1970-01-29

Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I promised some months ago that I would make a statement on the experience with summer employment for students. Recently another question about this matter was asked in the House, and with this in mind I should like to report briefly on results last summer and to indicate some of the initiatives currently being followed by my department to assist students in finding jobs next summer.
Based on a survey carried out by my department last fall, some 323,000 students were able to find paying jobs last summer. I may say that the survey covered 39 postsecondary institutions-universities, colleges and technological	institutes-across the
country.
Of the roughly 400,000 students from postsecondary institutions, some 348,000 were in the summer employment market and of these 93 per cent found summer work. An estimated 323,000 of the 348,000 students who sought paid summer employment found jobs. Of these, 14 per cent worked for more than four months, 60 per cent for two to four months, 18 per cent for one to two months, and 8 per cent for less than a month.
This is generally a good result and encourages us to maintain and expand the program launched to assist student employment in the past summer. Of those who were not looking for jobs, nearly half continued their studies; another 25 per cent travelled, took time off or did unpaid volunteer work.
Half of those who found employment expressed satisfaction with the duration of their jobs. One-third would have liked two months more work and 11 per cent stated they would have worked more than two months.
Of the students working, 72 per cent were employed in industry and 14 per cent with provincial governments across Canada, while 7 per cent were granted employment with the federal government and a further 7 per cent with municipalities.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
The federal government hired some 11,365 students, an increase of 26.8 per cent over the previous year. Students working for the federal governments earned $11,129,417 in salaries and wages. Seventy-five per cent of those hired were returning to post-secondary institutions. Students of post-secondary institutions in federal employment earned an average of $1,083, while high school students earned an average of $654.
Finally, plans are under way in my department, in co-operation with private and public organizations and provincial government departments, to complete plans and programs for the coming summer months. A national committee for student summer employment is functioning and includes representatives of the Association of Canadian Universities and Colleges, the University Career Planning Association, the Economic Council of Canada and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. Working through manpower centres both across the country and at the universities, as well as with federal and provincial departments of government, it is hoped that employment can be provided for the majority of students in order to obtain funds to finance their continued education.
In closing I would pay tribute to the energetic campaign being carried on by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce through its members, who have been working closely with my department to make the "Hire a Student" campaign a success next summer.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I received a copy of the minister's statement just as I took my seat. I should like to make a few comments on what the minister has said and about this problem.
There can be no question that a number of students had difficulty obtaining employment last summer, and presumably difficulty will be encountered again this summer. I suggest
COMMONS DEBATES	January 29, 1970
Summer Employment for Students
this will result from the general employment conditions in the country and the policies of the government regarding employment, austerity programs and so on. These policies have increased unemployment substantially and have had an effect on students as well as others seeking work. On the basis of the present outlook we can expect quite a difficult summer in terms of students obtaining employment.
While the minister has said he has an advisory board and a program that is getting under way, I do not think anyone can stress too strongly the necessity for the minister and those with whom he is associated to understand fully the gravity of the situation and the implications for students who are not able to obtain work. Unfortunately we face a situation in which not only is employment becoming more difficult to obtain but also the number of students who need the extra money is increasing. Not only does the minister have to launch a considerably more vigor-' ous program than we have seen to date but the government of Canada in association with the provinces must take a very careful look to determine the over-all position of these students and the extent to which students are being forced to drop out or defer their education for financial reasons.
I am disappointed that rather than working with the provinces with a view to meeting this problem the government has indicated in the white paper on tax reform that it is going to subject bursaries to income tax. This can only serve to increase the difficulties. We all recognize that if a student cannot continue his studies at a particular time in life he or she may well suffer irreparable injury with the result, of course, that the nation also suffers.
While I welcome the minister's statement and his assurance that he is working on this very serious problem, quite frankly I see no indication that the government is prepared to grapple with student assistance by placing it in context with the over-all unemployment problem. I urge the minister and the Prime Minister to really take this matter seriously, particularly in view of the fact that their policies are designed to create unemployment and incidentally create additional difficulty for our students.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorklon-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I too received the minister's statement a few minutes ago just as I entered the House. We in this party welcome the minister's statement of his intentions which I am 
sure are good. However, I believe we are in complete agreement that the statement does not go far enough. It barely scratches the surface.
The minister pointed out that 93 per cent of students seeking work found employment last summer, but he went on to say that about half of them were not satisfied with the employment they obtained. We must remember that many students who obtained employment last summer were remunerated at a rate which did not enable them to return to university. Several students from my province of Saskatchewan have written or spoken to me or to some of my colleagues pointing out that they just could not find employment last summer in the province of Saskatchewan which is suffering from some economic hardship. Something must be done immediately because this situation has handicapped many students and made it difficult for them to attend university. This is particularly so in the case of women who find that their salaries are lower and who do not wish to borrow huge sums of money in order to attend university.
We must remember that educated people are our main resource. Therefore I believe top priority should be given to this whole problem. The answer is not simply the finding of jobs. University education should be made available to everyone. If there is universal accessibility to education we will also have to provide more jobs for our working people.
I welcome the minister's statement but it by no means goes far enough toward solving the problem.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, we are pleased with the results of the survey revealing that the great majority of students found employment last summer. We should certainly like to see every student succeed in getting a job next summer.
However, Mr. Speaker, perhaps it would be proper to point out that even if 82,700 students from Quebec, out of a total of 95,300, found employment, it remains that 12,600 did not. This is rather impressive. Would this: mean that almost 13,000 Quebec students were unable to return to the university or to a technical school, because they had not the necessary financial means? If so, it is extremely unfortunate.
January 29, 1970



It would not only be necessary to find summer employment for the students, but we should also guarantee them a pre-salary, in order that their intellectual development should not be dependent on summer employment.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare a question arising out of the answer he gave me yesterday indicating that the government of Canada would be prepared to share in the cost of supplemental old age assistance provided the province concerned put up 50 per cent of the cost. Are we to assume from this statement that it is now the position of the government of Canada that it will not accept the full responsibility for payment of assistance to the aged in spite of the fact that it has accepted full responsibility for quite a number of years?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The situation has
always been that if any province felt that the federal payments for old age security or for the guaranteed income supplement were inadequate, for various reasons within the province such as the cost of living and so on, the formula under the Canada Assistance Plan would provide that type of flexibility based on the criteria that additional funds would be given to the people who are receiving old age security, the guaranteed income supplement or other assistance payments from the province itself. That situation has existed now for at least four or five years ever since the inception of the Canada Assistance Plan.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I assume the minister would agree that the present payments are inadequate. Is the government prepared to pay more old age assistance to old people in one part of the country as opposed to those in another part of the country provided only that the provincial governments are sufficiently well to do to be able to find the 50 per cent of the cost which the minister specifies?
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Carr Munro: The situation in Canada has always been that in certain areas of the country benefit levels have been higher due to the cost of living. Where that situation exists and the province pays out more money we still provide our 50 per cent share in which case we are spending more money in that province or in that region.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. We are getting a new look at the just society. Is it the position of the government that payments for old age assistance are inflationary if the government of Canada bears 100 per cent of the cost but are not inflationary if the province pays 50 per cent of the cost?


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether the statements he made yesterday and today are a preview of the government's white paper on social security, or is the door still open for increasing the rate of the universal portion of the old age security payment?


John Carr Munro: I would advise the hon. member that the door is still open and that what I have said yesterday and today is nothing new at all. This has been the situation for the last four or five years, as I said, and I am only surprised that the Leader of the Opposition is so totally unaware of the program in which he himself and his province participated.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the door is still open, is the government giving serious consideration to the universal principle rather than going back to an income test or a split federal and provincial responsibility?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the universal principle, income testing and the guaranteed annual income concept all have to be considered in any over-all review of social welfare policies, and they are being considered.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is whether the agreements between the government of Canada and the provinces under the Canada Assistance Plan provide that the provinces may avail themselves of the privilege of low-
January 29, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry ering their payments under the Canada Assistance Plan whenever there is an increment in old age security as provided for by the act because, as a matter of fact, this does apply in the province of Alberta?


John Carr Munro: Under the Canada Assistance Plan the province determines when a person is in need. If the federal government should give an increment under some of its policies to people who were receiving payments from the province, the province could, in those circumstances, reduce the payments they had been making up to that time. We usually discourage it, but there is nothing to prevent the province from doing so.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister might then advise the House what is the benefit of the cost of living increase provided under the old age security program if a payment is provided on the one hand under the Old Age Security Act and then withdrawn by the province under the Canada Assistance Plan?


John Carr Munro: I would hope the provinces would not do that.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But they do.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State. In view of the continuing concern about the future of the National Film Board, can the minister assure the House that the National Film Board will not be absorbed in Information Canada? Also, will he undertake to make a statement as soon as possible to clarify the future role of the National Film Board?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, it has never been considered, and it is not now, to merge the National Film Board into the agency to be established under the name of Information Canada. I am surprised that a member of the House who heard my recent statement should ask such a question, as not one sentence of that statement can be so interpreted.


John Stratford Burton: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the incomplete nature

of the study that was made of the Film Board and in view of the uncovered areas in the minister's statement last week, has the minister given further consideration to the views of the National Film Board employees since that time? Is the minister giving consideration to maintaining the personnel strength of the production section at a greater level than he indicated in the House last week?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, cuts in personnel because of the government's austerity policy were inevitable. I said so in my statement. Once more, I will express my surprise at such a question being asked by a member who heard the statement in which I specifically mentioned that a comprehensive policy applying to films was in course of preparation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



REFERENCE OF SAUMIER REPORT TO COMMITTEE

Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: hope the minister will not be surprised at this question. Will he use his good offices to have the Saumier report referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts so the question of the Film Board and some of the conflicting and contrasting views of the Saumier Report and the government film commissioner, Mr. McPherson, can be reviewed in terms of a cultural policy for Canada?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, the policy concerning the National Film Board and all relevant budgetary considerations will be reviewed by the committee when it deals with the estimates of the National Film Board.



RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER LEVYING CHARGES FOR USE OF FILMS

Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: supplementary question to the Secretary of State. Is the minister reconsidering the policy imposed on the National Film Board through the austerity program which necessitated the implementation of user charges for films supplied to various public, educational and church institutions throughout Canada?
January 29, 1970


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, this question was examined by Mr. Saumier who stated in his report that he thought this policy was sound and necessary at this time.


Mark Willson Rose: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I ask the minister if he will give consideration to making a statement on motions in the near future on a comprehensive cultural policy for Canada?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, this matter is under review and the hon. member will agree, I think, that a cultural policy cannot be drafted in a few weeks or even a few months; in any case, I think that the work undertaken long ago by the department of the Secretary of State should produce results within a few months.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: From the defunct Department of Forestry and Rural Development, and from the living Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, I would like to know if an alternative exists for the 4,000 workers at the Lauzon shipyards who may be laid off following the eventual closing of Davie Shipbuilding?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the Lauzon area is a designated area. We are preparing a program, in co-operation with the province of Quebec, and we are actively considering the case of the 4,000 workers at the Lauzon shipyards.



MINIMUM WAGE-INQUIRY AS TO INCREASE

Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-tings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Is the minister planning in the near future to raise the minimum wage in industries under federal jurisdiction? It is nearly five years now since the minimum wage was raised and the cost of living has gone up 20 per cent in the intervening period.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have mentioned on several occasions that we are studying this matter.
Inquiries of the Ministry The only consolation I have is that less than 5,000 people in the federal field are working at the minimum wage level. So apart from the psychological effect it has no real effect, or at least very little on very few people.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a supplementary question to the Prime Minister as the Minister of Labour gave me almost exactly the same answer a year and a half ago. Is the policy of forcing people to live farther and farther below the poverty level the fundamental basis of his just society?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Harris Hees: The Prime Minister nods his head, which means yes.


An hon. Member:: He is shy today.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister and concerns the method used by the Cape Breton Development Corporation to compensate retired coal miners. Further to the question posed to the Prime Minister on Tuesday of this week asking for an investigation into the whole matter in view of the continuing protests from the unions concerned and in view of the fact that the Prime Minister took my question as notice, may I ask the right hon. gentleman if he is in a position to shed any further light on this subject?


An hon. Member:: Not today.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The answer so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned is that the income received by the retired miners as a result of arrangements made between Devco and the unions representing them has been classed by regulation in the same category as income from dividends and therefore these unemployed miners are not penalized in respect of being eligible for unemployment insurance. If that is a violation of the Unemployment Insurance Commission regulations, and unless someone can prove it is, I am at a loss to understand what good it would do the miners to find this source of income suddenly removed.
January 29, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. In view of the continuing telegrams of protest and other communications we are receiving it would appear that this message is not getting through to those concerned, and we are worried about this sort of thing. Perhaps I should direct the question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion; I see he is here today. Would the minister cause an investigation to be made into this whole subject so that we can reach a decision as to who is right? The message apparently is not getting through to the men receiving the moneys and I think they have a right to an investigation. I may not be a "second-hand Rose" but I think I should have the courtesy of an answer in this House.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I must say that I got in touch with Devco. No complaint was made either to Devco or to my department. The union to which the hon. member is referring is in fact a small group of superannuated employees which is called a Union and which has no connection with the United Mines Workers of America who have made no request in the name of those pensioners.


Robert Muir: On
a point of order, Mr. Speaker, that statement is completely erroneous. We have a statement here in a letter of protest from the President of the C.B. of R.T. which represents the men who are at present working in the Devco coal mines. I wish the minister would get on the job so he would know what is happening.


George Harris Hees: That is asking too much.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I have order, please.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion to look at his files and see if they do not contain these wires and correspondence that he and the Prime Minister deny receiving. We have checked it out and the telegrams were delivered, but they have denied receiving these protests against the action of the Cape Breton Development Corporation. In view of the fact that the corporation is breaking the law every day, will he see-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. As the hon. member has already asked his question it should not be repeated.


Malcolm MacInnis: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the question was put to the government whether they had received protests not from retired miners but from active locals within Cape Breton protesting the action of Devco. This was denied by the government but it has since been checked out and Canadian National Telegraph will confirm that these wires were received.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With respect, I have to suggest to the hon. member that he may have a point for debate but 1 would not think that this constitutes a question of privilege. I think we should go on to another subject.


Malcolm MacInnis: On the same question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: It would have to be a different question of privilege. The hon. member may have another point and I will listen to him.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I am like the Minister of Labour; I have got hundreds of examples. Does the government now deny receiving these protests from active local unions?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, at times I am asked if I have received a message. When I know I say I have or have not, and when I do not know I say I will check. It is conceivable that members of the public send their telegrams to members of the opposition so that they know about matters before I do but, except in this case, I always check if I have received them.


Robert Muir: January 18.


Malcolm MacInnis: Now that the Prime Minister has seen fit to answer my question, can I consider this a promise broken?


Robert Muir: The Prime Minister is a funny boy, not a "Funny Girl".


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
January 29, 1970

Has he received reports from the Fathers Doheny, Irish priests, who recently returned from the eastern region of Nigeria where they served for 15 years, to the effect that there is an urgent and very real need for international action to persuade the government of Nigeria to accept an immediate and massive airlift of food? What action, if any, is the government taking on these reports?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have had the pleasure of spending a good half hour with these gentlemen and I must say I admire greatly their devotion to the cause of their parishioners. I had from them a report on conditions as they were a couple of weeks ago when they left Nigeria and they urged the desirability of getting relief to these people. I could not agree more.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Secretary of State for External Affairs would make a report on the progress being made with regard to the publication of the most recent report of the observer team?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there have been no further messages since my report yesterday.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister clarify his statement yesterday and tell us just where responsibility lies with regard to these reports and whether there is not some responsibility on the part of our own observers to make these reports and then to make them public?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, these are independent observers who do not take instructions from the Canadian government. They act on their own and report what they see which is, I am sure, what we want them to do. They have their own rules and I think we have been well served by these observers. From the reports I have seen recently I think we will continue to be well served, and I hope my hon. friend will support me in that.	.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he is acting upon the suggestion that Nigeria be urged to use the two other airports besides Uli, that is, Obill-a-goo and Ogua?


Mitchell William Sharp: I must repeat what I have said before, that I do not accept the proposition
Inquiries of the Ministry that the government of Nigeria is less interested in the people over whom it has control than we in this Parliament. If we go on taking this patronizing, superior attitude toward them, we cannot expect the kind of co-operation that I think we should have.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Did the minister state yesterday that the government will legalize marijuana if a reasonable minority of Canadians is found to use the substance? If so, what does the minister mean by a reasonable minority?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member knows that the question cannot be asked in this way.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, may I rephrase the question I asked a moment ago and direct it to the Prime Minister. Was the Minister of National Health and Welfare stating government policy when he said that the government will legalize marijuana if a reasonable minority of Canadians is found to use the substance? If so, may I ask what is meant by a reasonable minority?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the minister that he stated nothing of the kind.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In view of the legislation presently before the Parliament of the United Kingdom which will at long last give women in that country the right to equal pay for equal work, is the minister considering bringing before the Parliament of Canada during the present session similar legislation for the benefit of the women of Canada?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, frankly, although we are reviewing our legislation we are waiting for the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. We want to have before us the recommendations of that report because they will perhaps have some bearing on the proposed legislation.
January 29, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister not consider that the time has arrived for a little more action and a little less consideration of matters coming under his jurisdiction? We seem to be getting only consideration of matters and no action on them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. William Skoreyko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Has the minister seen reports indicating that malfunctioning colour television sets sold in Canada have started fires in homes? If so, what action is his department contemplating taking in order to prevent the sale of such sets in the future?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Actually, Mr. Speaker, preliminary information became available last fall at which time we asked the Canadian Standards Association to review their standards applicable to television sets made in Canada. Two days ago the work of the United States commission on product safety became available and two of my officials are in Washington analysing that information with the commission in order to determine its applicability to Canada. When all the information has been analysed I shall be meeting with the Canadian Standards Association as well as the Canadian manufacturers and importers to see whether Canadian standards ought to be changed to correct any faults in manufacturing.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the government given consideration to having colour television sets defined under the Hazardous Products Act?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are, although not for the reasons outlined in the previous question and answer. My colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, will be making recommendations on whether colour television sets should be regulated under the Hazardous Products Act because of their radiation emission.



INDUSTRY


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minisler of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I feel neglected. May I ask myself a question?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jean-Luc Pepin: May I answer questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition on Tuesday with respect to lay-offs in the automobile industry? The two probing questions asked were, first, whether notice has been given in such instances and, second, whether the situation is worse in Canada than in the United States.
I have looked into this situation. To answer a distinction must be made between two types of lay-offs. One type is for restructuring. We have had two instances of that type, both in Chrysler Corporation. In each of these two instances notice was given to employees several weeks in advance.
In the other category, which involves layoffs due to inventory surpluses, I found that the company discussed the matter with their employees or their representatives in each case. Since these are generally emergency situations it is difficult for the company to give two or three months notice.
With respect to whether the position is worse in Canada than in the United States, I have been assured by the companies, and our analysis would so far indicate, that although cutbacks have been handled somewhat differently and on a different time basis by each company in each country, there is no indication that the Canadian industry has been hit harder than that of the United States. My officials are keeping a close watch on these developments.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In order to make certain that the minister does not feel ignored or lonely, may I ask him whether he has information indicating the total extent of the lay-offs? Does he know what proportions those lay-offs may reach during this winter? Has the automobile industry indicated the extent of any such possible lay-offs?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the future is difficult to anticipate, as I indicated, because these are emergency situations created by market conditions. If my hon. friend knows in ad-

January 29, 1970

vance what will happen in the market, I wish lie would let me know because that would be useful information for the industry.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, not long ago I directed a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration about James Autry. I wanted to know whether his officials had requested the United States government to arrange for his deportation under the Visiting Forces Act. Is the minister in a position now to answer my original question?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have my hon. friend's question in front of me and I intended to rise later to answer it and advise him that because the officials of the Immigration Department were of the opinion that this person should be dealt with under the Visiting Forces Act they were in touch with the United States consul in Halifax and I believe with U.S. officials in Ottawa about this particular person.
Replying to the question asked by the hon. member for Calgary North, there was no request by Mr. Autry to have his case heard before the Immigration Appeal Board and therefore there was no refusal of any such request.


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister advise whether in the discussions that took place .officials of the department informed United States officials that under the Visiting Forces Act there could be no right of appeal and consequently, unlike the Immigration Act, there could be no proceedings that would prove a political embarrassment to the Canadian government?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer that question because in the report to me no allusion was made to any conversation along those lines. When our policy with respect to desertion was announced in the House I made it clear that the only exception to the policy would be persons in Canada as members of forces of another country and that these persons would be subject to the Visiting Forces Act. It was for that reason that the normal policy was not followed by the officials of the department who were of the opinion that this person ought to be dealt with under that act.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice about the Autry case. Has he investigated to ascertain whether as a result of decisions by our courts, notably in British Columbia, the handing over of a man like Autry by Canadian military personnel to U.S. personnel was outside the authority of the Visiting Forces Act and therefore totally illegal?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, we are conducting a very extensive investigation into the case, and because of the importance of the case I shall consider making a statement on it after we have concluded the investigation.



NATIONAL PRESS CLUB


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. On Monday I asked the hon. gentleman whether he would check the tenancy of the National Press Club in a building owned by the government of Canada. May I ask him whether he has been able to reconcile any regulation authorizing that tenancy with the provisions of the Canadian Bill of Rights?


John Napier Turner: The Canadian Bill of Rights applies only to statutes and section 2 is, I think, very clear. It does not apply to the internal management or rules of a club or private organization. The National Press Club has a lease from the Department of Public Works until April 30, 1972, with an option to renew for five years-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the minister. It seems to me this is information which should be sought by way of a question on the Order Paper and given in writing by the minister.


Stanley Howard Knowles: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the Canadian Bill of Rights does apply to regulations as well as the statutes, will the minister check into this angle of the matter and give an answer in whatever way he may choose to do so?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich):: have a question for the Secretary of State for
Inquiries of the Ministry External Affairs. Has the Canadian ambassador in Washington reported on the subject of the United States army's intention to ship five barges of nerve gas from Okinawa to Hermis-ton army base in the state of Washington via the Strait of Juan de Fuca? Furthermore, can the hon. gentleman inform the House what message the Canadian ambassador in Washington delivered to the United States authorities on this subject?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have received a report from our ambassador in Washington on this subject. I am informed by him that no shipments have yet taken place. We are pursuing discussions with the United States. The shipments cannot take place until the Secretary for Health, Education and Welfare has reviewed the proposal, including measures to protect public health and safety, and this he has not yet done.


David Anderson: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would allow the hon. member's supplementary but we are running short of time and I think we ought to move on as quickly as we can.


David Anderson: Can the Secretary of State for External Affairs let the House know the message which was delivered by the Canadian ambassador to the United States authorities?


Mitchell William Sharp: The ambassador made inquiries, as I have indicated, as to whether in fact these shipments had been made or were being made. I have given the information I have received, namely, that they have not yet been made.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. R. R. Soulham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: My question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In light of statements made by the minister in a recent public address, when does the government plan to bring forward its program to speed up the transition of marginal farmers to the city or to retirement with dignity?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: As I have said many times during the course of this session, Mr. Speaker, I hope it will be before the end of the session.

January 29, 1970



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: I have a question for the Secretary of State, Mr. Speaker. Having regard to the frustration experienced by Eskimos in Northern Quebec who wish to have their children educated in the English language, and in view of the government's declared policy of promoting the equality of both the English and the French languages across Canada, will the Secretary of State inform the House what steps he has taken to ensure that any transfer of responsibility for Canada's Indian people from the federal government to the provinces will not be undertaken in the absence of guarantees to the Indians that they may have their children educated in either the English or the French language?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member and to the minister that this is information which ought to be given to the House by way of a statement.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Georges Valade (Sainle-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Could he tell us whether an agreement has been reached between the federal government and that of Quebec with regard to representation at the conference in Mauritania?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. We have been taking part in some discussions with the province of Quebec on representation at a number of these conferences both in Niger and in Mauritania. These have not yet been concluded but I judge from the statement attributed to the Premier of Quebec that a decision will be made along the general lines of the agreement reached in the past.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: have a question for the Minister of Transport,

January 29, 1970

Mr. Speaker. In view of a report that drastic cuts are to be made in the near future in the number of workers employed by the CNR on maintenance of way in eastern Nova Scotia, would the minister check to ascertain whether this information is correct, bearing in mind the possible effect upon employment?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has made a representation to the minister and he must assume it will be looked into.



POLLUTION


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancas-ter):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. I welcome the hon. gentleman to the House on a day when he is not supposed to be here, though we are not sure what reason brings him here. Are members of the Canadian Coastguard Service currently receiving training in policing anti-pollution standards in northern waters?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Since the hon. member is always telling us we do not even know the time of day, he will not be surprised if I say I will be glad to investigate, and provide an answer to his question in due course.



INTRODUCTION OF NATIONAL CLEAN AIR LEGISLATION

Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: My question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It arises, in part out of the statement of business which was placed before the House by the Government House Leader. Can the hon. gentleman tell us what has happened to the proposal for a national clean air act which his predecessor indicated in the last parliament to be in an advanced state of preparation for presentation to the House?


John Carr Munro: Work is being done on a clean air bill but in view of all that remains to be done it is not planned to introduce the measure during this part of the session.
GRAIN	*



INVESTIGATION OF RATIONALIZATION OF COUNTRY ELEVATOR SYSTEM

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Canadi-
Inquiries of the Ministry an Wheat Board. In view of the many statements which have been made in connection with the entire grain handling system, can the minister tell us whether or not a committee of officials is investigating the rationalization of the country elevator system in the prairie provinces and whether such committee has made either firm or preliminary recommendations with respect to the longterm rationalization of the country elevator system in Saskatchewan so as to reduce the number of shipping points from 1,100 to fewer than 100?


Hon. Oito E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: The matter is under consideration but it certainly has not reached the stage suggested by the hon. member in the last part of his question.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
In view of the recent statements by the Quebec Minister of Justice regarding the fresh outbreak of crime in Canada and the telegram received by the federal Minister of Justice last Friday, could the Prime Minister tell us if the government has answered the telegram and, if so, what the reply was?


John Napier Turner: I believe this question has already been asked. We are as concerned as the Attorney General of Quebec about crimes of violence; we are not sure he has suggested the right remedy.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: My
question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the recent ban on cyclamates and subsequent representations made to the minister by the Canadian Diabetic Association indicating that as a result severe hardship has been imposed upon those afflicted with diabetes, is any consideration being given to making available a substitute in order that diabetics may acquire some relief?
January 29, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: In the meantime is the minister giving any consideration to permitting the use of controlled amounts of cycla-mates by those afflicted with diabetes?


John Carr Munro: Depending on what is meant by controlled, yes, Mr. Speaker.



FISHERIES


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's -St. Barbe):: I have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries. In connection with the unnecessary delay in making payments of deficiency indemnities to salt cod fishermen, will the hon. gentleman investigate this situation with a view to speeding up these urgently needed payments?


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: We
have done that, Mr. Speaker.



ADVICE TO WHEAT GROWERS ON PRODUCTION

Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: This question is directed to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board. When does the minister intend to offer meaningful production advice to farmers so that they may reduce their wheat production without producing a surplus in other crops, a possibility suggested in a statement made to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture?


Otto Emil Lang: It was also stated yesterday that we were very conscious of the fact that time is pressing in this regard, and therefore we shall be making any advice we have to give on this subject available as soon as possible.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio. In view of the fact the minister is recommending that farmers with surplus wheat further reduce wheat acreage or grow no wheat this summer, is the government considering paying for this reduction in wheat acreage in order to compensate those farmers who follow his suggestion?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the whole question of the kind of advice we should give to farmers and of the fashion in which we should try

to make that advice as meaningful as possible to individual farmers in order to achieve the right result is all part of the matter that is under consideration. In addition, may I say that the word "recommending" used in the hon. member's question is probably slightly mis-stating the situation, since what I was really doing was asking some logical questions in light of the current situation.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the minister's advice to western farmers not to plant wheat in the current crop year, are we to assume that the Prime Minister's remark in Winnipeg, "why should I sell wheat" has now become government policy?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



SHIPPING


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: I would like to ask the Minister of Transport a question.
Does the Minister intend to carry out a recommendation of the Canada-U.S. committee to the effect that the speed of ships moving through the St. Lawrence Seaway should be limited to 15 miles per hour?


Mr. Speaker:: This question could be placed on the Order Paper.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. R. J. Orange (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister received a request from the council of the Northwest Territories, which at the moment is concluding its session in Yellowknife, to meet with the council to discuss constitutional development in the North? May I also ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. Could the right hon. gentleman give the House some indication as to when he will be able to meet the council?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I must have received such an invitation, Mr. January 29, 1970

Speaker, since the Parliamentary Secretary has asked the question, but I must confess that I have not seen it yet. I will look into the matter immediately.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Craig Slewarl (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Will the new Canada Grain Act, to be introduced this session, include new protein grading for wheat?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Orders of the day.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a very short question.


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings, but I would point out that we have already gone beyond the time allotted to the question period by a few minutes. Perhaps the hon. member would ask his question tomorrow.


George Harris Hees: On a point of order, tomorrow would be too late. My question will take a very short space of time.


Mr. Speaker:: Certainly I have no objection whatever, and I am sure that all hon. members would like to hear the hon. member's question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister, if he can take his eyes and his mind off the visitors' gallery long enough to answer it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: My question is: Did the Prime Minister yesterday promise Mr. Wagner a federal judgeship, and does he consider that this will be sufficient to keep him from jumping out of Liberal ranks?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question was asked yesterday.
Quebec Savings Banks Act



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I raise the traditional point of order for a Thursday and, ask the President of the Privy Council about the little tidbits of business that he has for the House this week and next week?


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The business for today will be as indicated earlier. The first item will be No. 41 on the Order Paper, the Quebec Savings Banks Act, second reading. There will be a slight change in the order as announced in that the second, item of business will be order No. 12, the Small Businesses Loans Act amendment. This will be followed by order No. 19 with respect, to the Canada Student Loans Act. If those measures are completed at today's sitting, we will then commence the consideration of item No. 24 with respect to the motor vehicle safety legislation.
For tomorrow the bills to be called will be order No. 13, with respect to the Canada Shipping Act, and order No. 55, the quarantine measure. There will be further consultations in case additional business might be appropriate for the latter part of tomorrow.
On Monday we will again call the motor vehicle safety bill, if it has not been completed. Tuesday will be an opposition allotted day. On Wednesday we will call No. 29 on the order paper, the national parks bill, followed by order No. 48, the amendment to the Yukon, Placer Mining Act. On Thursday next the House will take order No. 25, the Cape Breton, Development Corporation Act, followed by order No. 7, the criminal records bill.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister without Portfolio) moved: that Bill S-2, to amend the. Quebec Savings Banks Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, for many years only two banks have operated under the legislation in question, the Banque d'Economie de Quebec and the Montreal City and District Savings Bank. The first of these was author

January 29, 1970

Quebec Savings Banks Act ized to operate in the district of Quebec, and the second in the district of Montreal. These districts were defined in the act.
However, as the House will recall, last year Parliament passed a private bill changing the status of the Banque d'Economie de Quebec to that of a bank operating under the Bank Act. This change of status was effective as of Monday, November 10, 1969.
The purpose of the present bill, therefore, is to amend the Quebec Savings Banks Act to permit the Montreal City and District Savings Bank to extend its operations, if it chooses to do so, into that part of Quebec province which lies outside the district of Montreal. In particular, it will authorize this bank to_ operate in the area in which the Banque d'Economie will no longer operate as a savings bank.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this amendment is to allow the bank to open branches anywhere within the province of Quebec.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no purpose in having any extended discussion on this matter. In light of the spirit of extending competition among chartered banks, and banks coming under federal jurisdiction, the desire of this bank to operate outside the confines of the city of Montreal as it has heretofore can only be commended. Therefore, we support the bill.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, we would have supported a move to not even send the bill to committee. I would be quite prepared, on behalf of this party, to agree that we amend the direction so that the committee stage be taken in this House, and that the bill be dealt with in this way.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, if I may respond to that point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am not sure whether the hon. member is raising a point of order or whether he is speaking to the motion before the House. If he is speaking to the motion, then if the minister replies he will, of course, close the debate.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Then may I raise a point of order myself, Mr. Speaker. If I may I would like to indicate that we would be willing to accept an amendment to the order that Your Honour has presented to us along the lines the hon. member has just suggested.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Then I would move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale):
That the motion be amended by deleting that portion that refers this bill to the Standing Committee; and that the bill be referred to the committee of the whole.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I should just like to say that since the Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs committee has so much business before it at the present time, I think there is merit in the proposal that has been placed before the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps there might be
unanimous consent to accept the amendment as it has been suggested by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert).


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion as amended?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee and reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: By leave, now.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: that the bill be read the third time and passed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



SMALL BUSINESSES LOANS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-9, to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River) moved:: That Bill C-9, an Act to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act, be amended by striking out the word "or" at line 15, page 1 thereof, by adding the word "or", next after the word "Act;", at line 28, page 1 thereof, and by inserting therein, next after line 28, page 1 thereof, the following:
"(iv) A Treasury Branch of the Province of Alberta that is designated by the Minister on the application of the government of the Province of Alberta as a bank for the purposes of this Act;"


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a
January 29, 1970

point of order, if it is proper to do so at this time. I ask Your Honour to consider whether the amendment can be considered by the House. I submit that the addition of the words "A Treasury Branch of the Province of Alberta" exceeds the terms and recommendations from His Excellency which read as follows:
His Excellency the Governor General has recommended to the House of Commons the present measure to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act to increase the present limit of liability of the Minister of Finance in respect of loans made by individual lenders, and to provide for a further one and a half year loan period ending June 30, 1971; Also to provide that the aggregate principal amount of guaranteed loans during that period shall not exceed one hundred million dollars on loans by chartered banks, and fifty million dollars on loans by credit unions, Caisses Populaires, cooperative credit societies, insurance companies, trust companies or loan companies designated by The Minister.
On October 10, 1968, Mr. Speaker, I raised what I submit is exactly the same point of order in respect of a proposed amendment to the Farm Improvement Loans Act. This matter is dealt with in the House of Commons debates for 1968-69 at page 1047. I have the text of the ruling that you made at that time. I do not know whether you would like me to quote from it, but perhaps I should do so at this time.
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:
The question before the House is an appeal to Mr. Speaker from a decision given by the chairman of the Committee of the Whole pursuant to section 4 of standing order 59.
In the committee of the whole on Bill No. C-lll the hon. member for Crowfoot proposed an amendment to Clause 1 of the bill as follows:
"To add after the word 'society', line 12, and before the word 'that' in line 13 the words 'and other financial institutions' ".
The question is to determine whether the proposed words of the amendment go beyond the terms of the resolution. My view is that if the words proposed by the hon. member for Crowfoot by way of amendment do not enlarge the words "financial institutions" using in clause 1 of this bill, then the amendment is redundant and superfluous. If they seek to enlarge the terms of these words, then we have to determine whether the amendment is consistent with the detailed provisions of the resolution preceding the bill. In my view, when a resolution preceding a money bill sets out in detail the terms of the bill, as this one does, we have to be very cautious about amendments which might enlarge upon these terms.
Then, Your Honour referred hon. members to citation 246 in the fourth edition of Beau-chesne at page 207 sub-paragraph (3) which I will not take the time to read at this moment. You concluded by saying:
I suggest to hon. members, with respect, that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for
2973
Small Businesses Loans Act Crowfoot does affect the conditions and qualifications set out in detail in the resolution approved by the House and preceding the bill.
For this reason I feel I have to sustain the decision of the learned and wise chairman of the committee of the whole.
Therefore, I submit that this amendment is not in order.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I disagree with about nine-tenths of what the hon. minister has said, because I think the terms of the amending resolution do not contravene the regulations of this House. However, I do not feel for one moment there would be an increase in the liability of the Crown since equivalent amounts are fixed by the terms of the recommendation, whether or not one more institution shares in it.
Since the terminology of the recommendation does not include treasury branches, I agree that an exact interpretation would exclude the amendment. I am in agreement that it does. In saying so, I must commend the initiative of my colleague for moving this amendment because I think it indicates a lamentable gap in the thinking of the officials of the Department of Finance. Apparently, because there are no treasury branches in or around Ottawa, there cannot be any in the country.
There are treasury branches in the province of Alberta which look after the public's finances. Perhaps there are none in Ontario or the Province of Quebec. We admit that in these provinces there are trust companies, credit unions and caisses populaires. In Alberta, there is an extensive commercial banking business conducted by treasury branches. This measure needlessly excludes them and their customers from the provisions of the Small Businesses Loans Act. I think the action of the department in this connection is lamentable. Surely, the minister understands what I mean when I say this, as I have spoken to him about it before. I had hoped he might find a method whereby this situation could be corrected.
On the point of order, I agree that the amendment is out of order, but in saying so I want to make it clear that I do not detract for one moment from the motivations of my colleague, the hon. member for Battle River. I suggest this is another expression of discontent by those people who feel they should get consideration, but people in comfortable pews sometimes snore.
January 29, 1970

Small Businesses Loans Act
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: What we have before the House at the moment is a point of order. I trust any discussion we have at this time would not be on the substance of the interesting amendment proposed by the hon. member for Battle River, but rather would be on the procedural aspect of the matter. Having said that, I shall recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I must admit the argument against the procedural admissibility of this amendment is pretty weighty and very difficult to answer. However, as the hon. member for Edmonton West has pointed out, no increase in the total amount of money is involved so far as the amendment is concerned. But it does seem we are stuck with the citations and previous rulings which say we must remain within the terms of the resolution. I suppose therefore, heeding your admonition of a moment ago, and since I find it difficult to argue the other way, there is little I can say. However, like the hon. member for Edmonton West, I think it is too bad there is this discrimination against the treasury branches in the province of Alberta.


Cliff Downey: Mr. Speaker, I believe I find myself unable to compete with hon. gentlemen such as the hon. member for Edmonton West and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in respect of a point of order and knowledge of the rules of the House. I do recall, however, when the farm improvement loans bill was being discussed in the House last year, many precedents were cited in respect of guarantees. Arguments were put forward at that time that there was no necessity for the federal government to provide a guarantee when the province was providing the guarantee. That is, Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada would not or could not have the privilege of overriding the guarantee of Her Majesty in right of a province. In this regard, I should like to refer to the Statutes of Canada 1962-63 in respect of the setting up of the Expo Corporation. I shall quote from the Act to establish the Canadian World Exhibition, Section 12(3). It reads as follows:
The Governor in Council may authorize the Minister of Finance, on behalf on Her Majesty, to enter into a joint guarantee by Her Majesty and Her Majesty in right of the Province of Quebec guaranteeing payment of the principal amount of any note, bond or debenture issued by the Corporation under the authority of subsection (1) and of

the interest thereon, which guarantee shall be in such form and subject to such terms and conditions as may be approved by the Governor in Council and the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
It is clear that there are precedents for this type of guarantee. Although it is not clearly spelled out in the recommendation of His Excellency the Governor General of Bill C-9 that this type of arrangement may be entered into when we look at the amount of defaults there have been in the past under small business loan and Farm Improvement loan legislation, I believe it is obvious to all of us that, for all practical purposes, there will be no additional financial commitment or guarantee forced upon the federal treasury. I would ask for the consideration of the minister in this regard. At a time when the people in the west feel they are being discriminated against I think this is very important. In light of the precedent in respect of the Expo Corporation, I would ask for the minister's consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I trust the hon. member for Regina East wishes to speak to the point of order. I might say I am in a position to reach a decision on the point of order raised by the minister, which has already been commented upon by three learned and hon. members of the House. I would hope the hon. member for Regina East would limit his contribution to the procedural aspect of the point now before the Chair.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, may I say that I cannot add to what has been said by the hon. member for Edmonton West and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. However, I might ask, in view of the disposition expressed in some parts of the House, whether the minister might consider taking the necessary steps to bring in a resolution that would enable this matter to be considered by the House in the event Your Honour should decide the amendment is not admissible.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has made a suggestion which the minister may wish to consider after the ruling has been made. As hon. members might surmise, it would be very difficult for the Chair to rule otherwise than that the amendment unfortunately cannot be put to the House. As has been correctly mentioned by the minister, and as pointed out by hon. members who have taken part in this debate, the proposed amendment would appear to go beyond the terms of the Governor General's recommendation.
January 29, 1970	COMMONS
I might take the liberty to bring to the attention of the House citation 246 of Beau-chesne's Fourth Edition which, in part, reads as follows:
The guiding principle in determining the effect of an amendment upon the financial initiative of the Crown is that the communication, to which the royal demand of recommendation is attached, must be treated as laying down once for all (unless withdrawn and replaced) not only the amount of a charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications.
Because of this, it is a long established practice that the type of amendment proposed by the hon. member cannot be put to the House. I regret very much that I must reach this conclusion, particularly due to the fact that there appears to be so much sympathy on both sides of the House for the intent of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Downey). However, because of the precedents and particularly the ruling I made myself after considerable thought just two years ago when this very point was brought up and considered by the Chair, with regret I rule that the hon. member's proposed amendment may not be considered by the House at this moment.
I must add that in respect of the second amendment proposed by the hon. member for Battle River, being consequential and related directly to the one just ruled out of order, the same conclusion would have to be reached. Therefore, of course, the second amendment could not be put to the House at this time.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: that Bill C-9, to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


John Stratford Burton: May I ask
the minister whether he is prepared to give consideration to the proposal placed before him with respect to the subject matter of an amendment that was proposed by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Downey) and which was ruled out of order. Is the minister prepared to consider taking the necessary steps to enable this change to be made in the 21611-49*
DEBATES	2975
Small Businesses Loans Act bill so that the treasury branches of the province of Alberta could be included within the scope of this legislation?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to rise and put myself in the position of closing the debate if there are other members who wish to take part in the debate on third reading.


Mr. Speaker:: Of course, if the minister speaks now, even if he does not close the debate, he can speak only once on a motion. He can choose whether he wants to speak now or wait until other contributions have been made.


Cliff Downey: It is a disappointment to me that the amendment I proposed was ruled out of order, but I hope the minister will take the necessary steps to ensure that a correction is made so that the provincial treasury branches can enjoy equal status with the other financial institutions which operate in the province and in the rest of the country.
I will be brief in my remarks at this stage since I spoke on this bill earlier. May I say, with regard to the treasury branch situation-and here I also wish to include farm improvement loans-that I think we have to consider financial agencies in the light of their usefulness and of their total participation in the field of finance. Certainly, the profits that accrue from institutions such as provincial treasury branches go back into the provincial revenue, and in this way part of the load is taken off the public purse, which I think is most important in view of the country's present economic situation.
Much of the profit of our other banking institutions eventually finds its way outside the country. I am not debating the merits or otherwise of this situation, but I do say that it would be a gross discrimination and contrary to the public interest for the federal government not to extend the same privileges to provincial treasury branches as they do to private financial institutions especially when, as I said earlier, we have clear precedents for this type of guarantee.
There is one other important addition which could have been made to this biU and that is the inclusion of inventory and accounts receivable so that loans could be made on this basis as well as for business expansion. In a depressed business cycle such as we are experiencing now in this country, it is of little value in the majority of cases to indicate that the government will advance
January 29, 1970

Small Businesses Loans Act loans for business expansion when often this is not necessary. What these businesses need is financing to sustain them and keep them viable. Loans could and should be made on the basis of accounts receivable and for stock in trade.
There is just one other point which I should like to make which relates to the performance of the treasury branches. In looking at borrowings under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, I notice that between 1967 and 1968 there has been a considerable drop in the number of loans made by chartered banks under this act. Certainly, there has been a need for funds in this area but I think there has probably been a reluctance on the part of these agencies to lend at the lower interest rates. I have figures for three of our main banks and I note that in 1967 loans for farm improvement from the three banks amounted to $52.4 million, $42.3 million and $70.1 million, while in 1968, a year later, the amount lent under the Farm Improvement Loans Act was $7.5 million, $4 million and $11 million, which is a dramatic reduction. I do not have as complete a breakdown for the treasury branches, but it seems that their loans in this area have been at least consistent and have even increased somewhat. Loans for agricultural and personal purposes in the same period of time increased by some $12 million, so I believe that this is quite an argument in support of the concern of treasury branches for the financial needs of the people.
I will not pursue this any further today, but will conclude by again encouraging the minister to consider these treasury branches.


Mr. Rod Thomson (Baiileford-Kindersley):: The great socialist from Windsor West has introduced this bill which, in effect, will provide government assistance to private lending institutions. I should like to go on record as saying that I favour this proposal. The great socialist from Battle River wants the federal government to underwrite the provincial government's lending institution, and I must say I think it is a good idea. I cannot see anything wrong with this proposal, either.
This type of loan has been used more widely in western Canada than in some other areas. I think this indicates perhaps that there is a greater financial need there than in some other areas of the country. However, I am quite concerned at the moment that loan companies which will come under the bill might not have money to lend at the present interest rates, particularly in view of the awkward financial situation in which agriculture in


western Canada finds itself. In addition, the government's policy of restraint on agriculture makes farmers wonder if it is wise to borrow money under such a bill. If you are a banker or responsible individual in a lending institution and if you have the money available, you would be wise to lend it to such a borrower.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
There are matters related to this bill. Now law stands by itself. It stands in relation to the rest of the community or institutions. If we are not going to have an effective Small Businesses Loans Act, we might as well not have one.
I invite the minister to consider some other aspects of the lending community, the business community and the position of these people generally. We know that some banks have a much more aggressive lending policy, at least they lend a great deal more money than some others. It is not always the policy of the government or the provisions of an act that govern the situation, but it is the policy of the banks. Possibly the minister should do a little more advertising or apply a little pressure to ensure that these lending institutions consider this act seriously. I assume the minister expects small businesses to borrow money.
There are two other points I want to make in relation to this bill. With the white paper, on taxation before the country, the tax situation is such that small businesses are uncertain whether or not they should borrow money. What are the tax changes going to do to them? If I were a banker or credit manager of a financial institution and were approached by a small business for a loan, I would certainly consider what effect the new tax rate would have on this businessman before I would make the loan. The white paper has caused a pall of uncertainty over some sections of the business community.
I suggest the minister should get on with the job and decide what is to be done, so that the small business people will know where they are. I do not think it is right that the government should be responsible for putting a person in a position of wondering whether he should or should not borrow money. The role of the government should be to help individuals to assess their business situation.
Another point I wish to comment on is the inflation which we have in this country, and the plans of the government for curing inflation. I will not go into the plans here, but I
January 29, 1970

suggest they have some relationship to the bill because individuals and lending institutions must consider what inflation might do to some businesses and also be concerned with what government action to cure inflation might do to particular businesses. Again, there is a pall of uncertainty. Perhaps in his reply the minister might deal with these items and give us some assurance that these matters will be considered.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingafe):: do not know if my voice will last long enough to put on the record the observations I wish to make. I would have liked my vocal condition to have been better so that I would have been able to speak longer and express some feelings about this particular amendment and about the act generally.
I notice there are three points in Bill No. C-9. One is to extend the term of the legislation; two, to set loan limits and, three, to increase the guarantee to lending institutions which will mean that small institutions will be able to get involved in lending to small businesses without the same risk they previously had to face. In this respect, this amendment to Bill C-9 is encouraging and, of course, has my support.
I agree with one point raised by the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Thomson), and I wish to offer evidence in support of that particular argument. I ask Your Honour's permission to digress from consideration of this bill for a moment. Several pieces of legislation similar to Bill C-9 have been passed. One of these is the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. I will use this example in order to make a point respecting people who wish to obtain loans under these acts.
Since the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act was passed last year, I think there have been only two loans made in my Province under this act. I am sure every member from Atlantic Canada, and possibly members from the west coast, have received correspondence from people who have gone to the banks, made their representations, put up the necessary to guarantee, which under that legislation is 25 per cent of the total loan, and made out an application-if they could get one. I am informed that frequently bank managers say they do not have any application forms. On occasion when these people fill out an application, that is the last they hear of it. I received a letter from a person who had made an application for a loan in November. To date, he has not received any response. He is
Small Businesses Loans Act interested in investing $20,000 in a piece of fishing equipment, a long-liner. The fishing season is approaching and because this person has not received any response, he does not know what his position is. The seller of the boat is waiting to complete the sale, but this man must just sit and wait. There has been correspondence with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) and numerous other people in the government departments responsible. We cannot get any fire under the bottoms of the people who are supposed to make these loans, yet the government sits back feeling quite happy that this legislation is on the books.
Legislation, not used, is useless. For example, legislation was passed by a provincial government making it illegal to change a fuse in your house. This was when houses had the old fuse boxes. It is illegal to change a fuse unless you are a qualified electrician. This is a stupid law because it is impossible to enforce. Who would know whether you changed a fuse? This bill is similar. It is not effective.
I mentioned the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act to show that the banks are not co-operating with the government. I suspect this is because the demand for capital is so high they can be very selective when lending money. On the basis of low risk lending, they should lend to fishermen because they have the best record in Canada for repaying loans. This is a fact, not an assumption. However, these loans are made not on the ability of the person to repay the loan, but on the basis of the interest the institution can get by making this loan.
Under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, the Small Businesses Loans Act and other similar pieces of legislation, the interest rate is relatively low. Certainly it is not low, but relatively low. It is roughly 8 per cent. The banks are not interested in lending money at this rate. The minister might be able to contradict me and say, look at all the money we have been lending.
I have already referred to the fisheries legislation. I participated in the debate on that bill for many weeks in this House and in committee. It was finally passed. I thought it might have been effective. If the record is checked, I am sure it will show that I voted in favour of this legislation. Having now had over a year's experience with that piece of legislation, which has similar components to
January 29, 1970

Small Businesses Loans Act the legislation now under discussion, I have grave doubts about its effectiveness. It has been a real headache to those I have been in contact with, including the Minister of Fisheries and members of Parliament. The banks are using many excuses why they are not making this money available to these people under this legislation.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Let me be more specific about the Small Businesses Loans Act. For the record, a report by the Minister of Finance dated December 9, 1969, indicates the number of loans made during the last half of 1969. I want the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Gray) to listen carefully to what I am saying. When I have finished, I am sure he is going to say "I have listened to the hon. member; I will investigate that and make a report". I am going to ask the minister to do just this, unlike other occasions when the same promise was made but no action taken. This is a crucial point.
If I may be parochial for a moment, I should like to refer to how crucial this kind of legislation can be to a province like Newfoundland. For example, during the last half of last year there was a grand total of 1,146 loans made totalling $12,732,698 and in the last quarter there were 377 loans totalling over $4 million. But in Newfoundland, in the last quarter there was only one loan made for $15,000 and only three loans made in the whole year. This statement of the minister covering loans made under the Small Businesses Loans Act for the period July to September shows 225 loans in British Columbia totalling $2,323,621; Alberta, 138 loans for $1,345,372; Saskatchewan, 74 loans, Manitoba 57, Ontario 349, and Quebec 243. New Brunswick had 18 loans and Newfoundland 2 loans. In other words, we can just forget about it.
The act is not working. What is the problem? That is the question I want to pose to the Minister without Portfolio. We have small businessmen eager to expand and no doubt if he checks he will find that there have been quite a number of applications. Under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act about 15 or 20 people have written to me inquiring how to get a loan. They have reported that when they have followed the indicated procedure they still could not get loans. There are 4,000 fishermen in my riding, but I doubt if one loan has been made under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. It is something of a farce, Mr. Speaker, for us to put emphasis on

legislation of this kind if people are not taking advantage of it.
On Small Business, again, I realize we do not have the same number of small businesses as other provinces, certainly not like Ontario with 349 loans last year. But when you consider that Newfoundland only had two loans last year and three for the same period the previous year, there is something wrong. I should like the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) to indicate what the problem is and any solutions he has for it.
The Fisheries Improvement Loans Act has been amended and brought up to date, but the banks are not lending the money. Is there not something to be done here? Can the government not take action to ensure that people meeting the requirements of the Fisheries and Small Businesses acts can take advantage of the legislation to raise the necessary capital? As far as I am concerned this is discrimination and the Minister of Finance has a responsibility here. Some months ago, I asked whether he would take remedial action against this sort of discrimination and whether his attitude toward easing of credit in slow growth areas was the same as that of the Governor of the Bank of Canada. I suspect it isn't, and the banks have been given directives not to lend money to these people because the security is not good or else the bank managers are not aware of this legislation.
There is a form of discrimination, Mr. Speaker, and this has to be rectified because there is a greater need for the liberal application of this legislation in the slow growth areas than in boom areas. In places like Newfoundland, the average small businessman or fisherman has no place but the bank to negotiate a loan. In Ottawa, Montreal or Toronto there are other sources, though applicants may have to pay through the nose. Perhaps this amendment specifically relating to the guarantee might ease the situation a little bit.
I would like to ask the Minister without Portfolio-I hope he is listening to me-if he will initiate an investigation to determine why Newfoundlanders cannot get loans under the legislation, specifically the Farm Improvement loans-they got one last year-the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act-one or two loans have been made in the province-and the Small Business Loans Act, under which a total of three loans were made last year and two the year before.
January 29, 1970	COMMONS
If the legislation is not applied equally or if the banks are discriminating, then the government has the responsibility to take remedial action. If the Minister of Finance is correct in saying that the Governor of the Bank of Canada shares his view that there is to be a liberalization of restraints in slow growth areas, certainly we are entitled to better treatment than we have been getting.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, the bill to amend the Small Business Loans Act is a very important piece of legislation requiring the full attention of members of this House. I think that small business across Canada is facing very serious problems and, indeed, in many eases is faced with the problem of whether it will be able to survive over the next period of years. This has come about, Mr. Speaker, in large part because of the increasing concentration of economic power within Canada. Thus, many small businesses find it difficult to compete with large corporations, large monopolies or even conglomerates, not only because of problems of competing in price but also because of problems in commanding adequate amounts of the resources necessary to enable small businesses to take advantage of the technological advances which would enable them to give their customers the type of service and product which is required.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, small business faces very many serious problems. Some of these problems have been discussed in this debate, and I concur with the suggestion that some of the aspects of this legislation and its administration, aspects which have been drawn to the attention of the government, require full consideration if, in fact, small business is to survive.
Reference has already been made, as a result of an amendment which was ruled out of order by Your Honour, to the position of the treasury branches in the province of Alberta. Of course, at this stage I cannot discuss the amendment that was originally moved and subsequently ruled out of order, but I wish to discuss this subject matter within the framework of clause 1 of the bill as it has been reported back by the committee without amendment. The amendment that has been moved with respect to paragraph (a) of section 2 pertains to the definition of "bank" and would include banks within the meaning of the Bank Act. It would also permit credit unions, caisses populaire, co-
DEBATES	2979
Small Businesses Loans Act operative credit societies, insurance companies, trust companies and loan companies, if designated by the minister, to become lenders under the Small Businesses Loans Act. It seems to me that the principle involved in this amendment is perfectly sound, namely, that those institutions which people may wish to use to take advantage of this legislation to carry on their business affairs should be empowered to make loans under this act. It seems to me that that principle is perfectly sound. It is the principle that is intended in this amendment.
However, it is perfectly obvious that one particular group of businesses, namely the treasury branches of the province of Alberta, have been overlooked or not included in the amendment placed before the House in this clause. I am quite willing to give the government the benefit of the doubt and say that this was an unintentional oversight; but it seems to me that consideration should be given to including this group of institutions within this act. After all, Mr. Speaker, there are many people within the province of Alberta who conduct their financial affairs at the treasury branches of that province. They are the places of business for the carrying on of peoples' financial business in many Alberta communities, and many of the people of Alberta use them. Thus it seems to me that if the principle involved in this section is to be applied generally, the minister should seriously consider taking the necessary steps to ensure that the branches are included within this legislation. Thus, I would urge him to take the necessary steps to ensure that the treasury branches of the province of Alberta which perform a very useful function for the people of the province are included in this legislation.


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, may I speak briefly on Bill C-9? I support the comments of my colleague, the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton), and urge the government and the minister to include within the legislation the treasury branches of the province of Alberta because they perform very useful work and to exclude them from the provisions of this bill would be, in my opinion, discriminatory. Surely, there can be no objection to including the treasury branches, because they have served a wonderful purpose in the province. I am sure the treasury branches of that province wish to be included in any privileges that are granted to other lending institutions.
2980	COMMONS
Small Businesses Loans Act
An hon. member who spoke some time ago said that lending institutions discriminate between central Canada and the rest of the country. I am absolutely certain that the amount of money put back into any area, say, in Saskatchewan, by lending institutions in the forms of loans is not nearly as great as it ought to be. Many people who are desirous of obtaining loans from lending institutions in certain parts of the country find it difficult to do so. We ought to require lending institutions to return or make available to any part of the country, amounts of money that have been taken out of that part of the country. They should make available to those people seeking loans the funds they require. It seems that people living west of Winnipeg, right through to British Columbia, have much more difficulty obtaining loans than do people in central Canada, who apparently have no difficulty at all.
Apparently there is no limit to how much money a person in central Canada can obtain for housing purposes, the building of apartment blocks and ancillary projects. This is because our lending institutions seem to follow a policy of making money available for people in central Canada. We ought to make certain that the money of lending institutions is made available to the people living in the extreme eastern and western parts of the country as well as those in central Canada. I also think that lending institutions ought to be obligated to disclose from what part of the country their income is derived. At the same time regulations ought to be drawn up to make sure that our lending institutions provide prescribed amounts of money to municipalities and other like bodies that need capital.
We should make certain that people living in parts other than central Canada obtain the necessary services of our lending institutions. If the treasury branches of the province of Alberta were included within the provisions of the legislation, they would fill a great need. Unless the treasury branches are included in the legislation, the people of Alberta may not obtain the relief they desire.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I should like to respond to some of the comments which have been made by hon. members. The hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Thomson) expressed some concern that institutions that now are being authorized to make small business loans under the provisions of this act may not have money available to make such
[Mr. Skoberg.l
DEBATES	January 29, 1970
loans. May I remind him and all hon. members of the House that we sent to the finance committee last week bills to amend the Trust Companies Act, Loan Companies Act and the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act. One of the purposes of those amendments is to enable the institutions covered by these pieces of legislation to attract more deposits and, hopefully, to be in a better position to make loans of the types which are authorized under the amendments in this bill and under other statutes regulating their operations. I hope hon. members will keep the comments of the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley in mind when they decide on the pace of the consideration to be given to the bills which have been referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs for study.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Further, I should like to indicate that one purpose of these amendments is to provide a climate which will encourage the financial institutions covered by the act to make loans under it.
The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) made a number of useful comments, as did other hon. members. I want to state for the record, if for nothing else, that, as he surmised I was indeed, making some notes while he was speaking so as to be in a better position to comment later on what he was saying'-I always like to follow carefully what the hon. member has in mind. I should like to assure him I always do whatever I can to respond to his requests. I was concerned when he suggested he had asked me to look into something and that I had not responded. The only incident I can recall is his request that I look into the regional impact of the tax recently enacted in connection with airline tickets. As I pointed out in the course of the debate on that subject, this is a complicated matter and in these circumstances I thought he would not expect an immediate response. However, had he kept in touch with me I would have told him something to confirm that I had begun working on this request.
I believe it is useful when replying to the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate and others who have spoken in this debate to call to mind that loans under this legislation are made by the banks and other financial institutions involved, not the government. The money for the loans comes from the banks, not from the government. This act authorizes the government to say to the financial institutions which are covered: If you are willing to
January 29, 1970

make loans on certain terms and conditions for certain purposes we will guarantee you against loss. It is, therefore, ultimately a matter for decision by the lending institutions themselves whether they make loans under the terms of the act, or the two companion acts to which the hon. member referred. These acts do not give the government authority to order the lending institutions to make the loans contemplated by them.
As I pointed out earlier in the debate, one of the major purposes of the amendments before us is to extend the lending period under the legislation so that small business loans can continue to be made. The proposal is that the lending period be extended for a further 18 months to June 30, 1971 rather than for a three year period as has been the case in the past. This would bring the lending periods contemplated in all three acts into line as far as terminal dates are concerned.
This will enable the government to carry out a review of these three programs concurrently. Such a review would permit the government to examine the entire scope of the operation, the results of the program, and the question as to whether any changes ought to be made. This review will be carried out in a way which will enable us to look at one program in the light of the experience with the others in so far as this would seem relevant. I believe that many of the suggestions made by hon. members during this stage of the debate and previously are suggestions which ought to be considered in the course of this review. For example, the point raised by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Downey) and others with respect to including the Alberta treasury branches under the terms of the Small Businesses Loans Act is one which might be considered at that time. We should remember that the original objective of this legislation, together with its companion measures, was to facilitate by means of government guarantees a flow of credit for certain purposes by financial institutions to small business and certain other categories of enterprise. To include agencies such as the Alberta treasury branches as eligible to receive the federal government guarantee under this law and the two companion laws would raise a very broad question as to the eligibility of lending agencies of provincial governments, and, perhaps, in some cases, even of municipal governments. This, as I say, is a broad question which would extend beyond the matter of Alberta treasury branches, which, as hon. members have said, are playing a significant part in the financial life of the 21611-50
Canada Student Loans Act province of Alberta, and I think hon. members will agree we should want to give such a suggestion serious consideration. A good opportunity for carrying out such an examination would certainly be during the course of the review to which I have referred.
I also wish to say that while the terms of this legislation and the companion legislation do not authorize the government to order the financial institutions in question to make the type of loans contemplated, the guarantee loans administration of the Department of Finance is willing to investigate complaints of the type raised by the hon. member for Gan-der-Twillingate. If he, and other members of the House would like to bring to my personal attention complaints which have been brought to their notice by those who have sought loans under these acts I would be happy to have those complaints looked into and have reports made on them as soon as possible.
Let me in conclusion point out, as I did on another occasion when this subject was before the House, that though lending under the small businesses loans program never approached the volume reached under the Farm Improvement Loans Act it has, nevertheless, been a useful source of term financing for Canadian business. Since its inception some 20,000 small businesses have obtained financing amounting to almost $190 million under this program and the proposals in Bill C-9 will help ensure that credit facilities of this kind continue to be available to assist small businessmen in Canada through arrangements encouraged by the federal government.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



CANADA STUDENT LOANS ACT


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: that Bill C-135, to amend the Canada Student Loans Act as reported (with out amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Mark Willson Rose: I have a few comments to make at this stage, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the legislation
January 29, 1970

Canada Student Loans Act before us. It is an interesting piece of legislation. I do not know how widely this interest extends, since there do not appear to be many other speakers. Nevertheless, it is interesting to me.
This bill will broaden the sources of lending by the inclusion of trust and loan companies. Scholastic standards originally defined in the legislation now appear in another section and are left more or less to the provinces in terms of eligibility for loans. I notice, too, that a little hypocrisy has been removed from the bill. Landed immigrants no longer have to pledge that they plan to stay in Canada permanently before being accepted for a student loan. I think it would have been a simple matter for anyone to have got around this provision if they did not wish to be completely frank when making a declaration of this kind.
I notice there is now a provision in the bill fixing a semester maximum of $500 in connection with a student loan. This is perhaps in recognition of the fact that various postsecondary institutions in Canada are now embarking on newer kinds of school sessions. This may be all to the good. I am pleased that this legislation has recognized this fact. I am sorry that the student loans are continuing to be limited to full-time students. I submit it might be well worth while broadening this kind of assistance to include those who, for one reason or another, cannot attend an institution full-time but are nevertheless interested in upgrading their education during such time as they do have available. In this respect, I think Canada has been particularly remiss. We have failed to provide enough opportunities for people to gain extra education at times other than the normal dayschool time.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I think the trend today is changing. How often do we hear it said of a famous man, perhaps not so much in this country as in others, that he was originally a ditch digger who got his law degree at night school? I suggest that it would be useful indeed to broaden this legislation in this regard, and this is why I am a little critical of the provision of the bill that restricts the legislation to full-time students only. The basic loan provided under the legislation is increased to $115 million. It is to be applied on a sliding scale formula, and I should like to comment on this feature later.
The student loans legislation has been very popular if its popularity can be judged by the

number of people who have taken advantage of it. I have before me a press release by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) dated September 12, 1969 and I should like to quote the first paragraph. The press release is entitled "Canada Student Loans Plan" and reads:
The Honourable E. J. Benson, Minister of Finance, announced today that loans totalling $65,767,496 to 107,145 students were authorized under the Canada Student Loans Plan during the period of July 1, 1968 to June 30, 1969. In the previous year-
That is the year 1967-68.
-loans totalling $57,053,410 to 90,371 students were authorized.
This indicates two things to me. One is that I think people are showing a great and increasing interest in education. Secondly, I think it also indicates something that perhaps most members, are not quite so ready to talk about in this Parliament-I am, but there are some members who are reluctant-namely that if more students are required to borrow money to finance their education, it is because there are fewer opportunities for them to earn money by summer employment. I suggest it also indicates an economic down-turn which limits the opportunities for those students who have financed themselves in the past but cannot equally well do so today.
I suggest this is a matter into which we should look, because not only does it indicate an increasing interest on the part of young people to educate themselves, but it also indicates, or to be fair perhaps I should say it may indicate, a down-turn in the economy. As a result, in order to get their education they have to go into hock by taking a loan to be repaid over a period of nine and a half years at varying rates of interest. I do not know how the rest of the members of the House feel about this but I think this practice may well impose an extreme burden upon them. Certainly, the nine and a half years following my graduation from university were the most economically deprived of my life.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: What about the present?


Mark Willson Rose: I appreciate the minister's interjection, but I have no desire at this particular point to get into the question of a pay increase for M.P.'s.
Further on in the minister's press release there is this paragraph:
Since the inception of the Plan in 1964 to June 30, 1969 the nine participating provinces and two territories have issued approximately 378,000 certificates of eligibility amounting to $226.7 million.
January 29, 1970	COMMONS
That is a substantial amount of money and shows that a substantial number of students have been assisted by this loan provision. But this is far in excess of the 10,000 student scholarships-I underline the word "scholarships"-that were part of a campaign pledge made by former Prime Minister, Lester B. Pearson.
But, Mr. Speaker, student loans are really but a half-way house, when you really get down to examining their rationale. Although they are necessary under our present system, they are definitely a crutch. Up to 80 per cent of the cost of secondary education today is paid by the government, either federal or provincial.
The Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen) made a statement to the House today on the efforts being made to increase employment opportunities for summer students. I think that since industry, the public and our institutions all benefit from education, not forgetting the benefit received by the students themselves, it would seem to me that it would only be logical to raise the other 20 per cent of the cost of education. We might then arrive at the point where those students who require summer employment in order to finance their education would not at the same time be competing against heads of families who are often marginally employed, in some cases putting them out of work, and this in spite of the fact that there is usually a seasonal upswing in summer employment opportunities. I think we should examine tuition costs from this point of view. I am not sure that this House, however, is the right place to look at the matter in view of the limits of federal jurisdiction in educational matters. Nevertheless, I feel the subject is worthy of mention.
Before I resume my seat, I should like to comment on the sliding scale that is being proposed in the legislation. This scale is based not on the number of young people in Canada between the ages of 18 and 24 but, instead, on the number of students presently enrolled in post-secondrary education who are between the ages of 18 and 24. The formula is based on what the condition is rather than on what the condition should be. The formula ignores the fact that in this age group of 18 to 24, 50 per cent of our students may have never completed high school. These people should be encouraged to complete their education assured that they will find a place in higher education. These dropouts are indicative of a waste of talent and an inefficient use of
DEBATES	2983
Canada Student Loans Act human resources. Their talents should be developed to contribute to the development of this country.
I would also suggest to the House that one of the difficulties encountered in the provision of secondary education is that education is often not accessible to students with merit or scholastic ability but instead is provided only to those by affluent parents and to those students who live reasonably close to a university. I believe we should look more and more to the time when students attend university on the basis of ability, not on the basis of how much money their parents have. If necessary, the students should receive travel assistance. Today our university students represent a relatively small and affluent section of the population. We must do much more to see that university education is spread uniformly and fairly through the total population. Intelligence is not confined to any single economic class.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
That is the main emphasis I put on the remarks I made this afternoon. I feel the legislation is perhaps of assistance to many students. There will be an increasing number of students who wish to take advantage of this measure. They will not only wish to do so but will be forced to because there are no other alternative provisions to adequately fulfil the demands and needs of young Canadians for post secondary education.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I bow to John.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I had a little difficulty determining who was on his feet first. Does the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate wish to speak?


Stanley Howard Knowles: have much pleasure in yielding to my hon. friend.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I hardly know how to interpret that remark, but I will take my chances and accept it graciously. I intend only to take a few minutes.
I am interested in seeing how the government continues to be involved in education, even though it is in its efforts coming in through the back door. Let me preface my remarks by saying I speak now on the basis of my opinion. Perhaps one of the reasons I was elected at the federal level was that I felt the government of Canada should assume
2984
January 29, 1970

Canada Student Loans Act much more responsibility for the development of human resources than it has done in the last 100 years.
It is a fact, documented by economists and others who are not professional educators, that there is a great statistical correlation between government investment in the field of education and higher economic benefits. In other words, a country that is capable of investing in the field of education as a matter of fact enjoys greater resources in the economic field. Some people who are not in favour of investing more in the field of higher education argue that it is the economic situation which creates this investment rather than that education itself creates the investment. I hope I am not confusing the minister or the Minister without Portfolio in this regard.


An hon. Member:: You are doing very well.


John Howard Lundrigan: Let me commend the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) for his remarks. I know of his educational background and I suggest that hon. members should listen carefully to some of his recommendations.
It has been suggested that there are few opportunities today for Canadian students. Again, a main reason for the increase in the number of student loans is the fact that a great many more people are desirous of obtaining a university education. This is a favourable situation. My main aim, however, is to lend my support to the suggestion made by the capable chairman of our caucus committee, and other members, regarding the restriction being placed on students eligible for loans, in that they must be full-time students.
The Government of Canada has recognized that the provinces have to be given more flexibility in the determination of who should receive a loan. Under clause 10, the provinces are given the authority to determine the scholastic standing, the academic achievement, the need and the amount of money up to $1,000 in respect of students. I suggest that this government should also permit the provinces to determine what constitutes a student rather than limiting this definition by the words "a full-time student", who must be in attendance during not less than one semester. This limitation is to be found in clause 1, subclause (3), paragraph (i). I am not a lawyer but I think that is the part. I cannot understand the need for this restriction or inflexibility.

First of all, the use of the word "semester" in a chancy thing because there are about 25 different definitions in various universities across the country. But on the main point, why should the student be a "full-time student"? In many areas, where salaries are low, teachers are without full qualifications and receive small wages, these people must obtain their education by attending evening classes or summer schools. They are not able to enrol as full-time students at universities.
Many thousands of teachers across Canada are not able to attend universities full time because they are married and have families which they must support. Perhaps they got their education some 20 years ago. They cannot now afford to attend university fulltime in order to obtain a degreee and that expertise of many hon. members of this House, or others who consider themselves experts. They are not experts. They are just ordinary "Joes" who have only a few years of university education. They are qualified to teach under provincial statutes. Many of them have given up the teaching profession because they are not qualified to demand the higher salaries. And now they are not entitled to these student loans, although in my opinion they are professionals. These people should be permitted to obtain the maximum loan at the reduced rate of interest. They are, in many instances, more eligible than some of the greenhorns and rookies who are going to universities but cannot now qualify as teachers. Many of this latter group are likely to be dropouts.
The people who enrol in summer schools and evening courses are usually those who cannot afford to take full time programs at universities. They are unable to return to university without the advantages offered under this measure. I know of many people who have been financed from the pockets of their friends in order that they could return to school. Many of them have large families. These are the people who should be given the benefit of this measure. Many others like them are not able to finance their educational requirements and as a result remain in lesser positions with low salaries. I suggest they are being discriminated against as a result of the restriction in this measure, consequently they cannot upgrade their positions.
It is extremely vital that we do everything possible to assure these individuals an opportunity to increase their education. This point was raised during the committee hearings. I was not a member of that committee, but I
January 29, 1970

have been told that this matter was a subject of discussion. I hope the government gives consideration to the suggestion that we eliminate, through an amendment or by the application of this legislation, that restrictiveness inherent in the definition of a student.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am very very happy to follow the hon. member for Gander-Twil-lingate (Mr. Lundrigan) and I support the appeal he has just made. In fact, the appeal I wish to make is in the same vein, though I shall demonstrate it by reference to a particular case.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I realize that on third reading it is difficult to amend a bill which is going through the House. It is even more difficult to amend something that in fact is in the act itself. In this case it may be that no such amendment to the legislation is necessary. Indeed, perhaps what we should do is to make our point to the government with sufficient merit and weight that the government will change the regulations under the legislation. On November 25, 1969, Mr. Gordon MacDonell, Superintendent of Secondary Schools of Winnipeg, wrote the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) concerning this legislation, the Canada Student Loans Act. Mr. MacDonell's particular point related to the Winnipeg adult education centre. This is a very useful and valuable operation which has been going on for a few years. It happens to be located in my constituency. This is a centre to which adults can go when they realize they did not receive all the education they might have when attending school and wish to go back and perchance complete their matriculation or, in any case, receive supplementary education which would better fit them for life.
It would seem to me that the motives of such people deserve support and that when they require financial assistance that assistance should be forthcoming. Despite the appeal made in Mr. MacDonell's letter of November 25, to which I have referred, the Minister of Finance replied in the negative, although the letter is a page and a half long, on December 29, 1969. The argument used is that the legislation is for people who are in post-secondary institutions and that definitions have been worked out which do not include this kind of program, namely mature people, adults, who go back to complete what would amount to their high school education.
Canada Student Loans Act
Like the hon. member for Gander-Twillin-gate (Mr. Lundrigan) and the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) who spoke a moment ago, if we are to assist people in obtaining an education-a proposition which surely all of us support-I believe here is a group of people who deserve not only our moral but also our financial support. I regret very much the government has not seen fit to meet the request presented to it by the Superintendent of Secondary Schools for the city of Winnipeg.
I may say parenthetically, and I confess I say it with a bit of pride, that some of these people who were anxious that this should be done under the Canada Student Loans plan made their request to the government of Manitoba and the very fine new government we now have in that province-


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Dinsdale:: That was not me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
last government in Manitoba was a good one, too. This one just seems to be a little better.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: We all learn by experience.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
government of Manitoba, at least on a temporary basis, has made a provision the effect of which is that these people are obtaining loans. We applaud the Manitoba government for what it is doing. I am sure everyone will join in that applause. But I submit this ought to be done on a federal basis. The same principles which inspired this legislation should carry through all the way.
When I first took the floor, the reason I said it may not be necessary to amend this legislation is to be found in the fact that in the letter the Minister of Finance wrote to Mr. MacDonell on December 29 there is a paragraph concerning how these definitions were arrived at. It appears they were achieved by consultations among the provinces and that there really is no barrier in the legislation itself to the defining of an adult education centre as the kind of body that could qualify under this legislation. At least, there is no barrier if the provinces can agree. I am not even sure from the wording of the letter of the Minister of Finance that that agreement must come from all the provinces. Therefore, it would seem to me that this matter might be looked into again. That was my purpose in rising to support those who have made this kind of appeal.
2986	COMMONS
Canada Student Loans Act
I think education should be supported everywhere. It is one of those motherhood qualities in which we all believe. Surely, when a group of people realize they did not receive sufficient education when at school and have the sense and vision to want to go back and pick up their education, they are doing a service not only to themselves but to society and to Canada. I do not think they should be excluded from the governmental assistance that is available because of these technicalities in respect of an act or because the regulations drawn under that act have not been drawn with sufficient latitude. I am glad the Minister without Portfolio chose to make his speech on third reading later in the debate rather than early and I hope therefore he will have a good word for those of us who have made this appeal at this time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order. The hon. minister cannot rise unless he has the unanimous consent of the House. Does the minister have the unanimous consent of the House to speak at this time?


An hon. Member:: Agreed.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the unanimous consent of the House. It indicates the degree of interest there is in hearing me speak. It seems to me, however, that since I did not speak at the opening of the debate I would certainly have the right of reply. I just say this in the event that inadvertently a precedent might be set.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order. I shall read from page 139 of Parliamentary Rules and Forms, 166(4):
If a member who moves an order of the day should rise and say only a word or two,-for instance, "that he moves the order,"-he is precluded from again addressing the House;


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have the greatest respect and praise for the manner in which you have conducted yourself in the position of Acting Speaker and Chairman of the Committee of the Whole over the years. I just wanted to indicate that, so far as I was aware, I had not said anything in moving third reading. Perhaps I moved in your direction, but I do not recall making any remarks. All this is not, however, directly relevant to my rising to speak in response to some of the very interesting comments which have been made. I shall be very brief. The hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) appeared to suggest that provision for

DEBATES	January 29, 1970
the setting of scholastic standards to determine eligibility for loans by the Federal government had been taken out of the Act and that they were being given to the provinces by the amendments. I may not have heard him correctly, but if this is what he said then I would submit there is some misconception here because the setting of scholastic standards for these loans through action of the federal government was never in the Act.
The hon. member might have been referring to an amendment which takes out of one clause some references to certificates of eligibility and puts them in another clause. I should place on the record the fact that, in effect, a bank is in a position to make a loan under the Canada Student Loans Act which would qualify for the government guarantee if a student presents to the bank a certificate issued by the appropriate authority for a province. The act says that the appropriate authority of the province may issue or cause to be issued a certificate to a qualifying student for an academic year whom that authority considers-and the section as amended here states:
(a)	to have attained a satisfactory scholastic standard, and
(b)	to be in need of a student loan
(i)	for the academic year in such amount, not exceeding one thousand dollars, or
(ii)	for the semester in such amount, not exceeding five hundred dollars,
as the case may be, as is stated in the certificate in order to pursue a course of studies at a postsecondary school level as a full-time student at the educational institution specified therein.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Therefore, I submit that the decision as to eligibility continues, as it was before these amendments, to be one basically made by the provincial authority and is a matter of provincial responsibility.
Hon. members have made very interesting suggestions about enabling part time students to be covered under this act. An hon. member made an interesting suggestion about the definition of a post-secondary institution. If I am not mistaken, in addition to a consultation with the provinces, it could well be that it would be necessary to have some form of amendment to the act to achieve this because I note that subsection (k) of section 2 of the act specifies educational institution as an institution of learning, whether within or outside a province, that offers courses at a postsecondary school level and that is designated by the Lieutenant Governor in Council of that province.
January 29, 1970

The important thing to keep in mind in raising points for consideration by the government on this-and hon. members have made very useful points along the lines that were also raised in the earlier stages of the debate-is that the provincial ministers of education are carrying out a complete review of all student aid programs. I submit again, as I did in the earlier stages of the debate, that it would not be appropriate to make fundamental changes in the act until this review has been completed and the recommendations of the ministers of education in the provinces are available to the government. It could well be that the points mentioned at this stage of the debate and at earlier stages will be among those considered and there will be recommendations on them. I am sure that putting them on the record here will make it possible to bring them to the attention of the provincial ministers of education and, of course, the federal government to be available when the provincial ministers submit their recommendations to the federal government on completion of their review.
In conclusion I will say again, as other hon. members have already said, that the Canada student loans program has played a very constructive role during the past five and a half years in helping thousands of Canadian students to pursue post secondary studies. As the hon. member for Fraser Valley West pointed out, during the first loan year of 1964-65 some 42,000 students received loans valued at over $26 million, while in the loan year ending June 30, 1969, over 107,000 students obtained loans valued at almost $66 million. It is anticipated that the volume of loans could approach $90 million in the current loan year. So, the amendments before us are to help ensure that this program will operate even more effectively in the interests of students at the post secondary level and therefore, as I said on an earlier occasion, will be to the benefit not only of these students but of our entire country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY


Donald Campbell Jamieson: that Bill C-137, respecting the use of national safety marks in relation to motor vehicles and to provide for safety
Private Bills
standards for certain motor vehicles imported into or exported from Canada or sent or conveyed from one province to another, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in view of the hour I suggest that we adjourn the debate until eight o'clock, if that is agreeable to hon. members.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale)-Air Transport-Discontinuance of Western Manitoba service by Transair; the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg)- Penitentiaries-Guards pay increase-Offer by government; the hon. member for Mal-peque (Mr. MacLean)-Distinguished service awards-Reference	of interdepartmental
study to committee.
It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River) moved: that Bill S-17, to incorporate ICG Transmission Limited, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, be concurred in.


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


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


John Mercer Reid: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.

January 29, 1970
Private Bills


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I have been interested in reading the report of the Committee on Transport and Communications on this bill because of the legislation which we have been passing lately which has been giving to other boards the responsibility for much of the work that the House used to perform, and to a small extent still is performing, with regard to this type of bill. As hon. members know, this is a pipeline bill which raises a problem which occurs frequently in that the company is asking, not for a Canadian route, but for a route through the United States and therefore the establishment of a number of companies rather than of one operating on the Canadian scene. I have read the report and I think that it is interesting to note that, as pointed out by the company, two thirds of this route would pass through Canada and one third through the United States. The cost of it would be $4 million for the Canadian section and $2 million for the U.S. section. Why it is more expensive per mile in the United States than in Canada is difficult to understand. An hon. member who sits close by says that the reason for this is that the terrain there is rocky.
This leads me to the other argument made by the company when they were asked why the route did not go through Canada. The company pointed out that the alternate route would be from the Trans-Canada line through the edge of the Canadian shield and thus would be plagued by both water and rocks, which was not felt to be advantageous. This might not be the real reason for the route not crossing Canada, and this raises a problem which I wish to mention. The reason that the route is brought down through the United States is that this company intends to sell a considerable amount of gas in the United States. They have established a U.S. company to work in co-operation with the newly established Canadian company, both companies being held by Inter City Gas. The reason for this is that there is a lucrative market for gas in the United States and only a limited one in Canada. For this reason, I believe that the representative of the company would have been more accurate if he had stressed the fact that money would be derived from the route in the United States.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
As we all know, there is a very limited market in that area. It is probable that the only reason the pipeline is coming back into Canada is to serve the new pulp and paper complex in the Fort Frances area. We are not

opposed to this. In fact, we are pleased that this particular development is taking place and that gas can be brought in to make feasible the operation of that pulp and paper complex in the Fort Frances area.
I think one weakness of the committee discussion is the inability or lack of desire to find out the comparison in cost in terms of the service to Canada from this pipeline. I am not sure from reading the report what the distance would be as I do not know whether it is to be brought directly into the Fort Frances area from the Trans-Canada pipeline or brought from south of Winnipeg into the Fort Frances area. This is an important matter and obviously will have some relationship to the cost per cubic foot in terms of gas delivered to the Canadian pulp and paper complex at Fort Frances and the difference that will be created by the amount of gas sold in the United States from points along that pipe line. It is unlikely it will pass through a number of communities without some sales being made.
I have been pleased to note that in the main this is a Canadian operation, with a large percentage of the shares held by Canadians, approximately ten to one, and that it has been quite successful in selling gas in Minnesota and southern Manitoba. I have always been concerned with the choice of a route for either a gas or oil pipeline. We will again be faced with this problem when we consider developing an oil line across Canada to serve the eastern markets.
It seems that we are depending entirely on the National Energy Board to make the assessment of whether the costs justify the means or whether the company should decide where to build a pipeline on the basis of serving a larger area with larger sales. This shorter route should be weighed against the proposition of an all-Canadian route. There may be savings through lower cost, although there may be an increase in capital costs for installation purposes and the volume would be less than if it served a large number of communities.
I believe this company has a good record, Mr. Speaker. Obviously, it does since the committee has agreed to this proposal. However, I am still concerned about this matter. I did not have the opportunity that committee members had of seeing the map showing where the proposed structure would be. I do not know if it is to be built from the Trans-Canada pipeline on the north to the city of Fort Frances on the south, nor am I aware of
January 29, 1970

the additional route that would be necessary to bring it to Fort Frances from the south. I am not in a position to even guess what the mileage would be nor am I in a position to guess at the total sales. Both of these will have some effect on the situation.
A company could legitimately argue that if they brought their pipeline in from the south, if they had an export permit and were allowed to sell a large volume of gas en route to the Fort Frances complex, the price would be lower. However, we know from experience this is not true. This has never happened. Gas is not a lower priced commodity because every person on the street uses it. It is the same price whether there are only one or two customers on the street or if everyone uses it. It is doubtful whether a large number of subscribers would substantially reduce the cost of gas to the Fort Frances complex as well as areas situated along the pipeline.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, it could be argued that if the pipeline were built entirely in Canada, although the capital cost would be considerably higher than using an alternative route, the capital cost would eventually be written off. Through our tax structure these companies are given considerable assistance. Much of their capital cost is written off over a period of time. There would then be a short pipeline. The National Energy Board would calculate the cost on the distance involved. The transportation costs would be reduced and eventually the ultimate consumer would have the benefit of a reduction in cost.
I am not very concerned about this bill. I know the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) is very interested in it because it affects his area. We are pleased that this development is taking place. It is taking place at a very good time. For a number of years there has been a very slack market for the pulp and paper industry. Apparently this has now changed for the better and many companies intend to get into production very shortly. I hope the building of this pipeline will be of assistance to them.
I ask hon. members to give consideration to an all-Canadian pipeline. I ask them to consider the advantages we will receive in terms of reduction of costs which is very important to the ultimate consumer. Also we will have control over this facility if it is totally under one agency. Mr. Graham, who represented the company, pointed out that there will be two sister companies, one to handle relations with the federal agency in the United States and the other to handle relations with the National
Private Bills
Energy Board in Canada. These companies will operate under significantly different criteria and often under legislation that is not necessarily designed to produce the same results. These two companies will be under the control of a third company, the parent company. Hon. members will agree this creates a complication which would not have arisen if the complete pipeline were built in Canada. When one or two committee members made inquiries about this matter, Mr. Graham commented that they had tentatively studied an alternate route but dismissed this. He did not have any figures to offer nor did he offer an alternative.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I think that the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, after he gets over being pleased to have this gas coming into the area, may be concerned about the cost. Many factors contribute to cost and one would be the shorter distance in Canada; a second would be that capital costs will eventually be written off. The pipeline will operate as a transportation facility long after the capital is repaid.
The fact that we ask questions about the ownership and control of the company by Canadians means little when we cannot write in and are not writing into the corporations act any limitations on the sale of shares. It is not like the banks and life insurance companies where we have legislation to ensure that the situation does not change. If the 300-odd Canadian shareholders should decide to sell out, then the situation would be changed.
While I am not particularly concerned with this company, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned with the attitude of some Canadians and of some members of Parliament to this over-all problem. It is my opinion that we will have to face a very serious decision in the next few years regarding a new transcontinental oil line. It is my hope that the things that make up the desires and aspirations of a nation will be taken into consideration, as well as the fact that a particular company may not want to go through the rock and water of northern Ontario but would rather detour through the United States. This would mean that a foreign agency would be able to control one of our natural resources. Hon. members should give some consideration to this, not particularly because of this bill but because this bill does, in a small way, point out many of the problems we are going to have with pipelines in the future.

January 29, 1970
Private Bills


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, in dealing with Bill S-17 on third reading, it was noted in testimony that the sponsor of the bill, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) would make a correction in Hansard which I expected he would do when he closed the debate.
In a debate we had in the Committee on Transport and Communications, various things came up upon which most of us agreed. However, the basic philosophy concerning the transportation of natural resources in our country through another country and then back again to Canada is one with which I cannot agree. The pipeline is 160 miles long and 40 miles of that goes through Minnesota, then comes back to International Falls.
It seems to me when application is made by a corporation or pipeline company for a detour such as this feasibility studies should be available for the committee to consider possible alternate routes. In this particular case, there was no feasibility study made as far as building the pipeline directly from the Trans-Canada to the Canadian destination. I am very pleased to see that this company was quite prepared to table and add as an appendix, a list of the shareholders involved in the company. It is noteworthy that of 311,537 shares issued as outstanding, 307,836 are held by 817 shareholders resident in Canada and 3,701 shares are held by 20 shareholders in the United States. Mr. Speaker, I am sure none of us could have any objection to this type of corporation doing business in Canada with that type of corporate setup.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, looking at the route of the pipeline and remembering that we had a railroad trying to take our coal resources from the Kootenays to the United States and back to Roberts Bank, the analogy is too much to accept. The Great Northern would like nothing better than to obtain permission to take this coal through the United States and back to Roberts Bank. In this case, the Canadian Pacific would be left out in the distance somewhere. It is for this reason, Mr. Speaker, that I have reservations about this bill before us.
We will be very glad that this pipeline will serve a portion of Manitoba which has not got natural gas at the moment, but surely feeder lines could have provided service if this pipeline company or any other were interested.
Another point that bothers me is the amount of money being spent on labour. At page 7.8 in the transcript of the hearings, we

see that some $4 million will be spent in Canada and $2 million in the United States in the construction of the pipeline. I realize there are problems regarding employment of Canadians across the border, but it is only in the last few years that the United States immigration department has become so strict about visas for people working there on contracts allotted to and tendered by Canadian companies. As a result, they could not keep their employees on the United States portions of a particular job. Co-operation between Canada and the United States should relieve this situation so that our labour could complete the whole 160 miles of this pipeline without having to subcontract the 40-mile section through the United States.
I realize that there is also a problem as far as the union is concerned, but this too should be rectified. There should not be any restrictions on Canadian workers in the United States on a project such as this, any more than if a United States firm had the same opportunities here. We all appreciate that there are hardly any pipeline construction companies in Canada which are subject to United States domination1 in so far as the Construction contract is concerned. I am sure that all those bidding on this particular line would like to see it a completely Canadian job. I was very pleased to learn, through the evidence brought forth before the committee, that the pipe at least will be constructed by some Canadian company. This will give employment in Canada which, of course, is one of our main concerns.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that if we are to be consistent in our desire to have pipelines in Canada, then the next pipeline built, which will be one to serve the east, should be constructed by an all-Canadian group. While this .one does serve a section of Minnesota and comes back into Canada some problems exist, namely that we are using the territory of another country, as well as its labour, for the transportation of our natural resource. However, I for one will never take exception to the route because I am pleased to say that this particular company has its domain in Winnipeg and its major shareholders are in Canada. This is something we can appreciate at this particular time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I see the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) rising to speak. I might point out that he can only speak at this time with the unanimous consent of the House. Is it so agreed?
January 29, 1970


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I rise only to make the correction in Hansard to which the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg) referred. In Hansard of January 15, 1970 at page 2447 the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orli-kow) asked me a question and I inadvertently gave him incorrect information. The hon. member asked if I could give him the areas to which Inter City Gas Company distributed natural gas. I replied:
My information is that it distributes natural gas throughout the southern part of Manitoba and parts of the city of Winnipeg.
That information is incorrect. The company distributes gas through the rural part of Manitoba and also the northern part of Minnesota; it does not distribute gas to parts of Winnipeg.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I should like to make a brief comment about the routing. I recognize the argument advanced by hon. members concerning that part of the pipeline going through the United States. But may I also point out that other communities in the Rainy River district such as Emo and Rainy River could not have natural gas service except as a result of this routing. Therefore, from the point of view of servicing the people of the Rainy River district, this type of routing is necessary. It would not have been possible for this part of the district to attract a pipeline running down from the Trans-Canada line because the cost would have been too much. This course was followed in a former part of my constituency and a pipe line was dropped down from the Trans-Canada Pipe Line at Ignace to Atiko-kan over a distance of approximately 40 to 50 air miles. Although, the cost was high it could be borne because two iron mines at Atikokan had contracted to take large amounts of the gas over a long period of time.
May I thank hon. members for their assistance in the House and during the committee proceedings when the bill was considered.


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


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Before the House proceeds to the next item of business, I point out that pursuant to Standing
Consumer Affairs
Order 75 (3) the House is not permitted to consider items No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 under the heading of Private Bills on the Order Paper. Standing Order 75(3) reads:
The report stage of any bill reported by any standing or special committee shall not be taken into consideration prior to forty-eight hours following the presentation of the said report, unless otherwise ordered by the House.
Since Bills S-10, S-ll, S-15 and S-16 were reported only yesterday, the 40-hour provision has not been met. The House will therefore proceed to the next order of business, namely, notices of motions (papers).


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I believe there is general agreement that we stand the first three notices of motions and proceed with No. 104, in the name of the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg).


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


John Leroy Skoberg: That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all outside consultant studies undertaken for the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs as mentioned in answer to Question No. 1,323, tabled on June 25, 1969, as reported in Hansard on page 10597.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am utterly amazed to hear that the government refuses to supply the pertinent information the motion requests. It seems that the consumers of this nation are paying for the cost of these reports. The government seems to be ignoring the warning of the Prices and Incomes Commission. As I say, our consumers are paying the bill and it seems to me that the consumers of Canada, through their members of Parliament, are entitled to obtain the information asked for in the notice of motion. Furthermore, they are entitled to know whether the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is really concerned about the matter of costs and rising prices in this country. Question No. 1,323 reads as follows in part:
For the fiscal years 1963-64, 1964-65, 1965-66, 196667, 1967-68 and 1968-69, what outside consultant studies have been undertaken or are presently in progress sponsored by the following Departments and Agencies-

January 29, 1970
Consumer Affairs
A number of agencies and departments were then enumerated. The second part of the question reads as follows:
What was the cost for each outside consultant study prepared for each department and agency and were the contracts from each department or agency awarded by competitive tendering and, if not, for what reason?
The first part of the government's answer tries to show what action has been taken. The document in my hand relating to the answer shows the following:
1. (a) Task Force-Corporate Law
(b)	Task Force-Securities Regulation
(c)	Operations Research Incorporated: Consumer Affairs Programme Planning and Analysis Study
(d)	Canadian Committee on Mutual Funds and Investment Contracts
In the second portion of the answer which relates to the cost of outside consultants and whether tenders for the work had been submitted, we see the following:
2. (a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
1967-	68
1968-	69 1967-68
1967-	68
1968-	69
1967-	68
1968-	69
$117,628 No tenders
60.000	No tenders 30,078 No tenders
83.000	No tenders
57.000	No tenders 120,007 No tenders
65,155 No tenders
The aggregate amount spent without tenders having been received is over $500,000. The latter part of that answer indicates that consultants who were engaged were lawyers, university professors and graduate and postgraduate students completing their degrees.
I have often said that such studies ought to be tendered for, and if this government were really interested in participatory democracy it would make sure that tenders are submitted. We have often been told to wait for the report of the task force on government information. That report is now in our hands, but the government still refuses to make known to the people of Canada exactly how much has been spent on consultant studies with relation to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. On page 1 of the task force report we read the following paragraph:
Governments feel increasingly a compulsion to compel: the single issue of environmental pollution wiR shortly oblige every citizen to comply with government regulations affecting cherished private routines of living.
In these circumstances, governments must acquire the power to speak persuasively and continuously, on many subjects and at many levels of comprehension. Unless this skill on the part of government is quickly acquired, there is a risk that administration will be swamped by rising tides of incomprehension and discontent.

Unless the people of this country can obtain necessary information which will enable them to judge whether the actions of the government are to their advantage, there will be discontent. If there is to be any real democracy in Canada, then people who write to their members of Parliament for information ought to be entitled to be given that information. I also think it should be absolutely mandatory for these consultant studies to be awarded on the basis of tender.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I cannot accept for one moment that there should be a select, priority list of consultants who obtain all these jobs from the government. To tell certain consultants and contractors that they are not entitled, or are not sufficiently competent to work for the government is a disservice to those who pay taxes and play their part in a so-called democracy. What we are doing when we call for consultant studies under present arrangements amounts to bootlegging certain people into the government service.
On the basis of the relatively short time I have spent in Ottawa, I do not have to tell hon. members who have spent a considerably longer time here about the number of consultants who have benefited from choice government contracts. The public should have the right to see the results of these studies and know exactly what is going on. The same argument applies to the system of tenders; there is too much secrecy attached to the system and we do not know which firms bid for what contracts, and on what terms and conditions.
As long ago as 1937, Mr. Mackenzie King said, as recorded on page 3 of the report to which I have referred:
Where there is little or no public opinion there is likely to be bad government, which sooner or later becomes autocratic government." And though dead prime ministers and dead presidents may not necessarily be unfailing founts of current wisdom, it is still interesting that a century and a half before that, James Madison had this to say about governments and information: "A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both."
The same thing applied to these tenders and studies. The government's consistent refusal to produce the papers for which we have asked means that the people of Canada are witnessing a farce or a tragedy. It is high time they realized exactly what confronts them as far as consultant studies are concerned. A number of observations on the sub-
January 29, 1970

ject have been made in various newspapers. Bob Cohen has written about it in the Globe and Mail and an editorial on the subject has appeared in that paper. George Bain has also written on the subject. It all boils down to this: we cannot have a true democracy unless all these studies are made public. We cannot expect any type of participation by the people of Canada in the democratic process unless the government makes sure that the information which it has available is also available to the people, so that they may know what is really happening.
I am particularly surprised that the information sought in the Notice of Motion we are now considering would not be made available to the public. This criticism relates to one department in particular in which everyone in Canada has a direct interest, namely, the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I plead with the government to make these documents available. I can think of nothing which might be contained in them which should not be made public. It is on the basis of information of this kind that people can reach informed decisions and journalists can write intelligent editorials summing up the direction in which we are moving. I urge the government to make this information available now, so that all of us can be as familiar with the subject of consumer affairs as are the government's consultants.
tTranslation]


Mr. Paul Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the studies mentioned by the member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg) in his notice of motion (papers) No. 104 are confidential and they relate to the making of the policy, except one report prepared by Operation Research Inc. on the organization of the consumer program.
We would be happy to table this report, but we ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion as far as the other studies are concerned.


Mr. Sieven  Olio@York East: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to take part in this debate, but the hon. member whose motion this is has shown a very sophisticated lack of knowledge concerning the whole field of research and, with respect, I feel he should be put right with regard to at least one aspect of it, that is, tenders.
Consumer Affairs
If the government requires steel of a certain size and weight, it is a simple matter to ask for tenders. But if it is seeking information which cannot be so easily specified, the situation becomes more complex. The government would be justified in calling for public tenders for supplies of paper or books. Having had some experience in the field of market research and research in general, I should like to point out to the hon. member that a research project is not outlined at the outset. The government or the institution concerned does not say; "Ask these questions; interview these people."
What happens is that firms of consultants are invited to make proposals. These proposals outline the type of research it is intended to conduct in order to find the answers to certain questions, together with an estimate of the cost. Some proposals may be double the cost of others. On the other hand, if what is wanted in an answer to a question, some firms might interview two persons and others would interview a thousand. The customer must decide whether, regardless of the cost, one firm or the other is likely to produce the right answer. Once this decision is made, the customer cannot go to another firm and say; "This proposal came from another firm, but you can do it cheaper." That is not the way in which it is done. If the hon. member would examine the way in which the research and consultative studies industry has developed, he will find that the tender system was dropped some years ago because it had been found to be an utter failure.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a short question? Does he believe that tender by invitation is the only way in which an operation such as the government is engaged in could be conducted?


Mr. Otio:: In the field of research and consultative studies, invitation proposals are the only way which has been found to be successful over the past 22 years.


John Leroy Skoberg: How do you get on the list?


Steven Otto: Just be a researcher.


John Leroy Skoberg: Is the hon. member suggesting the government should get in touch with everybody?


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. It being six o'clock, the hour assigned for the consideration of private members' business is now terminated. This House stands adjourned until eight o'clock this evening.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Jamieson that Bill C-137, respecting the use of national safety marks in relation to motor vehicles and to provide for safety standards for certain motor vehicles imported into or exported from Canada or sent or conveyed from one province to another, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that hon. members will understand the degree of satisfaction that I take in being able to introduce and explain to some extent the measure which is now before the House. It has been quite a while since we began our planning for what might be properly described as this auto safety bill, but I think it is one of the more important measures that hon. members will be called upon to enact during the present
January 29, 1970

session and I am sure also that it will receive widespread endorsement in all parts of the House.
On June 17 I indicated that the government was giving consideration to legislation to establish mandatory safety standards for new motor vehicles and their components at the point of manufacture or of importation into Canada. The main reason for this legislation is the government's awareness of and concern about the seriousness of the highway accident situation and about the danger to the health of citizens which may result from motor vehicle exhaust and possible noise emissions.
In this connection I may say that this is not merely a highway safety bill in the rather confined definition of that word, but in fact it will go beyond that particular objective in order to take the first steps at least in terms of emissions from automobiles that can be a danger to health. I hope in my introductory remarks to illustrate to hon. members in a few moments just how we propose to do this.
The federal government has evidence that significant reductions in motor vehicle traffic accidents, injuries and deaths can be effected through the provision of safety standards for motor vehicles and components at the point of manufacture. This is clearly the most logical point at which to attack the problem to ensure that when the automobile leaves the factory in the first instance it is as safe as it is possible for those involved, from a technological and now from a legislative point of view, to devise. Therefore, we have this legislation coupled, incidentally, with the research program which my department is undertaking, and I am confident that this should contribute significantly to increased safety in motor vehicle transportation in Canada.
The legislation itself deals primarily with those parts of the highway safety program which are designed to improve the calibre of the automobile, but I want to emphasize that simultaneously we are undertaking a stepped-up research program into all aspects of highway safety. Of course, in some respects this is perhaps even more important than the standards of the automobile itself because it is only after an automobile becomes involved in an accident that the safety measures can, in effect, come into play. What we really have to find answers to before we can move truly, in a major way, into the field of solution and improvement is what it is that causes accidents in the first instance.
While a good deal of publicity is often given to the drunken driver or the impaired
Motor Vemcle Safety
driver, and while we have taken steps in an effort to improve that situation through the breathalyzer test, it is still a fact that a great deal is unknown about what causes drivers to become involved in accidents under circumstances which do not appear, on the surface at least, to contribute in any way to the actual crash.
So in addition to moving on the legislative front, through these efforts, to improve the safety standards of the vehicle itself, we will be moving as well-I am sure hon. members will get details of this at the committee stage-to step up our research efforts, because in the last analysis the prevention of accidents is the most important consideration.
In preparing this bill we recognized the need for close consultation with the provincial departments responsible for road and motor vehicle administration. As you are aware, sir, the provinces have primary responsibility for roads and road traffic as well as motor vehicle and driver registration. Here, if I may be permitted, I should like to pay tribute to the provincial ministers concerned who have shown at least as much interest in this matter as the federal government. They have also co-operated with us in every way-as the debate will undoubtedly reveal, and the subsequent questioning in committee-in order to ensure the maximum amount of co-operation between the two levels of government, because the federal effort alone would not be sufficient to make a significant improvement.
The federal-provincial discussions to which I have referred led to my meeting with the provincial ministers on September 4, 1969, when it was agreed that the federal government should assume responsibility for the safety standards for new motor vehicles manufactured in Canada and for motor vehicles imported into Canada. At this time it was also agreed that the provinces, under existing legislation, would undertake to ensure the safety of vehicles in use as well as the safety of replacement and additional parts for motor vehicles.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
I think there was unanimous agreement that at the federal level we could make the biggest impact on the problem by dealing with the new car manufacturer, to ensure that as cars left the factory they were in top condition. It was also agreed that we would work closely with the provinces to ensure, wherever necessary, that they would introduce the kind of legislation which would
January 29, 1970

Motor Vehicle Safety put their needs on all fours with ours in terms of replacement parts. The provincial ministers indicated their support of the objectives in this field and the means contemplated to impose them, and it was agreed that the federal government should proceed with its legislation as quickly as possible.
The measure that I have the honour to introduce tonight, Mr. Speaker, is a bill which the provinces and the appropriate provincial ministers have said is desirable and one with which they are wholly prepared to co-operate.
At this stage I think it is important that I set forth with some care the principle of the bill. The bill defines a "motor vehicle" as, "any vehicle designed to be driven or drawn on roads by any means other than muscular power." It does not include vehicles designed for running on rails. Perhaps the operative words are, " 'motor vehicle' means any vehicle designed to be driven or drawn on roads". In a sense, that is the outside limit of the definition.
I am sure subsequent discussion will bring out that this puts us in a somewhat uncertain position with regard to some new types of vehicles now being introduced. I refer specifically to perhaps the most remarkable phenomenon in the new automotive age, the snowmobile and the snowcruiser-that kind of vehicle. We have had discussions with the provinces as to how this kind of machine might be brought under control. At the moment, however, there is such a conflict in the various forms of jurisdiction across the country that it was not deemed advisable to do it now. Nevertheless, the legislation does provide the means by which at some future time these modes of travel to which I have referred, the off-highway vehicle and various others, can be brought within the ambit of this legislation.
The act distinguishes between a manufacturer, distributor and importer. Here I get into some legal jargon with regard to persons engaged in the business of manufacturing, distributing and importing, respectively. I think these three categories are quite important in terms of legislation. Manufacturing, of course, includes the process of assembly.
The bill would give the government of Canada the authority to prescribe safety standards which would regulate the design, construction and functioning of motor vehicles and their components for the purpose of protecting persons against personal injury, impairment of health or death. I want to emphasize again the impairment of health
[Mr. Jamieson.}

provision, which I think will prove to be extremely important. Twenty-nine standards have now been prepared which can be adopted as the initial regulations under this legislation. In other words, Mr. Speaker, if and when this honourable House chooses to pass this legislation, there are now 29 standards which officials of the Department of Transport have established and which could be introduced immediately as the first set of regulations under this measure. Subsequently, of course, there will be others as new devices are discovered, but 29 are now in place and can be introduced. I should be very pleased to make copies available to hon. members who may wish to comment upon them. The bill would give this authority to the government under these 29 standards.
These standards deal with the main safety features which would be henceforth incorporated in all new motor vehicles for sale in Canada. As of the time of implementation, they would automatically become the standard and the starting point for the new legislation. For obvious reasons-and this is one of the matters which has concerned me a good deal in planning for this legislation, and I think it will also concern other hon. members-the initial standards will be identical in intent to those currently enforced in the United States.
The reason for this, of course, is the tremendous interchange of automobiles back and forth across the border. Indeed, the situation at the moment is that many automobiles manufactured in Canada are not in fact sold to Canadians, and a great many of the automobiles bought by Canadians are manufactured in the United States. Because of this transborder traffic it is necessary at the present time to have our regulations more or less on all fours with those of the United States.
I would like to emphasize, however, that some standards could be altered to conform with special Canadian requirements, and others may be added as the need arises. The most obvious would be some necessary provision for winter conditions in this country, which might not be necessary on some cars sold in the United States. Indeed, at some point we might have to modify these regulations so that cars being sold out of Canadian plants to the tropics would not be required, as they would be under the regulations, to be sold with heating equipment. As a first step it was felt desirable to keep them on the same basis and eventually, hopefully, to introduce special conditions for Canada where they were considered necessary.
January 29, 1970

It is hoped that the initial regulation can be published in March or April, and thereby-become effective at the commencement of production of the 1971 model vehicles. In other words, there is a rather important timetable, and I am quite confident that members will recognize this. I am sure if the legislation commends itself to the House at all, it will be law by that time. It is therefore important that we have the necessary authority to indicate to the manufacturers what the regulations will be, in time for the 1971 car year which begins quite a bit ahead of the point at which vehicles are put on sale.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, would the minister allow a question before he goes on to another provision of the bill? My question is not argumentative, I assure you. I wonder whether he would attach to Hansard a list of the 29 standards to which he referred, so that all Members of Parliament may be aware of them.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, of course, Mr. Speaker. If the House gives consent, I will be pleased to table them immediately. I have concluded my formal remarks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Does the House agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And
appended to Hansard.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: And appended to Hansard, of course.
[Editor's Note: For list referred to, see appendix.]


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the definition of safety standards contained in the bill refers specifically to the impairment of health. This provision was not in our original planning, but we came to the conclusion it was the most appropriate place for us to attack the question of air pollution by automobile exhaust. This provision would allow the government to issue regulations limiting harmful exhaust emissions from motor vehicles. It is contemplated, therefore, that exhaust emissions will be included in the initial regulations under the act. This is in addition to the 29 provisions to which I have referred. We shall also study the relationship between motor vehicle noise and the impairment of health. Should the evidence indicate a need to control noise pollution from this source, regulations will be issued under this act.
Motor Vehicle Safety


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: So we have tried to be as all-embracing as possible in introducing these two measures. The noise problem is a little more difficult to cope with, particularly in terms of snowmobiles and so forth, but as one hon. member and I agreed this afternoon, noise emission might be the biggest single factor.
The act will establish national safety margins as trademarks which are the exclusive property of Canada. Under the act regulations will be made respecting the use of the national safety mark on prescribed classes of vehicles, such as passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses and motorcycles. The use of the mark-I wish to emphasize this-will imply compliance of the motor vehicle and its components with the prescribed safety standards.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
It is not, if I may use an old phrase, a good housekeeping seal of approval. It does not say, in effect, "This vehicle has been inspected and has been approved by inspectors appointed under the act." The onus and the responsibility is on the manufacturer to show, by the application of this mark, that he has in fact complied with the conditions set down in such regulations as may be operable at any given moment. The form of this mark, as well as its location on the vehicle, will also be prescribed, together with the date of manufacture. Misuse of the national safety mark will be an offence. In passing, may I note that the bill provides for stiff penalties ranging from $5,000 to as much as $200,000 if convicted of offences under the act.
Manufacturers and distributors are prohibited from applying the national safety mark to motor vehicles, or from selling or possessing motor vehicles, to which has been applied the national safety mark unless those vehicles and their components comply with all safety standards applicable at the time the vehicle was manufactured. In other words, they cannot have vehicles in their possession unless these conditions have been met.
Manufacturers and distributors are also prohibited from exporting or from sending or conveying from one province to another motor vehicles to which the national safety mark has not been applied. Therefore, in the interests of Canada's good name and prestige abroad, while we are saying that we will have minimum requirements for Canada, we are also saying that we will not sell a less
2998	COMMONS
Motor Vehicle Safety
satisfactory car in any part of the world. As I said a few moments ago, the only distinction is in the possibility that when cars are to be sold in tropical countries, we might not require heating equipment in them.
Safety standards will also be prescribed for motor vehicles imported into Canada. This, again, is a most important consideration. These standards will also very probably be identical to those applicable to cars manufactured in Canada. All imported vehicles and their components will be required at the time of importation to comply with the prescribed safety standards applicable at the time the vehicles were manufactured. Hence, vehicles manufactured after the proclamation of this act could be imported only if they complied with the regulations. Individuals or companies importing new or used vehicles will be required to produce evidence at the time of importation demonstrating compliance with the regulations applicable when the vehicle was manufactured.
These safety standard regulations will not apply, however, to vehicles being brought into Canada temporarily for the purposes of exhibition and demonstration, nor to vehicles being used by tourists or visitors entering or passing through Canada. In the latter case I suspect that most vehicles will come in from the United States and, since the regulations in Canada and in the United States will be more or less similar, I do not foresee any difficulty being created.
The act will make it an offence for manufacturers, distributors or importers to fail to give notice of any defect. This, too, is a most important provision. This requirement applies when the manufacturer, distributor or importer is aware of the vehicle defect affecting safety. They are then required to furnish a notice to persons who have purchased the vehicles from them, to subsequent purchasers to whom warrantees have been transferred, and also to the Minister of Transport.
Incidentally, in my arrangements with the provincial ministers I have undertaken that immediately I or whoever the minister of transport may be receives the notification, it will be passed on to the appropriate provincial minister to take whatever action is deemed necessary within the provincial jurisdiction. These notices are to be sent by registered mail and will contain a description of the defect and the evaluation of the safety risk, as well as a statement of the means to be taken to correct the defect. It will not be a notice simply telling someone that his car is

DEBATES	January 29, 1970
inadequate. The companies will have to tell those people just how much risk the defect involves, and what they must do in order to correct it.
Clause 9 of part I of the provides:
A copy of each regulation ... that the Govenor in Council proposes to make-
This is with respect to safety standard.
-shall be published in the Canada Gazette and a reasonable opportunity shall be afforded to manufacturers, distributors, importers and other interested persons to make representations to the minister with respect thereto.
This provision will thus prevent the incorporation of any possible technical errors in our regulations and will also allow industry some time to ensure that their products comply with the regulations. We think this is a reasonable provision in view of the fact that many of the regulations promulgated under the act will require the expenditure of hundreds of thousands, and perhaps millions of dollars. We think it right to give manufacturers and other interested parties, which includes the general public, an opportunity to make submissions before the regulations become law.


John Leroy Skoberg: How long is "reasonable"?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: That is a good question and it is one which can only be determined by circumstances. In case other hon. members did not hear that remark, the hon. member asked, "How long is 'reasonable'?"
The act will provide the government with power to enter places where motor vehicles and their components are manufactured or stored, for the purpose of inspecting both vehicles and applicable records. The act will also provide for the seizure, detention and forfeiture of vehicles found to be in violation of its provisions. The act will, further, specify penalties for violations of various provisions by either corporations or individuals, under both summary conviction and conviction by indictment. As I mentioned a moment ago, the bill provides a scale of penalties ranging up to $200,000 for some violations.
I hope this is a reasonably comprehensive summary of what is involved in the bill. I consider it a major step forward in what is undeniably one of the many serious problems facing us in this country and, indeed, the peoples of all civilized countries of the world. This House spends a good deal of time, understandably, discussing the loss of life which results from tragedies such as war and conflict. But the simple truth is that the car-
January 29, 1970



nage on our highways, the loss of life as a result of accidents, is of major proportions. Motor vehicle accidents are one of the major killers of modern man. It has taken a long time-perhaps many hon. members will say too long-for us to get this legislation together. It has not been an easy task. But I believe we have come up with a satisfactory and productive approach to this major problem.
I do not wish to end without again emphasizing that from my studies of this matter over recent months it has become apparent to me that there is a great lack of information concerning the causes of accidents and a great need for research into this matter. No matter how good the automobile is in the first instance, it will not get into trouble unless there is some action or reaction on the part of the person behind the wheel. There is a surprising lack of knowledge about the motivations of people who get into accidents. Are there really people who are accident prone? Should we have a more comprehensive driver's test and a more frequent reassessment of drivers? Should we, instead of advocating simply that people who drink should not drive, also advocate that people who are emotionally disturbed should not drive?
There are all manner of items in this category which remain woefully unresearched at the present time, but I think it is vitally important that we introduce this legislation now and make the regulations as stringent as possible. However, it would be a ghastly mistake if we as legislators were to leave the matter there and say we have done our part. The responsibility, in the last analysis, rests upon us to see that the necessary research is undertaken in order that we may find out why accidents happen.
It is not merely, as we are beginning to find out, the drinking driver who fits into the category of the accident prone driver; there are thousands of other causes for accidents. Therefore, hand in hand with this legislation, which I commend to hon. members, is my undertaking to the House that within our department we will step up considerably our research efforts.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
I am looking forward to outlining in more detail in committee the nature of some of these projects. I am grateful to hon. members for the kind comments they made about this bill when it was given first reading. I hope that with their help we can make it law and extend its benefits to the people of Canada as quickly as possible.
Motor Vehicle Safety


Mr. Howard (Okanagan-Boundary):: Would the minister permit a question? I am not clear about the effect of clause 2(f) which contains the definition of "motor vehicle," and I should like some clarification. What is the status of farm vehicles under this definition?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I am sure this is the kind of question we shall deal with at great length in the committee. The operative words here appear to be "designed to be driven....on roads." The act applies to any vehicle designed for use on roads even though it might be marketed primarily for use off the road. It will thus apply to all vehicles licensed by the provinces for operation on highways, but it could be extended to cover mini-bikes, air cushion vehicles, dune buggies and the so-called all-terrain vehicles whose numbers are growing all the time.


An hon. Member:: What about tractors?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, if they are licensed for use on highways.


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we have all listened with much interest to the minister's interpretation of this bill. He did a capable job. I want to fill in some of the background by showing how the bill came to the House of Commons; how long ago it is since this issue was placed before Parliament.
The first and most important move made by this government in respect of highway safety was its action in making the breathalyzer test mandatory. I now have a further measure of satisfaction in the government presenting Bill C-137 to the House of Commons for approval, even with its inadequacies and after long delay. My satisfaction arises from the fact that I took the initiative in introducing highway safety to the House of Commons and appealed to the government to accept some of the responsibility for reducing the tragic toll being taken on our highways in terms of death and injury. To introduce the question to the House of Commons, on November 19, 1963, I put this question to the prime minister of the day:
Would the Prime Minister take the first opportunity to make a television appeal to the Canadian people in order to impress upon them the great necessity for better observance of highway safety regulations, in the hope that we might reduce the traffic death toll which was so much in evidence last week end?
He replied:
I would be glad to do anything I can along the lines suggested by the hon. member, including an appeal over television if that were appropriate in the circumstances.
3000	COMMONS
Motor Vehicle Safety
To my knowledge, nothing was done. Therefore, on April 16, 1964, I made another approach by asking the Minister of National Health and Welfare the following question:
Is any research being carried on by the minister's department with a view to discovering ways and means of curbing air pollution by vehicular traffic which is becoming an increasingly serious threat to the health of our nation.
The minister replied:
My department is conducting research into air pollution generally and we are keeping a close eye on efforts aimed at reducing noxious gases from internal combustion engines. We are also in close contact with United States public health service which is spending vast amounts of money on this problem and we are expecting to benefit from any developments which may take place there. Also automobile manufacturers in Canada and the United States have intensive research projects under way with a view to introducing measures to control pollution.
As the records show, with each succeeding month the death toll on the highways has increased. Therefore, in the hope of arousing some action, on June 2, 1965, I put this question to the then prime minister:
Owing to the ever increasing death toll on the highways, will the Prime Minister consider introducing legislation making it compulsory for automobiles being sold in Canada to be equipped with safety devices currently proven practical and efficient?
He replied:
This is a very important question and I think it should be put on the order paper so it can be studied.
I put the question on the order paper and it was replied to by the minister of industry in the following manner:
It should be emphasized that the provincial governments have the responsibility of drafting and enforcing regulations pertaining to the operational standards of motor vehicles. A great deal of work has already been undertaken by various groups to determine the areas where improvement in design or vehicle construction could lead to greater safety which would be useful in the preparation of a safety code. It would, of course, be necessary to obtain the agreement of the provinces before a uniform safety code could be established for motor vehicles. The Department of Industry would be happy to co-operate with the provinces in the preparation of such a code.
On January 27, 1966, I directed this question to the minister of justice:
Would the government give consideration to amending the Criminal Code so that the breathalyzer test can be made mandatory?
The minister stated:
That is one of the several possible amendments to the Criminal Code which are now being given consideration by the government.

DEBATES	January 29, 1970
This measure will be placed on the statute books. On February 2, 1966, on a supply motion, I spoke on highway safety. I will read into the record the following excerpt:
Mr. Speaker, the matter of highway safety deserves immediate attention. The federal government has failed to take the necessary steps to fulfil its obligations in fighting public enemy No. 1, the constantly increasing death toll on our highways. We are all aware of the appalling increase in highway accidents but it would seem these are being treated in some quarters as a course of events that should be expected. Something must be done and there should be no delay.
In my opinion, help and assistance would be readily available if this government would take the initiative and launch an all-out crusade to face up to this monster once and for all. They should pull out all stops, make the breathalizer test mandatory and increase the grant to the Canadian Highway Safety Council. A conference should also be called with provincial representatives and, in fact, representatives from all organizations willing to get together in a drive to bring about improvement in the situation.
Responsibility in highway safety has been ignored too long by all governments. Our laws and regulations have not kept pace with the times. Uniformity of laws and regulations, as well as of penalties, should apply to all provinces. Traffic signs and driver testing or any other feature having to do with our highways or driving on them should be the same.
Periodical vehicle inspection should be compulsory. Signboards, radio and television should be in constant use in an effort to keep our people alert and aware of the need for extreme caution on our streets and highways. No doubt if the people I have suggested were brought together to set up a framework or a pattern for greater highway safety, many worthwhile ideas would be brought to light.
Automobile manufacturers have shown a favourable response to highway safety through their willingness to supply cars for student training and supply them in abundance. Their designers are constantly investigating safety features and quite a number have been included in car equipment with satisfactory results. Perhaps the automobile people could be persuaded to go quite a lot further by way of extensive research on some of the recently suggested safety devices.
I suggest that in the not too distant future legislation will necessarly be passed to make antismog equipment a requirement. There is no way of assessing the injury being inflicted on us by carbon monoxide. However, we do know that any element which causes irritation in the lungs is a potential contributor to lung cancer. We know too that carbon monoxide is deadly when confined and may even be the cause of some highway accidents.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
On February 16, March 23, and April 1, 1966, I put questions to ministers on the matter. In these questions I continued to press for some action. On May 2, 1966, I put this question on the order papers:
Has the government received representations from any provincial government or association or other
January 29, 1970

organized body asking for the calling of a federal-provincial conference for the purpose of working out a national program:
(a)	to ensure that all practical safety devices be required equipment in motor vehicles,
(b)	to ensure that more and better driver education be made available,
(c)	to require more rigid traffic law observance,
(d)	any other action that would help in reducing the accidents and loss of life on our highways. If so, has the government taken or does it intend to take any action on such representation.
The secretary of state replied:
(1)	Yes. A letter dated August 12, 1965, was received from the Premier of Manitoba who urged the calling by the federal government jointly with the provinces of a national conference on highway safety.
(2)	The matter is receiving appropriate consideration by the government.
Following this I asked five more questions on the subject of highway safety. On July 11, 1966, I put this question to the minister of industry:
Has the government taken any action in regard to the promotion of highway safety and, if so, what action?
The minister replied:
Yes. In so far as the departments of defence production and industry are concerned: (1) The Canadian government specifications board has prepared a draft automotive vehicle safety code in collaboration with the Canadian Good Roads Association and the traffic injury research foundation. The draft has been submitted for critical review to a committee consisting of representatives of the provinces, the motor vehicle manufacturers, safety groups, the medical profession and others. A revised draft is now being prepared.
(2)	The government has undertaken to include all available safety features in the specifications governing the procurement of conventional type vehicles for both civilian departments and the military.
(3)	Two consultants have been engaged: one to assist on the automotive safety code and the other to conduct research studies.
(4)	Consideration is being given to what other steps the federal government can usefully take in the light of the constitutional position and the relative responsibilities of the provinces and the government in this area.
Further... in so far as requiring of pollution control devices for motor vehicle exhaust systems is concerned, the committee recommended that the standard for the pollutants omission control be deleted from the proposed standards because: (a) it is not yet agreed that this is indeed a safety device, (b) the Department of National Health and Welfare is making a detailed study of the problem of air contamination in close consultation with their counterparts in the United States.
I could continue to enumerate many more questions asked by myself and others in the House of Commons who joined in the dialogue about that time, but I think I have
Motor Vehicle Safety
made it clear to the House that the government showed much reluctance and indifference to a problem that was costing the country thousands of lives and millions of dollars.
However, the justice committee did table a report on March 27, 1967. The report was dated March 21 and a release concerning its contents read as follows:
Government intervention in the area of auto safety was today recommended by the Commons Justice Committee, when it tabled its report to the House.
The chairman ... said the main recommendation of the committee was to establish a public board. This board, with representatives from the federal government, the automotive industry, the provincial governments and universities, would be charged with the responsibility for "developing, as quickly as possible, and improving from time to time the appropriate safety standards of design of construction and equipment for all motor vehicles produced in or imported into Canada, and authorized for use in interprovincial or international transportation". Safety standards would be more in the nature of performance standards, rather than specific items of equipment.
In addition the board would be charged with the "authority to set appropriate standards on inspection and quality control' and see that they are observed by automotive producers and parts manufacturers. It would initiate the supervising of traffic safety research possibly through the National Research Council. Co-ordination of the activities of the many voluntary governmental agencies now interested in and involved in traffic safety would also be one of its functions.
The report went on to say that while this board should be established by federal legislation it is essential that the co-operation of the provincial governments and the automotive industry be obtained and that "the danger of bureaucratic control over this vital industry should be minimized". The committee's report is based on ten months of hearings, study and investigation.
At the end of November 1966 the committee made a three day visit to the Detroit-Windsor area during which they visited the laboratory and automobile testing facilities of General Motors at Milford, Mich., Ford Motor Company in Dearborn, Mich., and Chrysler Motor Company at Highland Park, Mich. The committee had two meetings while in Windsor at the University of Windsor, at which the executives from the major automobile manufacturers were questioned.
Among the many witnesses who appeared before the committee were the Canadian Automobile Association; Canadian Government Specifications Board; Canadian Labour Congress the United Automobile Workers Union.
Among the 33 documents filed with the committee was information required by the committee of the automotive manufacturers showing recall campaign figures for the last five years.
The Chairman said he felt that the Committee's recommendations would go far in answering the problem of auto safety with all its many facets. Just as important as safety devices in automotive vehicles is the co-ordination of the many voluntary agencies which are involved in education and research in traffic. From the evidence given before the committee, it would appear that there was a

January 29, 1970:
Motor Vehicle Safety
definite deficiency in this area. He also pointed out that the committee does not recommend specific safety devices, but rather recommends that the public agency enforce performance standards; and quality control and production procedures. The committee was considering two private bills bringing safety devices under the Criminal Code, and four notices of motion recommending that the government take action in this area.
At his point I would like to read into the record three clippings ol recent date that I think are timely. The first, taken from the Ottawa Journal, is dated November 28, 1969:
An executive of one of the largest automobile insurance companies in the United States predicts that within a few years insurers will set their rates according to how susceptible to damage the automobile is.
Sweden already has such a system, and reports it working well. As a preliminary move to consideration of the innovation in the U.S., the National Assocation of Independent Insurers hired a professor from the University of Detroit to determine how susceptible various cars are to damage.
Those involved in the study estimate it may be a year or more until enough data have been accumulated to make any evaluation. But they apparently agree on one point-that modern cars, particularly their bumpers, are not being made as collision-proof as they could be, or once were.
Automobile insurance premiums directly reflect the rising cost of automobile repairs. It is natural that insurers should try to place a higher cost of insurability on those products which accidents statistics and tests indicate provide the least resistance to damage.
This move might produce consternation among automobile manufacturers, but it could also be the strongest possible incentive to produce cars which not only look pretty but wear well.
The next clipping is taken from the Toronto Telegram of January 14, 1970. It is a press release from Detroit, and reads as follows:
A group of automotive engineers squirmed uncomfortably in their seats as an insurance safety executive stopped just short of calling them criminals.
Doctor William Haddon Jr., president of the Washington-based Insurance Institute for Highway Safety was talking about high performance, high powered cars.
"The way the auto industry is pushing muscle cars borders on criminal irresponsibility," said Dr. Haddon.
He acted as moderator for a panel discussion at the Society of Automotive Engineers Congress, which dealt with how to reduce highway losses.
"Cars with high horsepower ratings are fine on the racetrack, but it's almost criminal to use them on public roads."
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Dr. Haddon was referring to such juiced-up packages as the Pontiac GTO; the Plymouth Road Runner; and the Ford Torino Cobra.
Muscle cars, or supercars, or factory hotrods as they are often called, accounted for 600,000 sales last year.

"Due to advertising techniques, the image that is being sold at great expense to the buying public is why you don't have transportation, you have thrills on the highways."
Dr. Haddon said insurance losses are substantially higher on muscle cars.
"We don't know if this is because of the way they are built, or because they are used too fast" said the safety expert.
Supercars are responsible for a credibility gap involving safety and the auto industry.
"I know these cars are not the way for American business to protect the capitalistic system in the generation now coming of age in the decade of the 70s," said Dr. Haddon.
He was asked after the panel session what the future holds.
"It's the automaker's choice. They are either going to face condemnation by the public and probably restrictions by the government."
"Their only other course is to put restrictions on horsepower themselves. The blood has been accumulating for a long time," he added.
He was also critical of reports that car makers are turning away from development of safety seats with built-in belts.
Dr. Haddon favours the 3-point lap-shoulder harness, proven successful for the last 10 years in imported cars.
I have a clipping from the Ottawa Journal of January 28, 1970. This release is from Worcester, Massachusetts. It states:
An experimental car that would be safe in any kind of crash up to 50 mph will be built and tested within the next three years, Transportation Secretary Volpe said Tuesday.
Volpe said the "mobile crash laboratory" being planned could be rolled over at 70 mph with its passenger compartment remaining intact.
The car would offer improved handling, braking and visibility and use low-pollution fuels, he said.
"Our plan is to have 14 of these cars and tested by the end of 1972," he said. "It is our intention that the auto industry will seize on the new safety improvements we develop and incorporate them in production models."
I should now like to return to the bill. Regulations covering national safety standards for automobiles are long overdue, but I am afraid, however encouraging this bill appears at first sight, it falls considerably short of its objectives. I cannot quarrel with the fact that specifications or standards are not spelled out in this bill, although I shall have some comments later on that. I question the strange omissions that could, in the hands of certain unscrupulous car dealers, lead to death or injury for the buyers of cars which bear the national safety mark but which in fact have been transformed into deathtraps.
There must be protection for the innocent person who is lured into buying a car carrying the national seal of approval but which has become defective through wear, damage or tampering. There is nothing in the bill
January 29, 1970

which prohibits, after the initial sale, tampering or changing those parts of the auto which have met the approved safety standards. Failing this, an attempt should be made to encourage a voluntary system of standard controls within the used car trade.
We all appreciate that improved safety standards will add to the price of the automobile, but at least we will live longer. I am told that about half the cars now being produced will, during their life span, be involved in an injury-causing accident. Federal regulations can be made considerably stronger by an amendment which should be moved in committee, to the effect that this act shall apply to the shipment of motor vehicles, new or used, from one province to another, as though the shipment into the province were an import. A second amendment could be moved to the effect that the national safety mark be accompanied by the words, "As at the time of manufacture, assembly, importation and new car sale". The bill refers to components. I do not know whether this applies to tires or ashtrays. I believe the bill should spell out the difference between components and accessories, and that this must not be left to pure chance or individual interpretation of the safety code.
We have heard statements to the effect that Canadian standards to accompany this bill are similar to U.S. safety requirements, but I wonder just how compatible U.S. standards are for cars running on Canadian highways. South Carolina is different from Ontario. Consideration should be given to the climatic conditions, and in spelling out our safety standards we would be well advised to study the situation in countries which have conditions similar to those found in Canada. The bill is concerned primarily with the safety of the driver, the passenger, the pedestrian and the other driver. I hoped it would cover, by enforcement of strong, air pollution regulations, the safety of all persons in Canada.
History has shown time and again that major epidemics are stamped out only after major research efforts. At long last the public are beginning to realize that we are faced with an epidemic, the contributing factors being the driver, the road and the car. I am especially concerned with the third factor, the car. I do not suggest that the others are not just as important, but we in Parliament can control the car. This bill is not the answer to the problem.
With the exception of making the breathalyzer test mandatory, Bill C-137 is all we
Motor Vehicle Safety
have to show in response to the deep desire of the Canadian people for something that will be effective in achieving a maximum reduction of the death and destruction on our highways. This bill is indeed a very vague document and leaves much to be desired. It is to be hoped that when it goes to the committee, the necessary amendments will be made so that when it returns to the House it will be more specific and meaningful.


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, the matter before us in Bill C-137 is safety standards for motor vehicles. This is potentially of extreme importance to millions of Canadians. Before dealing with some of the details of the proposals I should like to take a few moments to sketch-in the background of this matter.
The annual traffic toll now is 60,000 people killed and 3,650,000 injured-and many of the latter might as well be dead. In economic terms, this traffic toll represents a loss of approximately $2 million every hour of every day, of every week, of every month of every year. For our part, in Canada we kill 5,000 people every year and no less than 150,000 Canadians are injured, non-fatally, on our roads and highways. To put the last two figures in closer focus, let me put it this way: in a four-year period-say the life of a Parliament-20,000 Canadians die and 600,000 are injured on our roads.
There are three major factors involved in this warlike toll; the first is the car, the second is the driver and the third is the road condition. The bill we are considering tonight-and I compliment the minister for his very able introduction of it-seeks to do something to lower the death and injuries toll for which the car itself is specifically responsible. At this point it might be well for us to keep in mind that in North America there are now 100 million vehicles and that this number is increasing at the rate of about nine per minute.
Considering the toll and the economic drain involved in this highway war, it may be surprising that North Americans, Canadians included, have done so little to defend themselves against it. The fact is that on this continent we have all been assured for many years by the industry, which in many respects is as powerful as the nation, that what the industry wants is good for the public.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Inasmuch as the industry is producing cars for maximum sales, maximum profits and

January 29, 1970
Motor Vehicle Safety
quick obsolescence, this goodness to the public is not evident. The car consumer, dazzled by even greater sex, speed and prestige appeals, and having very little control over what is produced or offered to him in the way of a motor vehicle, has taken a long time to realize that public safety is more important than private profit. However, he has finally realized this; he is on the road. He has a long way to go, but in the United States and in our country legislation of this type is an indication that there has been a realization of the situation and of what will be attempted in the future.
Bill C-137 is designed to set safety standards on cars, trucks and motor cycles entering Canada or manufactured in Canada. I thought the minister and the previous speaker both did well in outlining some of the details of the legislation. The bill is a move in the right direction, but it has its weaknesses and shortcomings. We know that auto safety legislation will bear the United States stamp of approval, but the possibility of Canadian standards varying substantially from those in the United States I believe is small.
Canadian auto safety standards will be set in Washington, where the consistent opposition of the industry has slowed down progress in this field and where the United States authorities too often have tended to accept the standards the industry dictates. On that point, in fairness to the United States authorities, I should like to mention that I have in my hand a number of releases from the office of the secretary, Department of Transportation in the United States. These show an increased awareness of the need for speedy action in protecting the United States motoring public. These releases come to my desk almost daily, and I imagine they are received by other members. Here is one:
The federal highway administration plans to improve its motor vehicle safety standard 209 dealing with seat-belt assemblies.
This is another:
Secretary of Transportation John A. Volpe today announced release of the first of what will be a series of monthly reports to the public on the department's most recent vehicle safety compliance activities.
Then we have this release:
Secretary of Transportation John A. Volpe today demonstrated a modified diesel engine and exhaust system for transit buses which offers substantial improvements in eliminating pollutants, smoke, noise and odour.
I have several others. I thought I would take this opportunity to refer to the fact that

in the United States, and I hope here, the department of transport has finally become aware of the pressing need for such action and is working on it. It might be of interest to us as members of this House to think back to the genesis of the bill.
It had its genesis in a previous Parliament when with the consent of the government a number of hon. members, including the hon. member who spoke last, who had private member's bills on the Order Paper with relation to one phase or another of traffic safety, took their bills off the Order Paper. The subject matter of these bills was then referred to the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. This committee held a great number of meetings at which many witnesses were heard.
This resulted in a report supported, I believe, by all members of the committee. The report finds some expression in the legislation before the House tonight. Incidentally, the proposal in respect of the breathalyzer test was part of the committee's report. I have gone into this background because as one of the members who took a bill off the Order Paper I believe that in respect of non-partisan matters this is a good way to have action taken in respect of proposals, and to have a solidified result come back to the House. That is what has happened today in respect of this bill. It also is what happened last year in respect of the breathalyzer legislation. There are areas of common thinking and common opinion in respect of which unified action can be taken which results in worth while legislation. My opinion is that this is a worth while process.
We have some criticism in respect of the bill. It would seem that safety features peculiar to the Canadian climate, such as rear window defrosters, are not likely to be included. The initial safety standards to which the bill refers are not spelled out. They are to be regulated by the Governor in Council. The 29 standards the minister mentioned are those which are now required by law in the United States. At present they act as a voluntary guide for the Canadian, United States-controlled auto industry. For the present we accept the 29 standards as a basis, but we must press for a much further extension of standards.
We want Canadian auto safety standards included specifically in this legislation. We should not despair of having this done. What can be done to force a general acceptance of standards is well illustrated by the action of New York state, where safety belts were
January 29. 1970

made mandatory. Safety belts soon became standard across the continent. The same thing happened when California established tough standards for hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions from vehicle motors. The standards are important and are becoming more common.
I believe a similar situation could develop here if Canadian authorities had the courage to set proper standards and enforce them. Enough cars are sold in Canada to have a significant effect on the total market. Cars sold in Canada can be fitted with safety features even if Washington fails to act. I think it is a crying shame that one need today is for such standards in respect of bumpers. Originally these appendages were designed to protect cars and passengers in case of accident.
Today, with the industry's accent on eye appeal rather than safety, and with the drive for more and more profits, bumpers perform a dual function: they are decorative devices designed to sell cars through eye appeal, and they seem to be engineered to achieve the maximum sale of spare parts.
The fact is that the fancy chrome on the front and rear of most cars is not intended to perform the bumper function. There are no standards in respect of height, and the great variety of design and shine features are completely useless as protective devices. Worse than this, however, is the fact that many bumpers have knife-edge protrusions running vertically, horizontally or both, and some have protruding snouts with the knife edges coming to a point in front of the grille. Others have a bewildering variety of knobs, gadgets and fixtures which perform no useful function to the car or its owner. All these devices perform maximum damage to both cars involved in a collision.
As far back as December, 1966, the Canadian Government Specifications Board emphasized the need to design bumpers to meet their original protective function. The board called for a standard height, flat surfaces, and shock-resistant construction. The design of the New York state safety car included such a bumper. So far, the industry has ignored bumper safety and has continued to design eye catching, cosmetic and damage-prone chrome.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Canada can set realistic standards for bumpers sold in this country-standards relating to height, surface and shock resist-21611-51
Motor Vehicle Safety
ance. These standards should be set now, before designers of the 1972 models tell us that their new, devastating bumpers are locked into models beyond recall.
There are many phases and spheres involved in our discussion of this legislation- which is perhaps 15 or 20 years late-which is intended to grapple with car safety. There is the matter of air pollution and sound pollution in relation to the car, and I was glad to hear the minister refer to it. I remember raising the question last November in the House. I was assured by the minister's parliamentary secretary that under clauses of the proposed legislation there would be scope for prosecution in line with the legislating of vehicles whose function impairs the public health or welfare because of noise and air pollution. This is a point which we in this part of the House are most concerned about and will try to get spelled out in the legislation.
In working in the committee in trying to improve this legislation, we will keep in mind what has happened in the United States. We will think and act on the basis of the U.S. experience. We will remember that the car makers in the United States are charging higher prices, more than the actual cost of quality safety improvements. We will not forget that United States government-financed safety tests show that individual car component failures are at a rate of about 10 per cent, and we cannot overlook the fact that dozens of types of car tires have failed to comply with federal safety standards.
It seems to us important to remember that according to one expert at least, the average new car in North America has 25 to 40 defi-ciences, and that seat belts produced by 10 or 12 of the biggest U.S. suppliers are under investigation for what appears to be failure to meet federal standards. Let us consider this point for a minute. At 10 miles per hour, a crash between two standard model popular cars in the United States, such as you see driven around here every day, results in average estimated damage of $510 for both cars.
In addition, we believe that when we have set our car safety standards, they must not only be enforced but they must be seen to be enforced. We think that safety must not only be achieved but must be seen to be achieved by the public.
I would like to remind the minister of his reply to a question I asked last December 8. I asked, having in mind the U.S. regulation requiring manufacturers of automobiles to

January 29, 1970
Motor Vehicle Safety
provide the people of the U.S. with specific information and data on the safety qualities of their vehicles, whether the minister was giving consideration to similar legislation in this country. The minister replied:
I think this is a commendable step. As soon as we have the necessary authority and a bill is passed by this House I will be more than pleased to give it consideration ... X see no reason why we should not do so.
I think it is important, if we are to have this legislation, to convince the public that we mean business and that we are going to make it work. That is why I stress the need for open action by the administration.
In summary, and in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we support the general aim of the bill, noting its lateness and its weaknesses. It is our hope that in committee or in the House we will be able to strengthen the provisions of the bill so that they will work more for the benefit of the Canadian public. May I note, Mr. Speaker, that while I have been speaking, approximately 1,200 car accidents have taken place in North America, half a million dollars damage has been done, and 55 more cars have been produced.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abiiibi):: Mr. Speaker, I did not expect I would have to speak today on Bill C-137. However, I want to make a few remarks on the principle of the bill and to assure the minister and the House that we, members of the Ralliement creditiste, are in favour of the principle of the bill and feel it will, to a certain extent, improve safety standards on our roads. I say "to a certain extent" because, as the hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Mather) said today, provincial governments, as the road network comes under their jurisdiction, are partly responsible for accidents occurring on them. We know to what extent roads in bad repair are responsible for accidents. Part of the responsibility for accidents must also be borne by drivers unaware of highway regulations or driving while their faculties are impaired by alcohol.
This bill also purports to improve vehicle safety standards to ensure the safety of drivers.
In order to illustrate the need for this bill, I would like to give the House information from the July-August 1969 issue of the Bulletin of the Canadian Highway Safety Council, where I found figures which do not tally with those supplied by the hon. member a moment

ago. In 1968, there were 4,370 fatal accidents in which 5,254 people died and 172,795 were injured.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Since so many people were injured or killed in the course of a single year, one can venture to say that more people are injured or kill on the highways than in any war.
In 1968 Canada reported 479,721 accidents in which people were injured or killed. That is enough to make us think and to prompt the government to take all the necessary measures to improve highway safety in Canada. That is its responsibility.
In 1959, for instance, 3,231 persons lost their lives and 84,445 were injured. In 1968, almost ten years later, 5,254 were killed and 172,795 were injured.
In view of the increasing number of accidents, the government was justified, even though it may have acted a little bit late, in taking appropriate measures to improve the safety of motor vehicles.
The minister said he had a list of 29 safety standards. Here is how the expression is defined in the bill:
-standards regulating the design, construction or functioning of motor vehicles and their components for the purpose of protecting persons against personal injury, impairment of health or death.
We must admit that since the appearance of the first automobile, there have been improvements in the construction of motor vehicles and the manufacturers, to a certain extent, are not too concerned about the safety of their products. Indeed, automobile manufacturers have often become big trusts more concerned with making profits than safer cars. Evidently, competition exists among car manufacturers and it prompts them to improve constantly the cars offered to their clients. However, it must also be realized that quite often we unfortunately have to pay for costly useless gadgets only to increase their profits.
I hope that the 29 security standards introduced by the minister have been selected so as to help the drivers rather than enable car manufacturers to make even more money.
I was saying a few minutes ago that the manufacturers have to a certain extent improved their vehicles from a safety point of view. For instance, the advent of shatterproof windshields was a great progress which surely prevented countless accidents. In spite of it, loss of life was caused by drivers travelling at excessive speed. However, there was continuous improvement of the braking
January 29, 1970

system on cars and today we have disck brakes. We have better suspension and steering systems in cars.
Power-steering and power-brakes have greatly improved motor vehicles as such.
Sometimes, though, new accessories appear on the market, such as tubeless tires, which, in my view, have come too soon, causing many accidents, fatal ones sometimes, when they blew out, as the product had not been perfected. Today, this danger no longer exists, because tires have been improved; but, for two or three years, the car driver had to try them out himself and he was the one who had to pay.
Despite all these improvements in the manufacture of cars, some control should be exercised at the drawing-board stage. Any prototype, after it is launched, should be sujected to an inspection. In fact, I believe that this bill provides for the appointment of inspectors; they should have the necessary authority to check the specifications of the new car before it is put on the market.
The rear lights of a certain make are placed in such a way that once snow-covered, they are almost invisible, which endangers the life of the driver and of the passengers in the cars behind.
These are points which a government-appointed inspector should verify before a car is built, so that the public might be protected against such hazards.
Mr. Speaker, these are the few remarks I wanted to make to show the importance of this bill. When it is deferred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, we will be able to get more information from the minister and the experts who will perhaps be invited to advise the committee members. If the bill does not meet with the wishes of the public, we will be able to ask the minister to bring in the necessary amendments.
I have just mentioned the efforts of the manufacturers in order to increase the safety of vehicles, but one should not forget the laws that the government has enacted for this purpose.
1 should like to deal at this stage with the breathalizer test which I think has not yet been applied long enough to permit us to appreciate its results, but I am convinced that it will bring an improvement on the roads. A similar provision has already been applied in England. While I was discussing it with an English Tory a few months ago he told me 21611-51$
Motor Vehicle Safety
that though he had been opposed to such a test he had to admit that it had greatly increased highway safety in England and that, therefore, the same results could be expected in our country.
The steps provided for in the bill are meant to increase highway safety. With the co-operation of automobile drivers, automobile insurance rates will decrease or, at least, will not increase, as they have over the past years.
For these reasons, we ought to concur in the motion for second reading and reference of the bill to a committee for study.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about this piece of legislation. In all fairness, I think one should first point out that it is new legislation; it is not legislation which just re-enacts a measure which has been in operation. I was interested in the minister's remark that the department has gone to the trouble of researching 29 standards which will apply immediately the act is promulgated.
I was disappointed that clause 7 of the bill suggests that regulations will be drawn up. I think the 29 standards should have been examined more carefully, because I do not like buying a pig in a poke. I suppose we shall have to trust the judgment of those who will be responsible for administrating the 29 standards.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
The minister dealt with the question of standards and said they will be much the same as those in the United States. Because of our different climatic conditions, our cold winters, our frosts, our methods of road-heating and so on, these standards may have to be adjusted.
The minister did not say what research would be conducted into these standards. Nowhere in the bill does it say that the branch of government responsible for research will examine the application of the 29 standards and ascertain whether, for instance, six or seven additional standards should be added in view of the winters and summers we have in this country. Before passing this legislation we should know whether bodies like the National Research Council will study these standards.
In the past the government has frowned on research, and there is an indication that this is the thinking with respect to this legislation. The former minister of transport set up what

January 29, 1970
Motor Vehicle Safety
was called, I believe, an engineering institute. It was given $250,000 and told to study road safety matters. That institute has not yet brought down its report; it is still being typed. But we have before us a piece of legislation dealing with this very matter.
Before the bill receives second reading and goes to committee, I ask this simple question: Will the members of this engineering institute, which cost $250,000 to set up, be heard by the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, so that the committee may determine whether pertinent standards relating to highway hazards have been covered by this legislation? I bring my question to the attention of the minister, the chairman of the committee and to all hon. members of the House. We may derive some benefit from the studies of the institute.
According to the minister, these 29 standards are initial standards only and may be adjusted as time goes on. I throw the idea out that perhaps there should be a continuing study of this whole question. I think the engineering institute which was set up to study road safety matters should continue its study. All its members need not be kept on; perhaps only one or two of the university professors who worked on the original study should be retained. In any event, there should be a continuing examination of standards by a body whose job is to see whether this legislation will do what we want done.
As I said, it is a new piece of legislation; it is not a re-drafting or a re-enactment of something already on our statute books. Surely there is merit in having a body continuing a study of these standards. Similar bodies should undertake continuing studies of health standards, pollution standards and, as the minister suggested, noise standards.
The minister dealt partially with the question of farm tractors. He said that if they are licensed to go on highways, they will be covered, and if they are not so licensed, they may not be covered. As I understand it, any vehicle licensed to go on a highway will be covered by this legislation. The minister raised the question of snowmobiles which may or may not be licensed to go on highways. In many cases they are prohibited from going on highways. Many provinces across Canada are becoming increasingly concerned about the safety of snowmobiles and the hazards they pose to motorists and pedestrians. So far as I know, the bill does not deal with this matter; but perhaps members of the committee will examine it at the appropriate

time. I understand that the list of 29 standards referred to will be included in today's Hansard.
Another aspect of the bill which disturbs me may be considered in committee and will no doubt be considered by those who will be responsible for enforcing the act. Unquestionably, we must have guidelines or safety standards for the manufacturer or importer, but the question is: Should we apply those standards and penalties to a distributor? The manufacturer makes the product and ships it to someone to sell. The importer imports the product and hands it over to a distributor. I wonder whether we should police the distributor as well as the manufacturer and importer. I think that the less policing there is, the better.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Only when importing the goods is the distributor liable in that respect.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We would then be calling the importer a distributor; that would be the effect. In my opinion an importer should import.
Let us consider farm tractors. Today component parts of farm tractors are being imported into Canada and the North American market in general and made into complete units. From my reading of the bill, it deals with component parts but not with the whole automobile. If a component part is unsafe, the inspector can make a decision about it.
Although these parts are sold by a distributor, one cannot say that in that sense he is the manufacturer; nor should he be treated as the manufacturer. I suggest that that aspect must be looked into, because I am concerned that some provision of this bill will apply to plain, ordinary distributors. I am also concerned about the application of some provisions to a manufacturer, importer and distributor.
Nowhere in the bill does it say that there will be a right of appeal. To whom will they appeal? Will they appeal to the minister? One would naturally think this would be the case, because inspectors are appointed by him.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
I am surprised that in connection with a major piece of legislation, one which will be on the statute books for a long time, the minister has not felt called upon to make provision for much greater continuity with regard to the process of inspection. I am surprised that no provision has been made for
January 29, 1970

the training of inspectors and the continuity of their employment. I have never been particularly in favour of expanding the civil service, but I would point out that knowledge and continuity are built into that organization, a regular body to which people are hired by a commission.
I caution hon. members against accepting the use of the minister's prerogative to appoint inspectors at his whim. If an inspector does what the minister says he should do, if he likes his work and finds it inspiring, he will stay in that occupation. But will the minister be as thorough as he should be in guiding the inspectors? Will he be as thorough as he should be in ensuring that the inspectors are dutifully doing their jobs?
I recognize that the minister is a very competent and capable person, but I do not think his job allows him time in which to watch over the situation properly. Meanwhile, we are being asked to study a piece of legislation which concerns the safety of all our citizens who use the highway, and we are told the inspectors responsible for these 29 standards will be selected on what appears to me to be a very temporary and limited basis. I do not believe this is satisfactory.
The purpose of the legislation is good; there is no question in my mind about that. It will call for dutiful, watchful and patient inspectors with a love for their work and a regard for the purposes of the bill. As it stands, the bill smells of political patronage at the choice and whim of the minister. In this particular minister I have complete confidence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: But he may change tomorrow. I may see signs of political partisanship in his judgment. The next week it may be worse. The month after that it may be worse still, and I may become suspicious; though I am not normally a suspicious man.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: A new minister might be appointed tomorrow. The previous minister of transport resigned; he got fed up with the job. He wanted to sit as an independent backbencher in the Liberal Party because they have so much fun over there; they can participate so much. The directorate of road safety, hired and paid by this government, was set up by the former minister of transport. But that hon. member became so fed up with the job that he quit. So what assurance do we have about the permanence of the
Motor Vehicle Safety
present minister, when we consider the nature of the job and the hazardous conditions which exist in his party? This is why I tell the hon. gentleman: rest assured that when this subject comes up in the Transport Committee, that is, the question of inspectors appointed at his discretion, we intend to go into it at length. I tell him, also, that the whole question of the 29 standards, the research work necessary to draft them, and any addition safety standards which seem likely to be called for will also be considered at length.
Pollution of the air by automobiles will become one of our major problems as we move into the coming decade. I believe that health and safety on the highways has been one of the major problems of the last 20 years, and that its seriousness will continue to grow. It is the duty of hon. members to examine this new piece of legislation to ensure that the measures proposed are not mere windowdressing to create a good image or to satisfy public demand, but that they will in fact bring substantial benefit, up-dated from time to time as necessary to meet changing circumstances and standards.
The whole question of pollution will be under continuous examination. We have seen standards as they apply to automobiles upgraded regularly during the past five or six years. It may be that in 1971 and 1972 vehicles manufactured and sold in the United States will have to conform with even stricter standards as far as anti-pollution devices are concerned. This illustrates the need for continuity in research, and is another reason for examining carefully the whole question of making appointments at the discretion of the minister. I do not believe that appointments made in this way are in line with the purpose of this bill, which is the safety of highway traffic for all who drive vehicles on our roads.


William Arnold Peters: This is a very important bill, Mr. Speaker, and I believe it will arouse a great deal of interest among Canadians. It is likely to have its ups and downs before it becomes effective in eliminating some of the carnage which takes place on our highways.
It is interesting to reflect that Mr. Ralph Nader and the United States "Consumer Report" have probably been more responsible for promoting recognition among the general public of the features which are unsafe in automobiles than have any of the investigations conducted in Canada or in the United States. The one thing which both depended

January 29, 1970
Motor Vehicle Safety
upon was the force of public opinion. In the course of this debate, during which a number of interesting comments were made, the National Press Club was not represented. There is a difference of opinion as to whether the attractive section of the press gallery can be counted part of that institution.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
The public will not regard the safety measures being proposed as necessary unless they can be convinced that safety is a major factor in the preservation of their lives. While for the last five or six years I have not done very much travelling, I have been on the highway frequently and driven cars that were considered to have the safest possible equipment- for example, seat-belts. For four or five years I owned a Volvo and now I own another car. Although both of them had a safety-harness over the shoulder, I can honestly say that I never wore the harness in either car.
This is an admission that I am not convinced that this is necessary equipment or that it is a selling point. A number of people have asked me whether I consider the Volvo the safest vehicle on the road, and I have said it may be. They ask how I like the shoulder-harness, but I have had to reply that I have never tried _ it on. My son used it, but it seemed a difficult procedure.
My present car has a very elaborate safety-harness. It is an imported car and meets the safety standards not only of the United States but of European countries. I tried on the harness once but found it six or eight inches too short for me. But my point is that the public are not yet convinced that car safety is their business. Until the average man wants safety features in his automobile, I suggest our cars will not be safe.
We have always been suckers for United States advertising on television. We buy aspirins because people in the United States do. We buy Oldsmobiles because they do, and we even buy Cadillacs because they do. Continually we are bombarded with advertising claiming that U.S. cars are good cars and are the kind of cars that we should buy.
As a colleague of mine said the other day, although it is important to have safety devices on cars, it is equally important that we should be able to start our cars. Certainly we will not get into any trouble on the road if our cars do not start. My colleague was pointing out that the car that he had-and also the car I had at the time-was failing to start.
IMr. Peters.]
It seems to me that what is required is a car made in Canada which incorporates Canadian safety equipment. I recall driving down the Queensway the other night and observing in a distance of about eight blocks five or six cars that had stalled. This had created a traffic hazard that was serious, and it would have been quite easy to cause a 50-car pile-up. It seems to me that this is certainly a factor that should be taken into account when considering car safety.
For example, in Florida a car would probably require only 100 amps to start it. The battery will be required to deliver about 40 amps for roughly two and a half minutes, and then can settle down to supplying amperage to the coil, the points, the sparking plugs and all the rest of it. Gasoline that we buy in Canada does not burn well at a temperature of 40 below zero; it is primarily intended for climates warmer than ours. But I suggest that at least our cars should have installed in them batteries which are adequate for our conditions instead of those obtaining in the tropics.
I recall observing a car parked outside the building the other night which a member of the protective staff was helping to start. When he lifted the hood he found the wind had blown up under the car and covered the engine, the distributor and ignition wiring, with three or four inches of snow. Consequently, it would not start. After the snow was brushed away, the car started.
I remember the day when I used to drive model T Fords. I am a contemporary of other members here who did the same. As a kid I bought a lot of model T's, and even that particular car was provided with splash pans between the engine and fenders to stop debris slushing up onto the ignition wires, which was precisely the trouble with the cars that were stalled on the Queensway the other night.
I suggest safety features do not just involve seat-belts, reinforced doors and safety windows. In the wintertime in Canada you turn the car one way by looking out of the window, and the other way by looking through your rear-view mirror. They now heat rear windows with a built-in element. However, they are not designed for Canadian conditions but for Florida and California. My own car is full of junk under the hood to prevent smog in California. There are six or eight contraptions I have never seen before- and I have been doing mechanical work for a number of years. There are wires and hoses
January 29, 1970

going in all directions. Cars today do not give the better gas mileage they are supposed to, but instead cut down smog. If you want to take off the air filter and put Quickstart in the carburettor, you will find it difficult even to reach the carburettor.
We are not building cars that are safe in Canadian conditions. I suggest we should have full control over cars at all times, instead of being forced to reach down to push in a choke or to scrape snow off the windows and all the rest of it. Certainly in Ottawa the roads do not lend themselves to devoting much time to the mechanics of driving.
In Canada there has been developed a studded tire that is really useful only about three times a year, though it has done some good work. It was introduced with a great promotional drive. The department of highways now tells us that it will cost a fortune to repair the roads and they will have to crack down on studs. These studs work well when changing from summer to winter driving conditions. When we get the first two inches of snow on the roads and are not sure how to drive, studded tires are very useful.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Ten o'clock. You are slipping the clutch.


William Arnold Peters: Yes, I used to do that and it worked well. I see there is another little device for tires, which costs 99 cents and is a little like the old trucker's trick of dumping Javex on his tires in really bad weather.
The minister has outlined 29 safety points. These are not Canadian safety points but United States points. I do not criticize the minister for this; I think "Consumers Report" has detailed sufficient failings in the United States in the matter of car safety to easily compile a list of 29 inspection points.
What is required in Canada is a safety code which will enforce the installation in cars of devices that make them safe to drive on our roads, particularly in the winter time. To date no such car has been made in Canada. Even my Volvo that is imported from Sweden is unsuited to winter conditions in northern Ontario. I suggest the minister will be required to add many other points to his list to meet Canadian safety requirements, and in this regard he will receive the support of many members and of the public in general.
May I call it ten o'clock?
DEBATES	3011
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion [DOT] (10:00 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the minister is in the House tonight, because I want to discuss briefly a question which I posed on January 14 regarding regional air policy in western Canada. In response to the question the minister indicated that as a result of recent submissions by Transair, which is the regional carrier for the Manitoba and Saskatchewan region, he would be coming up with a solution which would be entirely satisfactory to myself and those I represent. The reason I pursue the matter tonight is that as a result of a series of discussions and negotiations the picture has changed somewhat since January 14, and certain points need clarifying.
I should like to point out to the minister, and I am sure he is aware of this, that the history of the regional policy in this part of Canada starts with a period when Air Canada provided a class 1 service. It was withdrawn, and Air Canada was replaced by Transair under subsidy. Finally, there was a removal of the subsidy and Transair was carrying on the class 1 service without subsidy.
I stress the importance of the continuance of class 1 service because there is uncertainty as to whether airport operating subsidies which apply to regional carriers and large airports used by carriers providing class 1 service, as well as subsidies for a passenger terminal building which is now under discussion, are to be tied in with the continuation of class 1 service.
As a result of discussions it has been indicated that the freight and air express business on this western lateral of the regional service has been increasing substantially during the past year or so. This is directly related to the encouraging growth of the industry in this part of the west under the incentive of the regional development program. It would seem to me that adequate air transportation is basic to a regional incentive program and would run along parallel lines.
January 29, 1970
3012	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
During the discussions it became apparent that Transair has agreed to continue this class 1 service on the western lateral. The only point in doubt is whether it will continue service into the city of Brandon. Brandon is the second city in Manitoba; it has been designated as the second city for industrial growth in that province. It would be a strange anomaly if Brandon was overflown in the interests of Regina, Saskatchewan, particularly when it can be demonstrated that most of the revenue is generated between Winnipeg and Brandon, not Regina and Winnipeg.


An hon. Member:: There are only coyotes there.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: This service is provided by four daily flights with Air Canada DC-9s. I think one can understand that when there is a choice between pure jet and turbo jet, the DC-9 service will get the business. I hope the minister-I now he is giving this matter very serious consideration-will be able to develop a policy in such a way that the revenues and losses will be equalized over the entire system.
For example, extra revenue from airmail contracts, and the possibility of an extension of this, if the eastern lateral is to go through the Lakehead to Toronto might be taken into consideration. I would suggest that an alternate service such as a seven-passenger light aircraft service would be quite inadequate to meet the industrial needs of this part of western Manitoba. Perhaps a seven-passenger service would be an excellent means by which to supplement the A-class service already in operation, and which obviously is to continue on the western lateral, so that the best connection could be made with the connecting flights out of the city of Winnipeg.
I know this would tap the substantial passenger potential out of western Manitoba which has not yet been realized, largely because Transair has been so busy surviving that it has not been able to develop an adequate market policy. The present discussion and considerations provide an opportunity to establish a regional air policy that would really work for this important developing part of Canada. I am sure under the leadership of the minister this will be achieved, and I trust the hon. gentleman will be able to give us this assurance tonight.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am always more than pleased to try to the best of my ability to accommodate the honourable and distin-


guished member. Indeed, he and I have had a number of exchanges on this matter over the past weeks. I believe it was at my suggestion that the Canadian Transport Commission contacted him earlier in order to give him some sort of a progress report. Despite my willingness to discuss the matter with the hon. member, may I suggest it would have been better if this exchange had occurred tomorrow night, because I understand the Canadian Transport Commission is to release its decision with regard to prairie air services some time subsequent to 10 a.m. tomorrow.
A number of hearings have been held with the air lines, and because of the hon. member's efforts and personal interest in this matter many informal discussions have been held. I do not wish to anticipate, but it is my understanding that no service will be discontinued and that the modifications and adjustments contemplated will result in a more viable service being provided to all points now being served. I think a form of rationalization has been undertaken. Once the decision of the Canadian Transport Commission is released, if my hon. friend is still of the opinion that the matter ought to be pursued further I will do whatever is in my competence to do. In the interim I think his efforts have been fruitful and I hope the results tomorrow morning will be to his satisfaction.



PENITENTIARIES-GUARDS' PAY INCREASE-OFFER BY GOVERNMENT

John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, on December 8 I asked a question of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury). The question was as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General of Canada.
Eventually it got to the President of the Treasury Board.
In view of the offer by the government of a 2 per cent pay increase for prison guards in 34 federal institutions, would the minister advise the House whether he considers this offer of 2 per cent to be a reasonable basis for contract negotiations?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest that the question as asked is not in order.


John Leroy Skoberg: The reason I placed this matter on the late-night show so many weeks later is that it relates to the fact that the Public Service Alliance has signed a three-year contract with Treasury Board which provides for a 22.3 per cent raise for 2,000 guards and training officers at federal penal institutions, as reported in the Globe and Mail of
January 29, 1970	COMMONS
January 15. I believe it is very important that we look at the whole area surrounding this situation. When we pick up the paper tonight we see an item to the effect that a number of CBC workers were fired because of irregularities.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
If we look back to a very short time ago we will realize that the civil servants of this country were unquestionably being subjected to intimidation by the federal government. A typical example of this is the situation of people with 25 to 30 years' seniority who are receiving letters from the CNR advising them: We regret to advise you that your services are no longer required.
The only question I should like to put tonight is: Are we really trying to negotiate, or to encourage a confrontation? I should like to refer to the situation created by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Maekasey) in so far as his fine specialists are concerned. The minister says he backs the force. The following appeared in a press article:
Labour Minister Bryce Maekasey is confident his new industrial peacekeeping force of five industry specialists will not get chewed up in battles between labour and management.
For one thing, the force will be backed up by Bryce Maekasey.
At a news conference today, the Labour Minister explained that the specialists will maintain regular contacts with senior union and management officials and will be able to identify obstacles to agreement long before the two parties collide in bargaining sessions.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the President of the Treasury Board, that he should ask the Minister of Labour to assign immediately one of these specialists to the federal negotiating bargaining table, because I am certain that in the present circumstances collective bargaining will never be achieved so far as this government is concerned.
My only purpose tonight in bringing this matter forward is to try to impress upon the government its importance. According to the news release, the Minister of Labour suggested that the experience with the traditional approach to conciliation has shown that government assistance frequently came too late to prevent the development of serious disputes. In a newspaper article we find the following:
Treasury Board President C. M. Drury said Tuesday that "every effort" is being made to conclude a satisfactory working agreement with 1,500 firemen at federal airports in Canada-
Mr. Drury said that the firemen had the option of seeking arbitration.
DEBATES	3013
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
I suggest to the President of the Treasury Board that if we are looking for confrontation, that is all we will get. But, surely, to offer a 2 per cent increase to the penal institution employees, after which they end up with a 22.3 per cent increase, demonstrates that collective bargaining in the true sense of the word has not taken place. The Minister of Labour said:
By the time one of the parties had asked for conciliation, in the manner required by law, positions had often hardened to a degree that provided little room for manoeuvre.
Again I suggest that this is exactly the position in which the government finds itself today. The minister also said:
Introduction of the new industry specialist program reflects a determination to break with the traditional approach-to shift the emphasis from the settlement to the prevention of disputes.
I sincerely suggest to the minister that to achieve a settlement of disputes requires negotiation. I believe there is a general feeling of appreciation for this approach, but I also suggest in all humility that the Minister of Labour assign one of his new industrial specialists to beguile the President of the Treasury Board in order that the latter may appreciate what is going on in so far as negotiations are concerned. I am sure that ultimately he will convince the President of the Treasury Board that sincere relations cannot be entered into as frivolously and as temporarily as has recently been the case. I suggest that this country cannot stand this type of collective negotiation. Either we are sincere in setting up negotiations, or we will cause a confrontation. In conclusion let me quote the Minister of Labour, who said:
To maintain contact with the principal management officials and trade union leaders in a specified industry or industries and become familiar with their organizations, policies and practices-
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the greatest mistake the Minister of Labour has made to date is that he has not assigned one specialist to ensure that there will be collective bargaining as we know it.


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that what I have just listened to is a request for information. The hon. member has been giving advice.


An hon. Member:: How about an explanation?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is in Hansard.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: He suggests, furthermore, that we should never have collective bargaining in the public service unless officers of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) are assigned to in effect, I suppose, conduct the bargaining process. I think the hon. gentleman should know that collective bargaining in the public service is substantially by mutual agreement between bargaining agents and the Treasury Board, to be conducted in private. As a consequence, any information regarding negotiations is assumed to be speculation or rumour, and those who rely on it are allowing themselves to be misled.
This was a long and sincere collective bargaining process. It resulted in an agreement which was, I am advised, satisfactory to the penitentiary staffs and is a clear example of the success, not the failure, of the collective bargaining process. I have had relatively little experience with collective bargaining, but I do know that the party who states at the outset its final position and does not budge from that is accused, and rightly so, of inflexibility. The tactic is to start out with something considerably less than what will ultimately be offered. The representatives on the other side of the bargaining unit ask for considerably more than they hope to get.



DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARDS-REFERENCE OF INTERDEPARTMENTAL STUDY TO COMMITTEE

Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, during the last few days a number of questions have been asked of the ministry about the matter of distinguished service awards. While the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) has been very forthright in stating, "There is no intention whatever to downgrade the awards which gallant and brave Canadians have received in the past from the sovereign", it seems clear that the minister has not been kept fully informed or taken completely into the confidence, apparently, of the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) or whoever is in charge of an interdepartmental committee studying this matter.


I regret to say that it seems the Secretary of State, by his evasive answers, wishes to hide something. I would like to be assured of three things, Mr. Speaker, and I will try to be brief. One, I think, can be taken for granted but it is well it should be on record, and that is the decorations of a given grade awarded in the past will not be downgraded by any past or future award. To take an extreme example, I want to be assured that our Sergeant-at-Arms will never be requested to wear his Canadian Volunteer Service Medal ahead of his Victoria Cross.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
Second, I hope that the parliamentary secretary can assure me that Commonwealth decorations, especially the ones instituted specifically for the armed forces for peacetime acts of gallantry, will continue to be awarded to the Canadian forces. I am thinking of such decorations as the Air Force Cross. It may be that since this government has done away with the Royal Canadian Air Force, it may feel that its role in life is to do away with the Air Force Cross as well and thus tidy-up the matter. Frankly, I do not see it that way. Surely, if members of the armed forces wear with pride the United Nations service ribbons, it is at least as fitting that Commonwealth awards should continue to be granted.
Third, I should like to be assured that any further Canadian orders or awards which may be instituted will be suitably integrated as to precedence with Commonwealth awards which have been or may be awarded to Canadians by the Crown on the recommendation of the Canadian government, so that it will be recognized, as it was for instance, that the Victoria Cross and the George Cross take precedence over the Order of Canada which was instituted in 1967. Furthermore, Canadians want to be assured that a bigot has not set the termites gnawing away at the framework of our nation in some dark corner of the Department of the Secretary of State,


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Angus MacLean: The traditions and practises of a nation in the matter of awards are part of the symbolism which gives its citizens a feeling of belonging to their country or to their brand of civilization. There are many traditions that members of the Commonwealth, especially the older members such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Great Britain, have built up together. We as a country will be poorer if we go on tearing them
January 29. 1970

down on the basis of some narrow-minded bigotry growing out of a shortsighted and provincial immaturity.
This matter, Mr. Speaker, is one on which there should be a measure of consensus, if that is at all possible. It should have the approval of Canadians generally. It should be resolved in a manner that will ensure a continuation of that approval. Therefore, I hope that before any final decision is taken by the government in this matter, the report of the committee will be studied by a standing or special committee of this House.


Mr. D. W. Gross (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the hon. member made at the outset of his remarks tonight a statement to the effect that the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) has something to hide. I think that is eminently unfair to the Secretary of State. Having said that, I very much regret that I am unable to give the hon. member a complete answer to his question, much as I should like to do so.
The fact is that the entire subject he has raised is still under active consideration by
DEBATES	3015
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion the decorations committee. In these circumstances I can do little more than repeat the reply given by my minister to what was essentially the same question asked by the hon. member last Tuesday. The reply is to be found at page 2864 of Hansard. For greater certainty, may I also refer the hon. member to the answer given by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) to a somewhat similar question asked by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) on January 16, which is to be found on page 2478 of Hansard.
Since I am allowed to speak for only three minutes, I will not read those replies. I have nothing to add except to say that we shall both have to wait until these matters now under consideration are decided. I trust that the deliberations will be concluded soon. I feel sure that when the announcement is made through the traditional channels, it will be very satisfactory to my hon. friend and all members of the House.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.
3016

January 29, 1970



APPENDIX


[Stage Direction]
101: Control Location and Identification- Passenger Cars.
102: Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect-Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks and Buses.
103: Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems-Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks and Buses.
104: Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems-Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Vehicles, Trucks and Buses.
105: Service Brake, Emergency Brake and Parking Brake Systems-Passenger Cars.
106:	Hydraulic Brake Hoses-Passenger
Cars and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles.
107: Reflecting Surfaces-Passenger Cars and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks and Buses.
108: Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment-Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, Buses, Trailers and Motorcycles.
109: New Pneumatic Tires-Passenger Cars.
110: Tire Selection and Rims-Passenger
Cars.
Ill: Rearview Mirrors-Passenger Cars and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles.
112. Headlamp Concealment Devices-Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, Buses and Motorcycles.
113: Hood Latch Systems-Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks and Buses.
114: Theft Protection-Passenger Cars.
115: Vehicle Identification Number-Passenger Cars.
116: Motor Vehicle Hydraulic Brake Fluids (In Preparation).
201: Occupant Protection in Interior Impact-Passenger Cars.
202: Head Restraints-Passenger Cars.
203: Impact Protection for the Driver from the Steering Control System-Passenger Cars.
204: Steering Control Rearward Displacement-Passenger Cars.
205:	Glazing Materials-Passenger Cars,
Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Motorcycles, Trucks and Buses.
206: Door Latches, Hinges and Locks- Passenger Cars.
207: Anchorage of Seats-Passenger Cars.
208: Seat Belt Installations-Passenger Cars.
209: Seat Belt Assemblies-Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks and Buses.
210: Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages-Passenger Cars.
211: Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps-Passenger Cars and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles.
212: Windshield Mounting-Passenger Cars.
301: Fuel Tanks, Fuel Tank Filler Pipes, and Fuel Tank Connections Passenger Cars.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, January 30, 1970