtle difference between an ambassador and a high commissioner. Could this not be recognized in the realm of the franchise? Perhaps instead of rushing against this, we might, within the Commonwealth lead in internationalizing the concept of citizenship. This might be a fine thing. I am never happy when I see people trying to turn Canada inwards in any of these matters. So, I would be content with the way this provision appears in the bill. I think the government made a little alteration and not an improvement. I would not want anyone who believes that this distinction should remain to think that it is to perpetuate discrimination. It is rather a development in sustaining a reciprocal recognition which transcends nationalism and, to that extent, surely is not totally bad.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, the disposition of the government was to accept the amendment to the act proposed by the committee. I acknowledge that there is a difference in formulation, but I am not sure how substantial the difference is. I think it is much the same as was recommended by the committee. From a personal standpoint, I am inclined to accept the committee's recommendation because it is not desirable to take the franchise away from anyone who previously had it and who has remained in Canada. On the other hand, I recognize that there has been a discrimination in favour of immigrants to Canada from the British Isles-indeed from the Indian subcontinent and elsewhere, which historically happens to have been part of the British Commonwealth. This is a recognition
Canada Elections Act
by the committee that discrimination in Canada in favour of those immigrants is not to continue but, rather, that the class to be entitled to exercise the franchise, not being Canadian citizens, is to be frozen, in effect, as of June 26, 1967. The class may be reduced from time to time by an individual losing continuous residence in Canada.
Under the circumstances, I would recognize that there is a wide difference of opinion among hon. members on this particular subject. As the representative of the government, at this point my disposition would be not to vote personally on this question but to leave it to the decision of the committee as a whole whether this particular subsection should be amended or whether it should be accepted in full.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, we didn't have a full opportunity last evening to deal with this because the hour was getting late and there was a disposition to explore other matters.
I am not generally disposed to support the amendment before us as proposed by the member from Matane. I do not believe in the principle of confining and restricting the franchise or of removing it from people who previously had it, albeit they may have received it by way of a bilateral agreement with another country or may think themselves in a position of privilege vis-a-vis other people in Canada who are not British subjects. Nevertheless, the principal point that I wish to make, and on which I found our opinion, is that we should not confine the area within which the franchise should be applicable but rather we should be concerned about expanding it. It is from that point of view that I cannot support the proposed amendment.
I suggest that we might be better advised to say that any adult over 18 years of age having been ordinarily resident in Canada for the past year, whether or not that person is a Canadian citizen, should be entitled to vote. A year's continuous residence is the provision we use with respect to British subjects, so we could expand it to apply to people from other countries. People who have been ordinarily resident in Canada for the period of a year would be contributing to Canada, would be governed by our laws and would be paying taxes for the upkeep of services and facilities within the nation. By virtue of the provisions of the Citizenship Act, which I hope will be amended, these people would have to wait for five years before applying to become Canadi-

June 17, 1970
Canada Elections Act
an citizens and thus becoming eligible to vote. If we were to enlarge the franchise to include everyone, Canadian citizen or otherwise, who has been in the country for one year, it would be a more generous action than that proposed by the amendment before us.
We should tie in with this provision the proposition that those individuals who do not take Canadian citizenship when they are eligible for it would lose the franchise. Something along this line would be far more acceptable and in the spirit of the relationship between Parliament and the people who pay the taxes.


Mr. Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to say a few words because I am very much in favour of the amendment. It is precisely the amendment that I proposed in a private member's bill, as did a few other members in this Parliament. I believe this is a very simple question and, frankly, I cannot understand anyone who would downgrade Canadian citizenship. Either a person is proud of being a Canadian or he is not, and if he is not interested in becoming a citizen, then I cannot understand why he would want to vote.
I am very surprised that my good friend the member for Hillsborough would mention reciprocity. I do not think he would vote in the election tomorrow if he were living in the United Kingdom. I cannot understand any Canadian who would vote in that election unless he wanted to be part of that country. I cannot understand, either, why anyone would want to run for Parliament in the United Kingdom unless he wanted to live there and become a British citizen. Conversely, I cannot understand why anyone from the British Isles or elsewhere in the Commonwealth, who does not want to become a citizen of this country, should have the right to vote here or to be a candidate in an election. It is as simple as that to me, and I would urge members of the House to vote in favour of striking that particular portion from the bill before us.
I am a little surprised that the committee would come up with this particular suggestion. I would be more in favour of the proposal of the hon. member for Skeena than what is before us in this bill. A British subject who was here in 1967 has had plenty of opportunity to become a Canadian citizen, more so than someone who has only been here a year prior to an election and may desire citizenship. From that point of view, I certainly agree

with the hon. member for Skeena far more than with this bill that is now before us. I say that people who have been in Canada and who have had the privilege of voting before becoming Canadian citizens, should never have had it. It was a mistake and we should remedy that mistake in this bill. If they are interested in casting their ballot, they have the next two or three years in which to take out citizenship. If they are not interested in becoming Canadians, there is no reason in the world why they should want to vote or be a candidate in an election. I think it is a great thing to be a Canadian citizen and it seems to me that these people should feel that way too.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I wonder how many members have discussed this matter with people from other countries. I have discussed it with members of the diplomatic corp who could not understand why anyone would want to vote in this country unless he were a citizen. It seems to me this illustrates the peculiar way of thinking we have in Canada when it comes to things like patriotism and love of country. This idea of wanting to be part of something else and hanging on to apron strings is an idea which I am very much against. I believe that if we are to be the kind of nation we wish to be, we should be proud of being Canadians and should consider Canadian citizenship as something very special. It should be a great privilege for someone to vote. If we consider it in that light, there is no reason why anyone who wishes to live here, even though he may be a British subject, should not want to be part of this country and a citizen of this country. If a man does not want that, he should not have the rights that go with citizenship. I encourage every hon. member to vote in favour of this amendment to strike out that particular paragraph which makes an exception in favour of the British citizen.


Mr. Laprise:: Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment of the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane), as well as the remarks of the hon. member or Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) and of others to the effect that non Canadians should not be given the franchise.
I myself introduced a bill to that effect twice in the House and I should like to see clause 14(3) deleted, so that the franchise be given only to true Canadian citizens.
June 17, 1970

If we deem all British subjects qualified as electors, we automatically recognize that Canada is still a British colony. Everywhere and in every situation we are wont to talk about Canadian sovereignty and autonomy. I think we should adopt immediately a measure granting the franchise to every Canadian citizen.
I know someone born in the United States who is probably 50 years old now. He has been living in Canada since the age of two and yet has never applied for Canadian citizenship. He is however considered as a Canadian. But because he is not a Canadian citizen he does not have the franchise under the act.
I think that a British citizen who comes to Canada should be granted the franchise only if, as any other immigrant, he becomes a Canadian citizen.
This is why I support the amendment of the hon. member for Matane, asking for the removal of clause 14(3).


Mr. Deachman:: Mr. Chairman, clause 14(3) attempts to deal with an old problem. It attempts to settle a growing feeling on the part of Canadians that the vote in Canadian general elections ought to be reserved to Canadian citizens. This feeling became increasingly evident during the great period of postwar immigration. The idea has also become very popular among younger Canadians. We took some steps in this direction when passing the Citizenship Act of 1942, for example, which established who is a Canadian citizen. That act made it essential for anyone who wished to become a Canadian to apply for Canadian citizenship. It included a provision saying that a British subject who had been living in Canada for five years before the coming into force of the act would automatically become a Canadian citizen.
However, the dual nature of Canadian voting remained enshrined within the Elections Act. It has remained there to this day, much to the annoyance of the hundreds of thousands of immigrants who have come to this country from non-Commonwealth countries and who, while waiting their five years to become Canadian citizens, saw other people coming from Commonwealth countries enjoy the privilege of participating in federal elections, even though they had been here for only one year. It is, therefore, reasonable for us to see expressed in amendments to the Elections Act a desire to cure an old anomaly.
Canada Elections Act
The trouble is that the bill would not do that. The act we are considering simply entrenches the rights of a class of non-Canadian citizens who will have the privilege of voting until they die. It says that every British subject, other than a Canadian citizen, who was qualified as an elector on June 25, 1968 is deemed to be qualified as an elector.
This provision simply means that a person, let us say, who was 21 years old at the last election and qualified to vote, may continue to vote without ever becoming a Canadian citizen for as long as he lives, perhaps for 40, 50 or 60 years or more. So, if we pass this clause, we shall be creating two classes of British subjects in Canada, namely, those who by virtue of this act will be allowed to vote from now until they die, and those other British subjects who will not have the privilege of voting until they become Canadian citizens. In addition, we would have a third class of Canadian citizens who would have the vote. I sympathize with those who believe that the vote should be reserved to Canadians. I believe that is what we ought to be doing.
On the other hand, I do not feel that by passing any clause of this bill we ought to cut off people from the franchise who now have the right to vote. I am not in favour of taking away immediately the right of those who have enjoyed the franchise. I think there is a way around the difficulty, and that way was hinted at by the hon. member for Skeena who spoke a few moments ago. He suggested that we should provide those who have enjoyed the privilege of voting by virtue of their British citizenship with the opportunity to become Canadian citizens, and that we should not disenfranchise them by accepting certain amendments. I, therefore, wish to propose an amendment to subclause 3, by substituting for line 10 on page 24 of the bill the following:
will be deemed to be qualified as an elector for a period not exceeding five years from the date of proclamation of this act.
Simply put, that means this: every British subject who is not a Canadian citizen and who was qualified as an elector on June 25, 1968, will be deemed to be qualified as an elector for a period not exceeding five years from the date of the proclamation of this Act. By accepting this amendment we shall take no voting rights away from anybody. We shall provide ample opportunity for British citizens to vote in by-elections which may occur between now and the time of the next general election, to vote in the next general election and vote perhaps in the election

June 17, 1970
Canada Elections Act
beyond that. But the warning is clear in the act. They will be asked to acquire Canadian citizenship, as is now the case for Poles, Germans and so on, many hundreds and thousands of whom live in my constituency. They will be asked to acquire their citizenship in order to vote in the next federal election.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I appeal to those who wish to strike out subclause 3 not to strike it out and deprive some people of their vote. That is not what Canadians want. We do not want to do something vindictive to those people who have come here and who have been given that privilege. Let us recognize that Canadians want the vote to be fair. Let us issue the warning within the Act. These people should be given an opportunity to become Canadian citizens and, after a reasonable lapse of time in which to acquire their citizenship, to vote.


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. Perhaps my remarks now will help to clarify what 1 anticipate the point of order might be. This amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra is an amendment to subclause 3. The committee is now considering an amendment to subclause 3. I therefore cannot put this amendment. As I understand it, what is before the committee is not an amendment to an amendment, but rather a subsequent amendment to subclause 3, assuming the amendment now before the committee does not carry. I ask the hon. member to withhold this amendment. In the course of time, he will have a chance to put his amendment and the committee can then vote on it.
There is a further complication. I have been advised that a number of members wish to move amendments. I wish to make a suggestion as to procedure with which the committee might agree. We could deal with the amendment now before us, namely that subclause 3 be deleted, and in turn deal with the amendments as they come forward. We have ample time. We can hear as many amendments and speeches as hon. members wish. There is no restriction to the committee of the whole. Every member will have the right to speak or move an amendment. He will not be restricted in any way. I ask the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra to withhold his amendment. I am prepared to recognize the hon. member at a subsequent time when he can move the amendment. Meanwhile, we will continue the debate on the amendment of the hon. member for Matane.


Frank Howard: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. In committee of the whole it is difficult to follow other than the course set out in the rules, namely that we must deal with the motion before us, the motion to amend. I am not trying to put thoughts in the mind of the hon. member for Matane or to interpret what he meant. It may well be that on this or any other amendment that may be before us the mover and seconder will be prepared to adjust their thinking if we could reach a more agreeable amendment, one that might have wider support. We preclude ourselves from doing that if we follow the normal course of voting on several amendments. If we assume, for the sake of argument, that the amendment of the hon. member for Matane is carried that will preclude any subsequent amendments. The committee will have made a decision on that particular subject.
It is true that this proposal was studied by the standing committee. Possibly there might be agreement, after a short period of time, on suggestions about alternative amendments. Presumably we will not in any event get through this bill by six o'clock. The matter could stand over. We could then have an ad hoc committee meeting of those who have an interest in this matter to see whether there could be some agreement. The committee must be concerned about the right of Canadians to vote in order to choose their Parliament. Party differences and individual differences should transcend the rigidity of the rules. To a large extent, the rules were developed to deal with matters other than election law. I think the President of the Privy Council said that election law is the one law that is exempted from the Order in Council structure of government. All of the details are spelled out in the act because of its vital importance to our democratic institution.
An alternate and more agreeable way of dealing with this might be to have the matter stand. We could then listen to suggestions regarding amendments that individuals might have. Possibly at this meeting agreement could be reached on the divergent views and we could then come to a conclusion.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: With regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Skeena, I agree with the wisdom of his suggestion. The hon. member for Hillsborough mentioned last night that at least one of his colleagues will move an amendment on this particular point. Perhaps we might follow a
June 17, 1970

Canada Elections Act
procedure just short of that followed by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, namely when hon. members are speaking to this particular amendment they could indicate alternatives that they will propose. We would then in effect have the full platter before us. As mentioned by the hon. member for Skeena, it is unlikely that we will complete the bill this evening. Once we have heard the full range of suggestions on this particular clause, we might go on to the subsequent one. This will offer the possibility of having discussions to see if general agreement can be reached.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Without creating a precedent, I wish to say that I think the minister is speaking with wisdom.


James Hugh Faulkner: If the amendment is mentioned in the course of hon. member's remarks, it creates no difficulty, as long as it is clear that the amendment having been discussed, mentioned and argued, should not then be put. Otherwise, we will have a whole series of amendments before the committee simultaneously. That is inconsistent with our practice. If it is agreed in committee that hon. members speak and mention the sort of amendment they wish to move, the members of the committee can then get together independent of the committee of the whole to work out a compromise that is acceptable. I will consider the amendments as being mentioned and not being put.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, I was going to make some comments on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Skeena. However, that has now been obviated by the wise decision of Your Honour. I do have an amendment that I intended to put before the committee this afternoon. In light of the comments that have been made, it might have that element of compromise that is so important in reaching decisions in this Parliament, particularly where those decisions lie in the area of a controversial or politically sensitive subject.
I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Hillsborough when he pointed out that the amendment before the committee is entirely negative. He suggested that in this day and age of the global village, to use the McLuhan phrase, and the fact that the Commonwealth of Nations is the only realistic international body that is able to operate because it is established on the same basis of values and political traditions, rather than moving in a negative direction and retreating
to nationalistic chauvinism that was more appropriate in the 19th century than in the 20th century, we should move in a more positive direction. The hon. member for Skeena spoke in somewhat the same terms. He indicated that his opposition to the present motion is that it is restrictive rather than expansive.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I am sure all members of the committee agree that the right of the franchise is one of the most important ingredients of our democratic system, as well as being one of the most cherished rights of the citizens of this country. We must always remember that the institutions that we have followed in this high court of public opinion have been derived almost in total from the Mother of Parliaments at Westminster. However, in the early stages of the evolutionary process which has brought our system of responsible democracy to its present level of development, the franchise was restricted.
Since that time, every move in the direction of changing the franchise has been to expand the right of exercising the vote. It is interesting to note that in almost every case there has been a certain degree of controversy surrounding such changes. Even when the right to vote was extended to the women of Canada, as it was in other countries with democratic procedures, the change was not agreed to without some degree of controversy.
Looking at clause 14 in total, the major change proposed is in the direction of extending the franchise, of making it available to Canadians of 18 years of age. The proposal in subclause 3 is, of course, in exactly the opposite direction. For the first time in the history of Parliament and its decennial dealings with the Canada Elections Act, we are moving in a negative direction and removing voting privileges that were once extended to certain groups in this country.
I am sure that the substantial weight of opinion in this House is toward accentuating the positive rather than the negative, and with this in mind I am going to make a suggestion that can be put into the mill of the ad hoc committee that will consider a compromise solution to this question. My suggestion is in the form of an amendment to subclause 3 of clause 14 and is in the following words, which are substituted for the present subclause:
(3) Every British subject, Commonwealth citizen, and citizen of France who has landed immigrant status and who has lived continuously in Canada

June 17, 1970
Canada Elections Act
for a period of one year following the granting of landed immigrant status is deemed to be qualified as an elector.
I realize the hon. member for Skeena has suggested that a privilege similar to this be extended to all landed immigrants in Canada, and this is a step that the members of the committee might want to take. I think the special privileges that have been granted to British subjects up to the present time derive from the fact that our political institutions in Canada are based substantially on the traditions that emanate from the Mother of Parliaments. Indeed, the Mother of Parliaments has been the creative source of most of the democratic parliamentary institutions around the world.
We in Canada also have another mother country, France, and in recent years there has been a desire on the part of large numbers of Canadians to establish creative contact with France. It has already been mentioned that reciprocal privileges are granted in other Commonwealth nations with respect to Commonwealth citizenship. It seems to me that these are the values that should be emphasized in a day and age that is becoming a bit of a nationalistic jungle, at a time when the world is becoming a veritable whispering gallery. I trust that the members of this committee will move in a positive direction rather than negative.


Mr. Laflamme:: Mr. Chairman, I only wish to point out that in committee we unanimously agreed on principle to require that a person be a Canadian citizen in order to have the right to vote.
As for the vested interests of citizens who enjoyed certain rights on a reciprocal basis, all that is needed is to make a few amendments for the future.
As far as I am concerned, I would have supported the unanimous decision reached by the members of the committee. However, the committee of the whole has before it some interesting suggestions, among them the one made by the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) who defines the principle to which, I believe, all members of the committee have agreed. For the implementation of this suggestion, the hon. member for Vancouver -Quadra (Mr. Deachman) suggested a moment ago that those who, to date, have enjoyed their franchise without being Canadian citizens should be granted a five-year period- one can really not quarrel with that if one

shares the opinion of the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) that Canadian citizenship must mean something-in order to become Canadian citizens, and this without prejudice to rights that were exercised by those who were residents of Canada during election periods. A five-year period, in my opinion, is fair, and will allow all those who up to now have enjoyed the advantages of Canadian life to take the required steps to acquire Canadian citizenship. The five-year period would be sufficient. I consider this would be fair and equitable for all concerned.
As for me, if the motion of the member for Matane is put before that of the member for Vancouver-Quadra which is more logical, I will vote against the first but in favour of the second so as to develop an orderly and logical procedure giving all Canadians the rights they used to have in the past, should a general election be called a year after the coming into force of this legislation, or should some citizens still be without their certificate of citizenship.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Mr. MacRae:: Mr. Chairman, it has been said of some public figure about whom I read that he was dragged kicking and screaming into the 20th century. Someone may accuse me of the same thing in respect of the amendment I intend to present. I believe very strongly in the British Commonwealth of Nations. I have always had a feeling for the British tradition. My own people have lived in this country for 200 years, in the same province as the hon. member for Matane, who proposed an amendment a while ago and the hon. member who just spoke. I cannot accept the fact that our British Commonwealth is disintegrating; perhaps it is, but I cannot accept that. I should like to think that this great association of nations to which we belong can and should continue. I was very pleased to read in the press recently that our Prime Minister is being considered as a great Commonwealth man. I think that is wonderful. I had not realized this. I thought that perhaps he leaned more toward a narrow nationalism. I am grateful that he has taken this position.
The hon. member for Hillsborough very eloquently pointed out that what we have had up until this particular point is a situation whereby every British subject other than a Canadian citizen ordinarily resident in Canada for the 12 months immediately
June 17. 1970

preceding the polling day of an election is qualified to vote. That is a reciprocal arrangement which we have with a number of countries in the British Commonwealth such as the United Kingdom, which was specifically mentioned by the hon. member for Hillsborough, New Zealand, Australia and a number of the Caribbean countries. I think that if a citizen of one of these nations comes to Canada, has been here a year and is interested in our institutions and our country he should have an inducement to stay and enrich this country.
There are many things I could say. I listened with interest to the points made by the hon. gentleman who just spoke. I do not agree with him but to use an old cliche may I say that I would defend to the death his right to have his opinion and express it in this, the highest court of the country. At the appropriate time it is my intention to move the following amendment:
Resolved that Clause 14(3) be deleted and the following substituted:
(3) Every British subject, other than a Canadian citizen who has been ordinarily resident in Canada for the twelve months immediately preceding polling day at such election, is qualified as an elector.
That is the law as it presently stands and this is the intent of my motion when it is moved.


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words in this debate. I strongly support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Matane. Since he presented his amendment, we have had a proposed amendment by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. While the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra an improvement in the text of the law at present, I still feel it is not as good as the proposal put forward by the hon. member for Matane. I do not think it is as good as the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Matane because it perpetuates a privileged position given to certain people in Canada for five years. In the five-year period, we could have two general elections. We had general elections in 1962, 1963 and 1965. There were three general elections in a period of four years. It is certain that within the five-year period which would elapse after the proclamation of this bill there would be one election and it is possible, if there should be a minority government, that there would be another general election.
I support the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Matane. If it should be
Canada Elections Act
defeated, I would seriously consider supporting the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. I would certainly support it in preference to what is now in the text of the law. I believe it is deplorable that we give the right to vote to people who do not have sufficient interest in this country to become citizens. In this way, we give the right to vote to people who have pledged allegiance to another country. This is an indication that there is still a vestige of colonialism in our laws. This should be changed quickly. We should be consistent and logical in this matter. It is very unfair to other immigrants who know just as much or more about Canada. There are immigrants from the United States, from Maine, Vermont or New York State, who come to live here in towns and cities which they have visited for many years. They do not have the same privilege. We should be consistent in this regard.
Another reason I support the amendment of the hon. member for Matane is that the type of exception which is proposed in the law complicates the compiling of the electoral list. Can anyone imagine an enumerator going from door to door asking people whether they are Canadians and, if the answer is no, having to ask them whether they were eligible to vote as of June 25, 1968. The person being interviewed would have to remember whether he was here at that time, and whether the members of his family were here at that time, in order to determine whether or not they were eligible to vote on June 25, 1968. I suggest that such a provision in our law leads to much confusion and difficulty in respect of compiling a sound electoral list.
I should like to refer for a moment to some of the remarks made by some of the other participants in this discussion. The hon. member for Hillsborough discussed the problem as if it just meant that persons from the United Kingdom would have the right to vote in Canadian elections without having Canadian citizenship. I presume that was merely an oversight. It is in fact the case that people from all Commonwealth countries have this right, including I believe people from Ireland. I think such a provision was placed in the law at one time. The hon. member also referred to reciprocity. It is true that Canadians can vote in the United Kingdom under reciprocal arrangements, but this is not true in respect of all Commonwealth countries. I am led to believe, for example, that in India a Canadian cannot vote unless he is a citizen of India, although a citizen of India can vote in Canada with one year's residence.

June 17, 1970
Canada Elections Act
Another thing I should like to point out is that very often the government of Canada has serious disagreements with the government of the United Kingdom and also the governments of other Commonwealth countries. For example, I might refer to the Suez crisis or the situation last year in which Britain, at the NATO conference, opposed our move to withdraw troops from Europe. There are other instances to which I could refer in which the government of this country has had a disagreement with the government of the United Kingdom or the governments of other countries in the Commonwealth. Therefore, I believe it is important that those people who have the right to vote are the people who have made a commitment to Canada by taking out Canadian citizenship.
I was also surprised by the remarks made by the hon. member for Skeena and the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre. As I recall it, these two members have always strongly opposed situations in which non-Canadians have a majority participation in Canadian companies. Time and time again, I have heard them speak against situations in which Canadian corporations were controlled by persons who are not Canadian citizens. They continuously put forward the proposal that at least 51 per cent ownership should be by Canadian citizens. Yet, in this debate they are proposing that we continue a situation for a while whereby we give the vote, which in my opinion is more important, to some people who have not given the commitment to become Canadian citizens. I am wondering how they resolve that inconsistency in their thinking. Where is the logic in that particular course of action? The hon. member for Bran-don-Souris has said we should accentuate the positive. I agree with him. In my view, the positive approach is to support Canadian citizenship. Canadian citizenship should be the governing rule for voting in this country. When a person takes out that citizenship, he makes a commitment to this country before any other country. This is his primary interest.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Would the hon. member permit a question? How does he reconcile his narrow definition of nationalism and citizenship with his espousal of world federalism?


William Warren Allmand: I would much sooner have a world government, but until we have it I do not want people who are not citizens voting in my country and determining what the policy of my country should be.


Mr. Benjamin:: This is hardly a good example.


William Warren Allmand: I wonder if the hon. member would take the same position with respect to foreign ownership. It has been said, perhaps by him and the hon. member for Skeena, that because these people have acquired rights we should recognize them. Would he take the same position with respect to non-Canadians owning Canadian companies and running Canadian unions? I doubt that he would. I wonder where he finds the arguments to support the position which he is now taking in the House? As I said, I will support in the first instance the amendment of the hon. member for Matane, because I think it is the most logical one. It brings consistency to our Elections Act. But if it is defeated, I would support the amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra which is I think a great improvement over the text we have at present.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: As you will recall, Mr. Chairman, last night I also threw an amendment into this hopper on the assumption that if the bill were to continue to contain the principle which it has now this would be retroactive legislation which would not be proper in our electoral law or any other kind of law for that matter. I will not repeat my remarks of last night and I hope hon. members will read them for whatever they might be worth.
May I say that the remarks of the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace are hardly relevant to an election law since corporations do not vote. They might try to buy elections with large contributions to one or more political parties, but they do not cast ballots. So, it is hardly relevant what one's position might be on foreign ownership as compared to one's position on immigrants or Canadian citizens being eligible to vote in a federal election.


William Warren Allmand: Would the hon. member permit a question? Do I understand the hon. member correctly? Did he state that it is all right for non-citizens to vote in Canadian elections but it is not all right for them to own parts of Canadian industry or Canadian corporations?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I do not know what that has to do with it. What I am trying to say is that the principle I prefer is the one stated earlier by the hon. member for Skeena. Why do we worry about whether or not these people are
June 17. 1970

from the British Commonwealth or from France? Why cannot any landed immigrant, once he is resident in Canada for 12 months, cast his ballot? If he has not taken out his citizenship within the five-year period, he would lose his franchise? It seems to me to be going the whole route of eligibility to vote in a federal election. My own personal preference is for the concept of the hon. member for Skeena. I also have sympathy for the concept espoused by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. If the principle put forward by the hon. member for Skeena is not accepted and the principle contained in the bill is left as it is, I will want to move my amendment at the appropriate time to ensure that the legislation is not retroactive in its effect but the restrictions therein would not take effect until the proclamation of this bill.
I cannot support the amendment of the hon. member for Matane because it is even more restrictive than the retroactive principle contained in the bill. I hope the committee will accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Skeena, unless by some miracle we are able to come up with something with which most, if not all, would agree.


Mr. Ouellel:: Mr. Chairman, at first I would like to say that I am in favour of deleting clause 14 (3) and this for four reasons. Firstly, I regard it as discriminatory. Secondly, I regard it as negative. Thirdly, in a certain sense I regard it as too generous. Fourthly, I regard it quite simply as impossible to apply and quite embarrassing.
I think Parliament should pass fairer acts which would assure equality to everyone. However it seems to me that subclause (3) is really discriminatory and favours one group over the others.
I suggest that subclause (3) smells of discrimination. Such preferential treatment is to be rejected and should not, most of all, be perpetuated by Parliament. It is all the more discriminatory since the standing committee which has looked into this matter was forced to compromise.
The simple fact that the committee has recommended to set a time limit to the exercise of that privilege is the very proof that there is discrimination and that more and more Canadians, and more and more members of Parliament especially, want to put an end to it.
Here is a second reason why the amendment should be turned down: it is completely
Canada Elections Act
negative. Indeed, it does not encourage, by any means, the people affected by those clauses to become Canadian citizens.
Is it necessary to remind the House, Mr. Chairman, that there are in the neighborhood of one million and a half British subjects in Canada?
Many of them have been living here for several years. It may be because our laws allowed them to live here as privileged citizens that they did not take the trouble to become Canadian citizens.
In my opinion, we are doing all of us a disservice by perpetuating such a situation under to subclause (3) of clause 14. On the contrary, I think it should be kept in mind that a legislation on citizenship will very shortly be introduced in Parliament, and that it will most likely tend to reduce many of the privileges granted to certain groups of immigrants.
I will now refer to the remarks made yesterday by my colleague for Skeena (Mr. Howard), who said that we do, and I quote:
-discriminate against the male sex in favour of the female sex. Normally a person must wait five years before applying for Canadian citizenship, but if a woman who has emigrated to Canada marries a Canadian citizen, she has only to wait one year before she can apply for Canadian citizenship.
It is obvious that when the government introduces its citizenship bill, it will try to eliminate those anomalies. To me there is no excuse for waiting several months pending the introduction of the citizenship bill, before correcting the situation.
Coming back to the remarks of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), I would say, contrary to what he claimed, that we should use the handicaps afflicting some immigrants more than others in Canada as an incentive for taking every opportunity to make everybody equal before the law.
I consider that this clause is negative and that it should be deleted. I also think it is too generous. Several times, members have pointed out that a British subject settled in Canada, who would go to another Commonwealth country to live, could avail himself of his right to vote in that country.
First of all, there is a correction to be made. True, this right exists in certain Commonwealth countries, but it has been revoked in others.
I have been using the word "right" for the past few minutes and I am just wondering

June 17, 1970
Canada Elections Act
whether we are not exaggerating when we speak of vested rights tor the benefit of British subjects.
Rather, I think that it is not a question of right but a privilege granted to British subjects, allowing them to vote in Canada, and that if the Parliament of Canada were to revoke this privilege, it would not be a violation of an individual's right, but nothing more than the Canadian government wanting to introduce a legislation better adapted to the Canadian reality and the requirements of a specifically Canadian citizenship.
One of my colleagues mentioned besides that the voting right or privilege had been withdrawn in some countries, in India for instance. There are also other Commonwealth countries, I think, who deprived British subjects of voting privileges.
In any event, I wish to indicate to my colleagues that despite the existence of a reciprocal right in some countries, those are the facts: Canadian immigration in those Commonwealth countries is much lower than that of citizens of Great Britain or other countries in Canada.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
That, of course, works against us, Canadians, but it works in favour of the immigrants from those countries.
Fourth, I should like to say that subclause (3) seems very difficult to apply and extremely ackward. In fact, at the time of general elections, there will be two kinds of British subjects, namely: those who have qualified as voters before June 25, 1968, and those who arrived in Canada after that date.
Now, it may happen that in the same family, the father, the mother and two children are allowed to vote, because they have qualified as voters before June 25, while some other children in the family might not be allowed to do so, because on June 25, 1968 they had not yet qualified as voters.
So, you see what difficulties the enumerators will encounter when visiting certain homes to set up the voters list.
To my mind, instead of trying to pass a watered down act, as suggested by the member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Deach-man), we must settle the question once and for all and have the courage to say: We recognize in the right to vote as sacred and priceless right to which only Canadians are entitled in this country.

I will be extremely disappointed if the proposal put forward by my colleague for Matane (Mr. De Bane) is defeated. It is up to Us to make decisions on bills. It is not up to us to take the necessary steps to facilitate the application of this type of legislation to a special group, and to spare certain feelings.
I feel the proposal of the member for Vancouver-Quadra applies to all immigrants, whether British subjects or not, since, after five years, an immigrant can apply for Canadian citizenship and I am under the impression that it is running with the hare and hunting with the hounds rather than settling the matter once and for all, as the hon. member for Matane has suggested.
In concluding, Mr. Chairman, I will allow myself a short reference to the remarks by the hon. member for Brandon Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), who made an undoubtedly generous and very worthy suggestion. I do not believe that granting the right to vote to the French people living in Canada would be a way of solving the problem. We should try in Canada to legislate for Canadians. We may have pleasant memories and an infinite gratitude for those we usually call "the people from our two mother countries" but I believe the deepest and growing yearnings of most Canadians are the following: We want to live in a really distinctive country, in a country having no ties with other countries, whatever the origin of its citizens. Let's legislate for the good of the Canadian people.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, it is going to be an interesting process stating one's preferences over several amendments with which we are not formally seized. I think this debate has gone into some pretty fundamental fields. I do not get the feeling that we are actually discussing colonialism, as the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace seemed to suggest. That is not in my mind at the moment, nor do I think there is anyone here, as we grapple with this very difficult problem, who holds any belief other than that Canadian citizenship is a proud and cherished right. But we are dealing with a problem that was not of our making, but one which, as legislators in 1970, we have inherited.
As hon. members know it was a long, long time in this country before we had any such creature as a Canadian citizen. Indeed, the country was 70 years of age before we had a Citizenship Act. While it is all right to say that when people come to a jurisdiction they
June 17, 1970

should accept the legislation of that jurisdiction, there is nevertheless some sort of obligation, and surely we don't scorn moral obligations as being trifling, to a group of people who came here on the clear understanding that in reference to the right to vote they were in a particular category. I think when we reach a stage where we come to the conclusion that this right, once extended, even though perhaps inappropriately extended, the least we can do is provide for some transition period. Surely in equity, in fairness, this is something that would commend itself. To that extent, I would be reluctant to support the suggestion of the hon. member for Matane, who proposed the first amendment. I think the drastic removal of rights which have been given and accepted in good faith would not be an appropriate course of action.
[DOT] (5:40p.m.)
I am not at all reluctant to accept the idea that we should move toward Canadian citizenship as being the criteria, and I think at another time we should look at our Citizenship Act. As it stands now, people have to wait too long before becoming eligible for citizenship. We have been too careless and casual in advancing the virtues of full citizenship.
There are thousands of Canadian citizens who never thought that the formality of moving from the status of British subject resident in Canada to that of Canadian citizen had not, ipso facto, been taken through the exercise of the franchise given them. So we have to move with an eye to equitable treatment of people who were given that right. As I see it, it has nothing to do with superiority or discrimination or anything of that kind. It just happens that, in the wisdom of our forefathers, rights were vested and now we have to divest, to rearrange, to alter. Let us achieve this in a manner somewhat less drastic and perhaps a little more considerate than is suggested in this amendment.
This is not at all incompatible with the suggestion made by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris. My plea is for one last effort, not at restricting the Commonwealth reciprocation in this deal, but at trying to expand it. I do not think the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace was listening. I specifically said I was not referring to the United Kingdom, but I did mention some countries which extend this reciprocation to us and some which do not. I expressed the hope that we might try to broaden that base.
Canada Elections Act
As to the merits of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra and the document presented by the minister, I think perhaps in the long run the aim is not dissimilar. Perhaps I should be asking forgiveness for defending the government point of view over that of a member, but I think perhaps the bill that we have before us is a little more positive. You do not hang up an administrative Damocles sword and say "In five years you had better be a citizen or else." Instead you say, as the bill has it, "These rights have been accepted and satisfied up to a certain point; henceforth there is another category."


Grant Deachman: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Delighted.


Grant Deachman: Does he agree that it would be desirable to set up two classes of British subject, as would be done by the amendment proposed in the bill? Does he look forward to that as a good way of settling the question before the House, that there be two classes of British citizen in Canada, one with voting privileges and one without? This is what will happen if this measure is adopted.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I suppose, under the hon. member's suggestion, those who did not follow his example and stayed in the country would be in a different class from those who did, so you would have two classes.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that we can arrive at some equitable and just solution. I think in this committee of the whole we are maintaining the atmosphere which prevailed in the standing committee, and that was very good. All of us are trying to broaden the franchise, to iron out any inequities and to give to as many people as possible the right to vote. We are not thinking of colonialism or discrimination. If I might be pardoned a personal note, my ancestors came to this part of the world in a prison boat, not very gently manned by the authorities of Westminster, so it is not with any sympathy for Westminster-


An hon. Member:: For sheep stealing?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: No, it was not sheep stealing. It was something that happened at Cul-loden. If any hon. members from Quebec think unkindly of James Wolfe, perhaps they could check what my ancestors thought of that ruthless gentleman.


Mr. Cafik:: I would like to make a few comments in respect of the amendment before the House, Mr. Chairman. I was very

June 17, 1970
Canada Elections Act
impressed by the contribution made by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. Although his amendment is not before us at the moment, I think it is a very useful suggestion.
I believe in the principle that a person should be a citizen in order to cast a vote in this country. None the less I am concerned, as are many members, with the thought of disenfranchising those who have grown accustomed to casting their ballot here. For that reason, I would be inclined to support the position taken by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra and if the amendment before the House is not passed, I shall certainly support the amendment to which I have referred.
I should, however, like to make one point. Clause 14 subclause (3) of the bill reads:
Every British subject other than, a Canadian citizen-
I would prefer that the words "British subject" be struck out and be replaced by the word "person". I do not see any reason why we should sanctify, as it were, the term "British subject" in the act itself. The word "person" would achieve the same objective without having overtones of creating a preferential class of people in this country.
If the amendment before us now does not pass, I would urge everyone to support the amendment that the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra is waiting to move.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Chairman, I shall try to be unusually brief. I was somewhat amused a few minutes ago to hear the hon. member for Hillsborough tell us about the wisdom of our fathers. As a university professor, he must know there are a lot of young Canadians who do not believe in the wisdom of their fathers but who want to revolutionize everything. There are a lot of older Canadian citizens as well who feel there must be changes if we want to establish, once and for all, the identity of this country called Canada.
That is one of the reasons I shall vote for the amendment of the member for Matane. In my estimation, the correct procedure is to decide right now that those who are Canadian citizens have the right to vote. In a few months we can amend the Citizenship Act to provide that somebody who has lived here for a year or two years can become a Canadian citizen. In that way everybody will have the right to vote. I think the majority of Canadians have made up their minds that it is high time we had something concrete to establish our Canadian identity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: I am not against all the amendments that have been proposed. There is a lot of value in them, but I think the right way to proceed is to decide now that Canadian citizens will have the right to vote and then to amend the Citizenship Act as soon as possible to lower the five-year period to 12 or 18 months. A good many hon. members spoke about discrimination. There is surely some kind of discrimination on the part of some Commonwealth countries. If I understand correctly, 26 countries belong to the Commonwealth but only eight grant this right to Canadians. Of those eight, only two are major countries, the others being very, very small countries. Moreover, among those eight countries, two will not give to Canadians the right to be a candidate. A Canadian may vote, but he may not be a candidate. I think that, indeed, constitutes some kind of discrimination and I think we should stop that once and for all.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I am sure that the majority of young Canadians-and when I speak of young Canadians I speak of those who are young at heart, I do not refer to age because some young Canadians are grey haired-are yearning for the Canadian identity to be established. This is one way of establishing it and this is one way of convincing immigrants who come here that Canadianism means something, that it is not a privilege reserved to a few but a right they will need to win by proving over a certain time that they are good Canadians. For those reasons, I support what the hon. member for Matane has moved.
I have been pleased to see this debate going forward smoothly without any racist or Jing-oist overtones, such as one might witness in a debate of this kind. I will vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Matane. I respect the spirit of some of the other amendments which have been brought forward. I repeat, I think we ought to do it this way. We ought to give the right of the vote to Canadian citizens and, as early as possible, amend our Citizenship Act.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, I intend to say a few words on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane). I was thrilled by the speeches made by the hon. member from Matane, the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) and the hon. member
June 17, 1970

for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand). It is with a sense of pride that I want to support the amendment moved by my colleague from Matane.
When a Canadian, proud to be one, reads clause 14 (1), he cannot but be satisfied.
In fact, it reads and I quote:
Every man and woman who
a)	has attained the age of eighteen years, and
b)	is a Canadian citizen,
is qualified as an elector.
The condition stated in the first paragraph is the age of 18 years.
In subclause (3) one reads:
Every British subject, other than a Canadian citizen who
a) was qualified as an elector-
I shall not repeat the eloquent words spoken by the hon. member for Papineau but I certainly echo them.
Mr. Chairman, I suggest that in a democracy two basic conditions have to be satisfied for one to exercice his franchise. The first condition is to be 18 years of age and the second is to be a Canadian citizen. Once these two conditions are fulfilled, one can express one's opinion and take part in the election of the government of Canada.
In my view, the provisions relating to British subjects are remains of colonialism which deal a blow to our pride as Canadians and which help to increase misunderstanding and intolerance in Canada.
I believe that as members of Parliament, we have a duty to promote in every possible way the proud awareness of our country. We must delete in our laws, whenever the opportunity arises, the traces of a colonialism which has become long ago a thing of the past.
It is with pride and pleasure that I support the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Matane which has already received the support of other hon. members I hope it will be passed by the House, thus proving it is truly the House of Commons of Canada.


Mr. Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to take up much of the time of the committee. I see I have only two minutes left in which to speak. I have listened with a great deal of interest to the debate. I suppose, as a member of the group that were Canada's first citizens, a group that
Business of the House did not have the right to vote until 1960, I can say it is only correct that the right to vote should be given only to those who are Canadian citizens.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
Mx. Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):	The
hon. member for Cochrane and the hon. member for Matane have stated this position clearly. It is a great thing to be a Canadian and I believe that the intent of the amendment advanced by the hon. member for Matane is right. Surely, only those who become Canadian citizens or are Canadian citizens should have the right to vote. You know, we lived under an old system of colonialism. We were told, "You are Indian boys; be nice; run along back to your reserves, like good boys." That was an aspect of colonialism and we are at present discussing the vestiges of colonialism. Surely, we have grown out of that and can take our place in the world.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Not by the way some are talking.


Len Marchand: Surely, if we have grown up, we should say that the right to vote in this country ought to be limited to those who are Canadian citizens.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Chairman, I was about to call it 6 o'clock so as to be the first to take the floor when the debate resumes.

Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, before we rise for the evening could I put on the record the business for the remainder of this week? Tomorrow, as indicated, will be the last allotted day for this period, and I draw the attention of hon. members to the motions that will be up for consideration during the course of the day. On Friday the order will be as follows: the first item will be Government Order No. 70, Bill C-187, respecting the Northern Inland Waters and the motion to concur in the Senate amendment. The second item will be Government Order 95, Bill C-212, the Northern omnibus bill. Third will be Government Order No. 100, Bill C-218, the amendment to the Aeronautics Act.

June 17. 1970
Business of the House
If we make progress on these bills during the course of Friday's sitting, the following will be the tentative order of business: Government Order No. 40, Bill C-158, the Nuclear Liability Bill and Government Order 75, Bill C-190, the National Energy Board Act Bill.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, before concluding his announcement, I wonder if the President of the Privy Council could give us some indication of the business for next week, with particular reference to the amendments to the Fisheries Act?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The intention would be to call the Elections Act again on Monday and, basically, to stay on the Elections Act until we complete it. We cannot be definite as to the time of calling the Fisheries Act, but I would be prepared to
call it during the course of the week. However, I think we should try to finish the Elections Act first.



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a Message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed the following bills to which the concurrence of this House is desired:
Bill S-23, An Act to postpone the expiration of certain provisions of An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act.
Bill S-25, An Act respecting Hudson's Bay Company.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, June 18, 1970