1970-04-15

PRIVILEGE


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege in respect of question No. 1,443, the answer to which appears at page 5768 of Hansard for April 13. On March 5 I placed this question on the Order Paper:
1.	How many companies, building plants in designated areas, are controlled outside of Canada?
2.	How many are Canadian companies?
3.	What was the cost in dollars for machinery and equipment purchased outside of Canada by companies controlled outside of Canada?
4.	What was the cost in dollars of machinery and equipment purchased in Canada by foreign subsidiaries?
5.	What percentage of machinery and equipment was obtainable in Canada at competitive prices?
The purpose of the first part of the question was to elicit information concerning the number of foreign-controlled subsidiaries qualifying for assistance in designated areas. This is a question of extreme importance to the Canadian people who are supplying the money to these designated areas.
Next I wanted to know the number of Canadian companies so that we would have a comparison between foreign-owned subsidiaries and Canadian-owned companies qualifying for assistance. The third part of the question concerned how much machinery and equipment for these industries was purchased outside Canada which could have been purchased in this country at a competitive price from Canadian factories employing Canadian workers.
I would have thought the government would be pleased to furnish this information to the Canadian people. The curt answer given on April 13 in effect was that the information is denied because no Act of Parliament makes the government give this information, and it is then stated in the answer that the information is not available. I believe this published answer to be false.
22218-26*
Why is this information hidden from the Canadian people? As the humble servant of my riding I ask that this information be made available to the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It will be my pleasure and duty to consider the point raised by the hon. member for Simcoe North to see whether I can be of assistance to him with regard to the point he has raised.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Eighth report of Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs-Mr. Tolmie.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table copies in English and French of Book IV of the report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mrs. Maclnnis: 1.	What are the functions and responsibilities of the Research Branch of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?
2.	What specific research projects has the Research Branch undertaken and what research projects are presently in progress?
3.	Who are the research staff of the Research
Branch and what are their respective annual salaries?	: ..Jill

April 15, 1970
Questions


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. The Consumer Research Branch of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is responsible for conducting research into consumer problems, advising the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs on the nature of consumer problems and proposing solutions to consumer problems. Such problems include consumer credit, standards of packaging and labelling and of composition of consumer products, consumer safety, weights and measures, advertising, merchandising practices, consumer problems of special groups and the legal .rights of consumers. In furthering its program, members of the Branch participate in a number of interdepartmental committees concerned with specific issues affecting consumers and in international committees on consumer problems and international standards and in discussions with consumer groups, individuals, trade associations, industry representatives, provincial officials, government officials from other countries, university professors, and others. The Consumer Research Branch also undertakes research activities for the other Branches in the Bureau of Consumer Affairs.
2.	Most of the research projects undertaken by the Branch represent confidential advice for the Minister and it would not be practicable or in the public interest to list the specific research projects undertaken.
3.	R. Warren James, $19,000-$23,500; Earl C. Savage, $19,781; James T. Hill, $16,656; Surendra S. Prihar, $16,656; Carol E. Wishart, $18,124; Frederick J. Joyce, (on loan).


STUDIES BY CONSUMER RESEARCH BRANCH
Mr. Mather: 1.	For the fiscal years 1968-69 and 1969-70 what specific studies have been undertaken by the Consumer Research Branch of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?
2.	Who are the individuals involved in these studies and when is it anticipated that these studies will be completed?


Stanley Ronald Basford: 1. Most of the research projects undertaken by the Branch represent confidential advice for the Minister and it would not be practicable nor in the public interest to list the specific research projects undertaken.
2. The following are the members of the Consumer Research Branch: James T. Hill, R. 
Warren James, Surendra S. Prihar, Earl C. Savage, Carol E. Wishart, Frederick J. Joyce (on loan).


GIRD AND IRDA PROGRAMS-GRANTS TO FIRMS
Mr. Broadbent: 1.	For the years 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969 (a) which and how many non-resident owned or controlled firms have been awarded financial grants or incentives under the tax incentive program for research and development formerly referred to as GIRD and the new grant program called Industrial Research and Development Assistance Program, administered by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and (b) in each case, what was the total financial grant or incentive allotted?
2.	For the same years (a) which and how many Canadian owned or controlled firms have been awarded financial grants under the GIRD and IRDA programs, and (b) in each case, what was the total financial grant or incentive allotted?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: The Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act received Royal Assent March 10, 1967. Regulations were passed May 25, 1967 and initial payments made under the Act occurred in Government fiscal year ending March 31, 1968. To qualify for a grant an organization is required to be a Canadian corporation. No restrictions with regard to ownership exist, however each applicant receiving a grant must pass the "Benefit to Canada" requirements of the Act.
Individual grants under the Act are made on a confidential basis and details of such grant are not made available.
The following provides the extent of the information that can be given in response to the above question: 1. Financial Incentives to Non-Resident Owned or Controlled Firms
1967-68 1968-69
(a)	Number	of firms	13	137(b)	Amount	($000s)	976.6	8,554.7
2. Financial Incentives to Canadian-Owned or Controlled Firms
1967-68 1968-69
(a)	Number	of firms	53	190(b)	Amount	($000s)	975.4	10,773.6
In additional financial incentives were given to the following firms for which there is no conclusive evidence as to the residence of the principal owner.
1967-68 1968-69
Number of firms 15	39
Amount ($000s)	179.3	264.0
Note: (1) Corporations have been classified as non-resident owned or controlled where
April 15. 1970

official information filed with the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act Administration indicates that more than 50 per cent of the voting stock is directly or indirectly owned by non-resident shareholders and there is a concentration of such ownership. Corporations not reporting under the Act have been classified as non-resident owned or controlled if available public information indicates that more than 50 per cent of the voting stock is owned by non-residents and there is a concentration of such ownership.
(2) Corporations have been classified as Canadian-owned or controlled where official information filed with the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act Administration indicates that 50 per cent or more of the voting stock is directly or indirectly owned by Canadian residents or where although more than 50 per cent of the voting stock is held by non-residents there is no foreign parent or concentration of foreign control and the effective control rests with the management and directors of the Canadian company. Companies not reporting under the Act have been classified as Canadian-owned or controlled if available public information indicates that 50 per cent or more of the voting stock is owned by Canadian residents. Certain of the companies are exempt from reporting under the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act and conclusive evidence of the country of ownership is not available from other public sources. The number of such companies and the amount of the incentives given are shown separately.


GENERAL ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE-GRANTS TO FIRMS
Mr. Broadbent: 1.	For the years 1968 and 1969 (a) which and how many non-resident owned or controlled firms have been awarded financial grants or incentives under the General Adjustment Assistance Program administered by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and (b) in each case, what was the total financial grant or incentive allotted?
2.	For the same years (a) which and how many Canadian owned or controlled firms have been awarded financial grants under the General Adjustment Assistance Program, and (b) in each case, what was the total financial grant or incentive allotted?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Three forms of
assistance are available to manufacturers under this Program: insurance of up to 90 per cent on commercial loans from private
Questions
lenders; direct, repayable, interest-bearing loans and consulting assistance grants. No assistance was provided in 1967-68 as the Program was then in the early stages of formulation and no direct loans have been made to date. The loan insurance and direct loans are only approved if the General Adjustment Assistance Board is satisfied that the financing for a sound project is otherwise unavailable on reasonable terms and conditions. The Board may authorize grants to applicants ruled eligible for loan insurance or loans to assist them to develop sound proposals but only if the costs of the studies would be a significant burden on their resources. These criteria inhibit assistance being provided to subsidiaries of large wealthy parent companies. Subject to the foregoing the program does not distinguish, however, between Canadian and foreign owned firms.
The General Adjustment Assistance Board adheres to the policy of commercial lenders by preserving the confidential nature of the financing made available through the insurance of loans by chartered banks or other private lenders and does not without the borrower's or insurer's consent reveal details of individual loans. Although the individual applicants' names and specific details with respect to loan insurance authorizations cannot be disclosed, information is supplied below in reply to this aspect of the question. Recipients of consulting assistance grants are listed. No direct loans were made in the periods specified.
1.	(a) None, (b) Nil.
2.	(a) and (b)	No. of Firms Amount
($000s)
Insurance of Loans	7	2,713.0
Consulting Assistance Grants
Keith-Day Limited	1.3
Northland Sportswear Ltd.	1.7
Spices and Botanical Products Ltd.	2.0
Note: Corporations have been classified as Canadian-owned or controlled where official information filed with the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act Administration indicates that 50 per cent or more of the voting stock is directly or indirectly owned by Canadian residents, or in cases of companies which are exempt from reporting under the Act where there is other conclusive evidence of Canadian ownership or control.

April 15, 1970
Questions


AUTOMOTIVE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE-GRANTS TO FIRMS
Mr. Broadbent: 1.	For the years 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969 (a) which and how many non-resident owned or controlled firms have been awarded financial grants or incentives under the Automotive Adjustment Assistance Program administered by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and (b) in each case, what was the total financial grant or incentive allotted?
2.	For the same years (a) which and how many Canadian owned or controlled firms have been awarded financial grants under the Automotive Adjustment Assistance Program, and (b) in each case, what was the total financial grant or incentive allotted?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The Automotive Manufacturing Assistance Regulations, which comprise the automotive adjustment assist-
Adjustment Assistance Board Loans: 1. To Non-Resident Owned or
Controlled Firms
(a)	Number	of Firms	1(b)	Amount	($000s)	1,580
2. To Canadian-owned or Controlled Firms
(a)	Number	of firms	10(b)	Amount	($000s)	8,037
ance program, do not provide for the awards of either grants or incentives. They do, however, provide for the making of repayable interest-bearing loans to certain eligible Canadian firms. Generally speaking, the eligibility criteria are concerned with the nature of the firm's business and prospects and not with the country of residence of its principal or owner.
The Adjustment Assistance Board, which administers the Regulations, adheres to the policy of private term lenders of preserving the confidential nature of loan transactions and does not, without the borrower's consent, publish or otherwise reveal details of individual loans. Although individual borrowers' names and specific loan details cannot appropriately be disclosed, the following information is supplied in answer to the question.
To Date
1966-67	1967-68	1968-69	1969-707	1	2	310,330	400	1,600	1,8031966-67	1967-68	1968-69	1969-7024	8	20	1014,151	7,755	16,043	11,380
Note: (1) Corporations have been classified as non-resident owned or controlled where official information filed with the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act Administration indicates that more than 50 per cent of the voting stock is directly or indirectly owned by non-resident shareholders and there is a concentration of such ownership. Corporations not reporting under the Act have been classified as non-resident owned or controlled if available public information indicates that more than 50 per cent of the voting stock is owned by non-residents and there is a concentration of such ownership.
(2) Corporations have been classified as Canadian-owned or controlled where official information filed with the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act Administration indicates that 50 per cent or more of the voting stock is directly or indirectly owned by

Canadian residents or where although more than 50 per cent of the voting stock is held by non-residents there is no foreign parent or concentration of foreign control and the effective control rests with the management and directors of the Canadian company. Companies not reporting under the Act have been classified as Canadian owned or controlled if available public information indicates that 50 per cent or more of the voting stock is owned by Canadian residents.


REPLACEMENT OF SHIP, &quot;ACADIA&quot;
Mr. MacEwan: Has the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources received a communication from the Mayor of the Town of Pictou, N.S., asking that one of the newer ships of his Department be based at Pictou to replace the Acadia and, if so, what decision has been reached on this matter?
April 15, 1970


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The Minister of
Energy, Mines and Resources received a telegram from Mayor Clarence MacCarthy urging that another ship be based at the Port of Pictou, Nova Scotia to replace the retired Acadia. No decision on this matter has been reached at this time.
Questions
of persons employed on road maintenance activity in the Yukon Territory was, as follows:
Fiscal Year
1965-	66
1966-	67
1967-	68
Expenditure

Man Years 75 75 75
PREVENTION OF [DOT]'DUMMY" CORPORATIONS ESTABLISHED TO AVOID INCREASED POSTAL RATES
1968- 69	1,991,277.44	80
1969- 70	1,971,000.00 (est.) 83


Mr. Robinson: Will the federal government set up the necessary inspection machinery to see that organizations do not set up "dummy" corporations to operate as publishers of the organizations' periodicals and thereby avoid the increased postal rates?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General and Minister of Communications):: The Post Office Department has not established inspection machinery as referred to in the question, but all necessary precautions are taken so that only newspapers and periodicals which meet all requirements of Section 11 of the Post Office Act are registered as second class mail.


YUKON-ROAD MAINTENANCE BUDGET
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	What was the road maintenance budget for the Yukon in 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969?
2.	How many persons now work on road maintenance in the Yukon and what was the number for each of the above years?
Mr. Yves Fores! (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council): 1 and 2.
In so far as the Department of Public Works is concerned the following are the expenditures and employment figures for maintenance work on the Northwest Highway System in the Yukon Territory.


SPACE RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT-NASA
Mr. Broadbent: Has the Government of Canada received a request from the United States' Government to participate in space research development through the NASA organization and, if so (a) what was the nature of the offer (b) what was the response of the Canadian Government?


Mitchell William Sharp: (a) While no request to participate in space research development has been made by the United States Government, Dr. Thomas Paine, Chief Administrator of NASA, visited Ottawa last December to outline United States plans in the post Apollo period and to indicate the United States Government's willingness to examine sympathetically any proposal from Canada regarding possible participation in the NASA space program, or any specific aspect of its program, (b) The Canadian Government looks forward to continuing the successful pattern of cooperation already established with NASA. The form such cooperation will take in the future is under active study at the present time.


CANADA LABOUR (SAFETY) CODE REGULATIONS
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): Fiscal Year
1965-	66
1966-	67
Expenditure

Man Years 247 228
Have all the various sets of regulations under the Canada Labour (Safety) Code been passed, and (a) if so, what industries are covered (b) if not, on what date will the regulations for industries not yet covered be passed?
1967-68	3,150,981.	2121968-69	3,671,813.	1961969-70	3,383,480. (est.)	189
In so far as the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is concerned, the road maintenance budget and the numbers


Mr. Jim McNulty (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: The answer to starred question No. 1,275 is as follows: No, all the various regulations have not yet been passed. To date, the following have been authorized: the coal mines (CBDC) safety regulations; and the Canada boiler and pressure vessel regulations.

April 15, 1970
Questions
With reference to (a), the only particular industry now subject to specific regulations is the underground workings of the Cape Breton coal mines.
With reference to (b), 16 sets of regulations covering every major aspect of employment safety and having general application to all industries subject to our safety code are at an advanced stage of development and are expected to be issued progressively during the next six to eight months.


CBC-HOTEL RESERVATION EXPENSES
Mr. Godin: 1.	Has CBC presented an account for expenses incurred during the fiscal year 1968-69 through the reservation of hotel rooms not subsequently used and, if so, what was the total of such expenses?
2.	Will the government require the employees of the corporation to provide receipts and statements?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: As a matter of policy CBC employees are required to account to the Corporation for expenses incurred on CBC business. Normally the responsibility to cancel hotel reservations not actually required rests with the employees concerned. However, under extraordinary circumstances and upon satisfactory evidence and explanation, expense incurred by not using reservations may be borne by the Corporation. Prior to coverage of the U.S. political conventions in 1968 it was necessary to make reservations and advance deposits for hotel accommodation through the Republican and Democratic housing committees in order to ensure availability of hotel accommodation for both CBC English and French network production personnel covering these conventions. In the case of the Republican convention, reservations had to be made before exact requirements were determined and $100 was forfeited when two of the rooms booked were not needed. At the time of the Democratic convention in Chicago, the accommodation reserved for the CBC was left unused due to the development of riots, which altered CBC coverage plans and led to arrangements for alternative accommodation, notably a move to other quarters in the interest of safety for CBC personnel who had originally been assigned a hotel in the midst of the riot area. A total of $700. was therefore forfeited in connection with the Chicago convention coverage.


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES-PURCHASE OF BOATS
Mr. MacLean: 1.	Has the government ordered some yacht-type boats designed and built by DeVries Lentsch of Amsterdam, Holland for use by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and, if so, to what use are these boats to be put?
2.	Were boat-building firms in the Atlantic Provinces invited to tender for the supply of these craft?


Mr. R. J. Orange (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: 1. The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources has not ordered any yacht-type boats. A contract was awarded to the low bidder, Canadian Dredge and Dock Company Limited of Kingston, Ontario for a hydrographic survey launch to facilitate survey operations on the Great Lakes and also to provide services for conduct of the water quality survey program. This Company is importing a bare hull from DeVries Lentsch of Amsterdam, Holland to be fitted out in its own shipyard at Kingston. This procedure apparently is more economical than Canadian construction of the hull itself.
2. No.


NATIONAL FILM BOARD-FILM SERVICE
Mr. Korchinski: 1.	In the past two years, how many requests for films have been received by the National Film Board from each province?
2.	In January of each year 1968, 1969 and 1970, how many requests for films were received by the National Film Board?
3.	For the month of January 1970, what was the revenue derived for film service provided by the National Film Board?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the National Film Board as follows:
1.	1967-68	1968-69British Columbia	41,786	78,616Alberta	41,853	48,372Saskatchewan	18,445	19,087Manitoba	22,609	26,580Ontario	166,552	197,116Quebec	57,271	65,054New Brunswick	12,635	14,222Nova Scotia Prince Edward	19,421	19,966Island	4,584	4,568Newfoundland	8,875	12,737394,031	486,318
April 15, 1970

Questions
2. The figures requested for the month of January are not available as these statistics are compiled on a quarterly basis. Following are the figures covering a three-month period starting in January 1968 and 1969.
March 31/68		March 31/69
British Columbia	17,876	27,445Alberta	19,082	24,137Saskatchewan	7,677	10,027Manitoba	10,977	8,691Ontario	104,456	101,200Quebec	19,281	30,660New Brunswick	3,347	4,853Nova Scotia	4,742	7,033Prince Edward Island	946	1,572Newfoundland	2,292	4,768190,676	220,3863.	Revenue from film rentals in January
1970-$24,549.


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES-ENGAGEMENT OF CONSULTANTS
Mr. Robinson: How many consultants have been engaged by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources during each year 1950 to 1970 inclusive (a) what was the cost of the consultants (b) how were the consultants utilized (c) for what reasons were the consultants necessary?


Robert John (Bud) Orange: The requested information is not readily available in departmental records. To provide an accurate answer would entail costly expenditures and the hiring of additional staff to undertake the large amount of work which would be required to gather this information.


BEAUCE CONSTITUENCY-PUBLIC WORKS PROSPECTS
Mr. Rodrigue: What projects will be carried out by the Department of Public Works in the constituency of Beauce during the 1970-71 fiscal year and what is the amount involved in each case?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: Location	Project
Armstrong Customs & Immigration Building Exterior lighting, paving and canopies.
Beauceville Post Office Building Ouest
St. Gedeon Post Office Building de Beauce
Ville St.	Public Building-Alterations and
George	improvements
It is not customary to give estimated costs before contracts are awarded.


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-WHEAT INVENTORY REDUCTION PLAN
Mr. Soulham: 1.	Has the federal Department of Agriculture received a communication from the Crop Science Department of the University of Saskatchewan which cautions farmers about summer-fallowing land two years running?
2.	In connection with the federal government's Wheat Inventory Reduction Plan that is encouraging farmers to summer-fallow land for a second year, has the danger of wind and water erosion been taken into consideration, especially for large fields?
3.	Has the federal Department of Agriculture considered strip-cropping or the seeding of a cover-crop in relation to the current Wheat Acreage Reduction Plan which advocates farmers summer-fallowing their land for a second straight year?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. No, but the Department is aware of the recommendations issued by the Crop Science Department of the University of Saskatchewan.
2.	Yes. The Department is providing producers with information and advice as to procedures which should be followed.
3.	Yes. Strip-cropping has been recommended and the Wheat Inventory Reduction Program allows the planting of cover crops where considered essential.


WHEAT ACREAGE REDUCTION PLAN
Mr. Southam: In relation to the planting of forage crop under the current Wheat Acreage Reduction Plan, would the government allow a forage nurse crop to be seeded in the Spring rather than July 15 as previously announced?

April 15, 1970
Questions


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, oats may be sown as a nurse crop before July 15th, 1970, but to retain eligibility for acreage payments, the oats must be cut down or otherwise dealt with in such a manner by July 15, 1970, as to render threshing of the crop impossible.


MEDICAL OFFICER TRAINING PROGRAM
Mr. Corbin: 1.	During each year 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969 and to date in 1970, how many officers enrolled in the Medical Officer Training Plan have applied for release from obligatory service?
2.	For each year (a) how many officers were granted a release (b) what are the names of the individuals, the medical school or university attended and their home address at time of release (c) what were the 10 most common reasons invoked for release, in order of frequency?
3.	For each year (a) how many officers were refused a release (b) what are the names of the individuals, the medical school or university attended and their home address at the time of application for release (c) what were the 10 most common reasons for refusing to grant a release, in order of frequency?
4.	What is the procedure to follow in applying for release through "normal service channels"?
5.	Are officers informed that they may apply for release and are they told what the "normal service channels" are at the time of their enrolment in the MOT Plan or subsequently?
6.	What were the Medical Officer requirements in the Canadian Forces for each year 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969 and to date in 1970?
7.	What are the terms or conditions of release from obligatory service?
8.	(a) What formula is used to determine the Medical Officer requirement in the Canadian Forces (b) has that formula changed since 1960 and, if so, in what way?
9.	How many medical students and interns are presently enrolled in the MOT Plan?


Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 
COMPANY OF YOUNG CANADIANS- MENDELSOHN REPORT
Mr. Rose: 1.	When does the government expect Mr. Maxwell Mendelsohn to file his report on the Company of Young Canadians?
2.	Will Mr. Mendelsohn's report include an evaluation of the administrative performance of the ex-Director, Mr. Claude Vidal?


Gérard Pelletier: 1. Mr. Mendelsohn has not been asked to file a report on the Company of Young Canadians.
2. No evaluation of the administrative performance of the Executive Director, Mr. Claude Vidal, has been requested.


MARITIME COMMAND-PERSONNEL ALLOWANCES WHEN REFITTING SHIPS
Mr. McCleave: special studies to determine the costs of travel and accommodation of service personnel when ships of the Canadian Armed Forces leave Halifax for repair or refit in shipyards outside the Halifax area and, if so, who carried out the studies and what were the conclusions?


David Walter Groos: Yes, a study has been conducted by Canadian Forces Headquarters and Maritime Command Staffs. Preliminary conclusions reached were that the number of crew could be reduced from about 100 to about 40 if the crew work package is contracted on a DDE. The studies are continuing in order to achieve a broader base of experience and establish final conclusions.


ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN REPORT
Mr. Mather: When is the Report of the Commission on the Status of Women expected?


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: I am informed by the Royal Commission as follows: The Commission is making every effort to have its report completed by the end of June 1970.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Broadbent: 1.	For the years 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969 (a) which and how many non-resident owned or controlled firms have been awarded financial grants or incentives under the Program for the Advancement of Industrial Technology administered by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and (b) in each case, what was the total financial grant or incentive allotted?
2.	For the same years (a) which and how many Canadian owned or controlled firms have been awarded financial grants under the Program for the Advancement of Industrial Technology and (b) in each case, what was the total financial grant or incentive allotted?
Return tabled.


DEFENCE DEVELOPMENT SHARING-GRANTS TO FIRMS
Mr. Broadbent: 1. For the years 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969 (a) which and how many non-resident owned or controlled firms have been awarded financial grants by incentives under the Defence Development Sharing program, administered by the Department of
Orders for Returns
Industry, Trade and Commerce, and (b) in each case, what was the total financial grant or incentive allotted?
2. For the same years (a) which and how many Canadian owned or controlled firms have been awarded financial grants under the Defence Development Sharing Program, and (b) in each case, what was the total financial grant or incentive allotted?
Return tabled.


DEFENCE EXPORT MODERNIZATION-GRANTS TO FIRMS
Mr. Broadbent: 1.	For the years 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969 (a) which and how many non-resident owned or controlled firms have been awarded financial grants or incentives under the Defence Export Modernization Program, administered by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and (b) in each case, what was the total financial grant or incentive allotted?
2.	For the same years (a) which and how many Canadian owned or controlled firms have been awarded financial grants under the Defence Export Modernization Program, and (b) in each case, what was the total financial grants or incentive allotted?
Return tabled.


SHIP CONSTRUCTION SUBSIDIES-GRANTS TO FIRMS
Mr. Broadbent: 1.	For the years 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969 (a) which and how many non-resident owned or controlled firms have been awarded financial grants or incentives under the Ship Construction Subsidy Program administered by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and (b) in each case, what was the total financial grant or incentive allotted?
2.	For the same years (a) which and how many Canadian owned or controlled firms have been awarded financial grants under the Ship Construction Subsidy Program, and (b) in each case, what was the total financial grant or incentive allotted?
Return tabled.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, on December 19, almost four months ago, I put down Question No. 773 asking for information about a study on housing policy or urban problems being conducted on behalf of the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing. It seems to me the answers are factual and ought to be available. I wonder when I might receive a reply?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I shall inquire from the minister involved.

April 15, 1970
Motions for Papers



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion (papers) No. 220 is acceptable to the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Notice of Motion No. 220 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



COMPUTER SIMULATION IN AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 220-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report by Stevenson and Kellogg Limited on computer simulation in Canadian automotive industry undertaken for the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce in the fiscal year 1967-68, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the past Session.
Motion agreed to.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions Nos. 198 and 391 are acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents and to the authorization of government authorities concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations or conditions expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that Notices of Motions Nos. 198 and 391 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
SHUSWAP RIVER DIVERSION PROJECT Motion No. 198-Mr. Rose:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all information, studies, correspondence and other documents exchanged between the Government of Canada and the Government of British Columbia, relating to the proposed Shus-wap River diversion project since January 1, 1969.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 391-Mr. Osier:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid 
before this House a copy of the federal-provincial agreement with the Province of Manitoba which established the participating status for that Province under the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act.
Motion agreed to.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions Nos. 41, 76, 252, 254, 292, 323, 377, 379 and 399?
I ask that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.



PROPOSED NATIONAL SECURITIES BILL

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 41-Mr. Benjamin:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all corespondence between the Government of Canada and the provincial governments regarding the proposed National Securities Bill for Canada.
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I move this motion on behalf of the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin).


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the discussions with provincial governments about proposed federal securities legislation have taken place not by correspondence but through a series of meetings of the Federal-Provincial Committee of Officials on Financial Institutions and Securities Regulation, and more recently between myself and the provincial ministers concerned. Because of this there is no correspondence, or else the correspondence that is required in this motion is of no material substance, and I would request the hon. member to withdraw the motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is dropped.
Motion dropped.



LOBBYING

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 76-Mr. McGraih:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of each interim and final report on lobbying prepared for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Mr. McGrath:: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
April 15, 1970


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member for St. John's East would like to recall Motion No. 76 which was stood a moment ago.


James Aloysius McGrath: That is right, Mr. Speaker; you were going so fast that I could not find my motion and that is why I asked that it stand.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the material referred to in this motion is part of a continuing study which was never intended for other than internal use by officials of my department and me. In view of this, the data collected is privileged and I would ask whether the hon. member would withdraw his motion.


James Aloysius McGrath: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



TEXTILES STUDY

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 252-Mr. Gilbert:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study on textiles as reported in the Annual Report of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, April 1, 1967-March 31, 1968, on pages 51-52.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce wishes to advise the hon. member that he placed the same motion on the Order Paper last year and it was dealt with on June 11, 1969, as recorded in Hansard at page 9992. The minister feels that he cannot accept this motion as the study contains information provided in confidence to the department on the understanding that it not be disclosed. Such disclosure would prejudice the department's ability to obtain similar information in the future. In view of this the minister hopes the hon. member will withdraw his motion.


Mr. Gilbert:: Mr. Speaker, the reason I put it on a second time was that I hoped the minister would change his mind. I ask that it be transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is transferred for debate.



CHEMICAL INDUSTRY REPORTS AND STUDIES

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 254-Mr. Gilbert:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all reports and studies related to the chemical
Motions for Papers
industry as reported in the Annual Report of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, April 1, 1967-March 31, 1968, on page 51.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce wishes to advise the hon. member that he may recall having asked for this study last June and the Minister at that time was not able to provide the material requested. I am informed by the minister that this is still the case. This study is based largely on information supplied in confidence to the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce from Canadian industry. In view of this the minister would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


John Gilbert: Transfer for debate, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



STUDY OF EFFECTS OF NICKEL PRICE INCREASE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 292-Mr. Saltsman:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study on the effects of the increase in the price of Canadian nickel as mentioned by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and reported in Hansard of December 2, 1969, on page 1485.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce wishes to inform the hon. member that the study in question was done by departmental officials and sis such does not exist in the form of a report which could readily be tabled. However, calculations on the price in question have been summarized and could be tabled if this would serve the purpose of the hon. member. If the hon. member accepts this and withdraws his motion we would be prepared to do this immediately.


Mr. Saltsman:: That is acceptable, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is dropped.
Motion dropped.



CONSUMER LOAN INTENTIONS-RETURNS BY FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 323-Mr. Saltsman:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all returns submitted to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs by Canadian financial institutions regarding information on consumer loan intentions in 1970 as requested by the Department.
[Stage Direction]
April 15, 1970
Motions for Papers
Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, with reference to this motion I wish to inform the hon. member that this information too was supplied on a confidential basis, and in view of this I would ask the hon. member to withdraw the motion.


Max Saltsman: I am sorry, I cannot, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is transferred for debate.



WHEAT BOARD REGULATIONS-CORRESPONDENCE WITH PROVINCIAL MINISTERS OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 377-Mr. Southam:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence between the Government of Canada and the Ministers of Agriculture of the Provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba and British Columbia, concerning the application and enforcement of the Regulations of the Canadian Wheat Board, between December 1, 1969 and January 31, 1970.
Mr. Yves Fores! (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council): Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the Hon. Otto E. Lang, Minister without Portfolio, that no correspondence has been exchanged between the government of Canada and the Ministers of Agriculture of the governments specified in this motion related to application and enforcement of the regulations of the Canadian Wheat Board between the stated dates. In view of this the minister would ask the hon. member kindly to withdraw his motion.
Mr. Southam:: I so agree, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is dropped.
Motion dropped.



WHEAT BOARD REGULATIONS-CORRESPONDENCE WITH PROVINCIAL PREMIERS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 379-Mr. Southam:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence between the Government of Canada and the Premiers of the Provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba and British Columbia, concerning the application and enforcement of the Regulations of the Canadian Wheat Board, between December 1, 1969 and January 31, 1970.
Yves Forest: Mr. 
Speaker, the Hon. Otto E. Lang, Minister without Portfolio, wishes to advise that there is no correspondence between the government of Canada and the premiers of the provinces of Alberta, British Columbia and Manitoba concerning the application and enforcement of the regulations of the Canadian Wheat Board between the specified dates. An exchange of correspondence has taken place between the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and the premier of the province of Saskatchewan. The premier of Saskatchewan was approached concerning the tabling of this correspondence and he has expressed the wish that this correspondence not be tabled. In view of this the minister would wish to accede to this request and not table any of the exchange, and would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Richard Russell Southam: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is dropped.
Motion dropped.



STUDY OF EFFECT OF FREIGHT RATE INCREASES ON REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 399-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study undertaken in the Department of Regional Economic Expansion regarding the effects of increase in freight rates on regional economic expansion as mentioned by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and reported in Hansard of March 18, 1970 at page 5184.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I move this motion on behalf of the hon. member for Moose Jaw, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Marlin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the study is part of a continuing assessment of how the slow growth regions of Canada might be affected by a great variety of possible policies and changes in economic circumstances. Such studies are not designed to produce formal reports. In view of this I would ask the hon. member if he would kindly withdraw his motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might address an inquiry to the Minister of Transport who is usually very co-operative in
April 15, 1970

these matters. When may I expect the production of the document requested in Motion No. 395? It is a simple matter of annual financial reports of a public body incorporated by an Act of this House. The Act requires that the financial report be tabled annually by the minister. This motion has been on the Order Paper for nearly a month and I am wondering when it will be dealt with.


Mr. Jamieson:: Mr. Speaker, I must confess I have no idea why this has not been brought forward more rapidly and I do not see any reason for the delay. I shall look into it immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining Notices of Motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-tings):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. As the Prime Minister stated in the House on March 16 that conversations were continuing between the Prices and Incomes Commission and the leaders of organized labour, would the minister take the first opportunity on motions to outline to the House what progress the Prices and Incomes Commission has made in persuading the leaders of organized labour to give that co-operation without which no inflation control program is feasible?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what recent conversations have been held. The chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission discussed this matter in a speech yesterday in Calgary, which the hon. member may know about. I shall discuss the matter with the chairman and see whether it would be appropriate to make a further statement.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for Exter-
Inquiries of the Ministry nal Affairs regarding the transportation of a large quantity of nerve gas from Okinawa to Bangor, Washington, passing through the Strait of Juan de Fuca. In view of the growing concern in the United States and Canada regarding the hazard which might follow any mishap, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he can tell the House whether there has been communicated to him the date on which this shipment will take place, what precautions are being taken, and if the minister is satisfied with those precautions as they affect the lives of Canadian citizens?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first question, I do not think that the United States government has yet made a decision on the date of shipment. As to the second question, we have received from the United States government, in response to our request for information and our expressions of concern, information about the precautions being taken. This information is being studied by the government. We are also expressing to the United States government, more formally than in the past and on the basis of the information received, the grave concern we have about the possibility of an accident.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister if he intends to ascertain the date when the shipment will take place and if he intends to have his study completed in sufficient time so that the government of Canada can express to the government of the United States any concern it may have about the inadequacy of the precautions which are being taken?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the United States government has not yet made a decision as to when the shipments will begin. On the second point, we are of course concerned notwithstanding the kinds of precautions that are being taken. We understand these are very thorough and very extensive. But there always remains the possibility of an accident, and therefore it would not matter what information we received about these precautions; we would still have reason for the concern that I have expressed to the United States government.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of National Defence. Are the E.M.O. forces of the country aware of the possibible transportation of this

April 15, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry nerve gas, and, what steps will they be taking to provide against any mishap which may occur?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned about this problem, as is the Department of National Defence. So far as the Department of National Defence is concerned, my hon. friend knows from my repeated answers in the House that we have an expertise in precautionary measures against these dangers, and no doubt if the situation warrants our being alerted in a special way we will respond to whatever the indicated danger is.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State for External Affairs quite properly has stated that no matter what precautions may be taken there will still be the danger of an accident. Our Emergency Measures Organization does not have the facilities to meet any potential danger in this connection, and the minister has mentioned that naturally there are certain experts in his department who would have some solution for such a situation. Because the people in Vancouver and Victoria are greatly concerned, I ask whether there are available at the coast today any officers of the armed forces trained particularly in this field who would be available to meet an emergency when these five tugs that are going to bring this gas start through the strait?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, the answer as to whether we have qualified and trained personnel in this instance is obviously yes. We have been conducting for a number of years experiments at the Suffield establishment and I am confident that we have the ability to deal with the situation confronting us. Whether those men are stationed now on the west coast I do not know, but obviously if a situation arises which necessitates their being stationed on the west coast they will be.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, will the minister give the assurance that he will give instructions that those who have this particular scientific training will be placed on the coast to meet any potential emergency?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I can give the assurance that as soon as we are informed that the shipment is coming we shall have such personnel on hand on the west coast.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the concern over the shipment of this gas, can the minister indicate whether there is really anything that the Emergency Measures Organization could do, besides evacuating the area, in case of accident?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, this is really a speculative question. I really do not know how to answer a question like that. All I can say is that we have an expertise in taking defensive measures in situations of that kind. That is all I can say. If a situation arises where we should have qualified personnel in attendance on the west coast to be ready for any emergency, then I can give the assurance that we will have this personnel.


Max Saltsman: A supplementary question. Is it not important at this time, in view of the experience that most people have had with nerve gas and the conclusion they have reached that there is no antidote or protection against nerve gas, to inform the nation to this effect?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: The hon. member is making an assertion that I contest. We could, of course, get into a long debate; however, I would need to have technical people to advise me in order to rebut what the hon. member said. In answering questions from the opposition I have been asserting all along that the establishment is very useful in developing defensive measures against occurrences of that kind.


PLACE OF MANUFACTURE AND PRECAUTIONS TAKEN IN SHIPPING NERVE GAS TO OKINAWA
David Walter Groos: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a further supplementary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. For the information of this House could he establish whether this nerve gas in fact was manufactured originally in the United States and shipped from there to Okinawa? If so, what special security precautions were taken at that time with the shipment, and what route did it take then?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice.
April 15, 1970


AUDITOR GENERAL
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact the government's confrontation with the Auditor General has now reached acute, if not crisis, proportions, will the government now come clean and tell the people of Canada precisely what it intends to do so that the Canadian people will know if there is any reason for the great alarm that is being expressed universally throughout this country?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will realize it is difficult for the Chair to accept a question couched in those terms. If the hon. member wants to rephrase the question, it will be easier for the Chair.


Gerald William Baldwin: Having expressed my sentiments, I will now contract the question. Will the Acting Prime Minister inform the House precisely as to the government's intentions with regard to the position and the role of the Auditor General?


Mitchell William Sharp: Perhaps Your Honour will permit me to comment on the first question. There is no confrontation between the government and the Auditor General.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: I hope that members of the opposition will agree with the government that the role of the Auditor General should be clear beyond any doubt.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: That is the only purpose for any action the government may take. I hope the members of the opposition will join with us in trying to get this situation settled.


Gerald William Baldwin: A further supplementary
question. In view of the fact that the pertinent provisions of the Financial Administration Act have stood unassailed for a great many years, can the minister indicate why there is now any doubt as to the role of the Auditor General?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there have been some doubts expressed-


Some hon. Members:: By whom?


Mitchell William Sharp: -not only in this House but outside the House-
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: By whom?


Mitchell William Sharp: -about whether the kind of reports that have been made are fully within the responsibilities of the Auditor General. I think it is very important for the health-


An hon. Member:: Of this government.


Mitchell William Sharp: -of this establishment that the responsibilities of the Auditor General should be unquestioned. That is our purpose. I hope it is the purpose of the opposition.


OPINION OF LAW OFFICERS ON JURISDICTION
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: In view of the answer of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the effect that he is interested in defining the jurisdiction of the Auditor General, may I address a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the Acting Prime Minister, the Prime Minister or any other member of the cabinet asked for the opinion of the law officers as to the jurisdiction of the Auditor General with reference to this confrontation?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: am taking the position that the rules respecting the matter of advice which under statute I am from time to time required to give to the Prime Minister and other members of the cabinet protect any advice I might give or, indeed, whether advice has been sought or given, and I am going to maintain that position again today.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I rise on a question of privilege. Yesterday a minister of the government said that he had sought information and advice from the law officers of the Crown. That is recorded in yesterday's Hansard. One minister cannot have his cake and another try to eat it. Either they can tell us that information or they cannot. I say it is a privilege of this House to know whether advice has been sought. I have not asked for the legal advice. I merely asked if advice was sought. The Minister of Justice is hiding because he is frightened of the Prime Minister and his dictatorial attitude.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question arising out of his comments about curtailing the role of the Auditor General? Are we to take his statement to mean that the government's idea of a just society is one in which the propagandists are appointed and the critics are fired?

April 15. 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that the question is not in order and I doubt whether it would be in order to reply.


Mitchell William Sharp: I rise on a question of privilege. I have never suggested at any time that the functions of the Auditor General should be curtailed.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. If, as the Acting Prime Minister has just stated, there is no confrontation between the government and the Auditor General, will the Acting Prime Minister request the President of the Treasury Board and the President of the Privy Council to stop snapping at the heels of the Auditor General and causing him such embarrassment?


CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY
Mr. Warren Allmand (Noire-Dame-de-Grace):: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the minister tell the House whether a reply has been prepared to the note from the United States regarding the Arctic? If so, is he prepared to make it public in this House?


Mitchell William Sharp: Perhaps I ought to say first, Mr. Speaker, that we have received a note from the United States respecting the legislation introduced in this House. The reply to that note is in course of preparation. Today the United States Secretary of State also released a statement of the position of the United States. This has been made public. The question of whether the notes themselves should be published is a rather delicate one which strikes at the roots of interchanges between governments. I hesitate to say that we will publish these notes. It will depend upon the views of both the United States government and our own government regarding the wisdom of such action. The statement made by the Secretary of State of the United States in relation to our legislation gives a very clear indication of how that government views our legislation.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairwealher@Fundy-Royal: A supplementary question. Has Can-
ada asked permission to publish the notes if the United States government has no objection?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I asked my Undersecretary to raise the question informally with the United States. The view of the United States government, which I can understand and for which I have some sympathy, is that it is better to avoid the publication of these kinds of notes and to rely upon the ordinary communications that take place in public. There are occasions when it is very desirable that governments should be able to exchange views confidentially.


Mr. Fairwealher:: A further supplementary. I appreciate that, Mir. Speaker, but can the minister dispel the unpleasant news stories contained today in such newspapers as the Wall Street Journal that the United States note threatened economic sanctions? I think this should be dispelled if it is not true.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I can deny that part of the statement categorically. There is no reference whatever in the note to any such retaliation.


Mr. David Lewis (York Soulh):: I have a supplementary question. Without being happy about the minister's suggestion that the notes may not be published, in view of the fact that a debate on the relevant legislation will begin in the House tomorrow I ask the minister if he will do two things. First, will he ask the House to append the statement of the Secretary of State of the United States to today's Hansard? Second, will he undertake to issue a summary or statement of the reply Canada makes to Washington with regard to the note the government has received so that we may at least have in communique form the position of both governments?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I sympathize with the desire of the hon. member. I have a copy with me today of a telegraphed report of the statement released by the State Department at noon today, and I would be happy to have this inserted in Hansard. It is my intention tomorrow to take part in the debate on the Arctic waters pollution bill and I shall be making an extensive reply, in the course of dealing with other matters, to the contentions of the United States.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the document referred to be appended to today's Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For document referred to above, see Appendix "A".]
April 15, 1970


David Lewis: I do not intend to participate in the debate tomorrow but my leader will. Unless the Secretary of State for External Affairs happens to be speaking first for the government on the bill, his survey of the situation will not be of very much help to those who speak ahead of him. I therefore ask him whether he would not consider placing on the table a full communique regarding Canada's reply to the United States note.


Mitchell William Sharp: I would have no objection, if it met with the approval of the House, to speaking out of turn; it had been my intention to be the second speaker from the government side, but if the House would like me to follow more closely after my colleague the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development I would be happy to do so.


John George Diefenbaker: Since the Secretary of State for External Affairs has seen fit to answer the question whether or not there was any threat of sanctions in the note, can this not be taken as the basis for the House having the right to see this document and ascertain what, in fact, are the true circumstances rather than to accept the interpretation of the minister? Surely he should be willing to produce this document. If he is not, which appears to be the case, will he say whether there is any justification for the report over United States radio and in the press of that country that it will be too bad for Canada if the policies of the present government in connection with northern sovereignty and anti-pollution are carried out?


Mitchell William Sharp: Let me make it clear that I have no objection whatever to the publication of the notes, in terms of the notes themselves. But the right hon. gentleman was once Prime Minister and he knows that sometimes it is better to keep exchanges of this kind confidential.


An hon. Member:: Quiet diplomacy.


Mitchell William Sharp: It is practiced universally
throughout the world in appropriate circumstances. But I take the comments of the right hon. gentleman very seriously. I certainly would not wish there to be any misunderstanding, any impression that there is something being withheld, and I will raise the question with my counterpart, the U.S. Secretary of State, to find out whether he would agree to make an exception in this case. Nor would we have any objection to the publication of the reply.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Then I ask the minister this: does he intend to allow, without comment or complaint, the right of the United States to issue a press summary of the objections expressed in the note without the note itself being produced? Surely that would be a complete breach of diplomatic practice by the United States.


Mitchell William Sharp: The right hon. gentleman misunderstands the nature of the statement released by the Secretary of State.


John George Diefenbaker: I saw it.


Mitchell William Sharp: The Secretary of State was expressing the views of the United States in that published statement. He also expressed the views of the United States government to the government of Canada in a separate note. This happens from time to time. It happens on many occasions, and I do not think the United States is to be faulted in that respect. I do understand, however, that it would be most undesirable if rumours were to get about that there was something hidden in this note which was reprehensible or which would produce friction between the two countries.


George Harris Hees: Is it the intention of the government to remain firm in the stand it has taken in this regard or to back down ignominiously as it so often has in the past?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: May we have an answer, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Douglas A. Hogarth (New Westminster):: Is the whole basis of the minister's position with respect to these notes the application of protocol with regard to such communications generally, or is there anything particular in these notes which would prevent their publication?


Mitchell William Sharp: These are notes of a kind which are exchanged from time to time between governments. There is nothing exceptional about them. There may, however, be exceptional circumstances in which, in order to avoid misunderstanding between two countries, they should be published. That would be the only reason for urging the Secretary of State to abandon the general rule.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I should like the minister to consider taking this course: tomorrow, he says, he is participating in the debate. If the

April 15. 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry debate is not to be held in a vacuum, this note ought to be available to us. Otherwise, let us postpone the debate.


Mitchell William Sharp: I will certainly put that point to my counterpart in the United States in relation to the desirability of publishing the note. On the other hand, I would not be so discourteous as to publish it without the consent of the United States government.


ARCTIC POLLUTION, TERRITORIAL SEA LIMITS -UTILIZATION OF INFORMATION CANADA TO DRAFT PRESS RELEASE
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: I have a question I should like to address to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of Information Canada. Would the hon. gentleman consult with his colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and draft a press release in reply to the United States press release utilizing the services of Information Canada to answer the statements made in Washington?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister without Portfolio):: I am always happy to consult with the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Yes, but after consulting with him, would the minister act in a constructive way? It might be the only constructive thing done by Information Canada.


POLLUTION
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs which has its relevancy to the questions that have just been asked, as Your Honour will notice. In view of the fact that a considerable number of Edmonton women are protesting against the unsolicited dumping on their doorsteps of Arctic Power, a high phosphate detergent, will the minister consider measures to protect these and other consumers from unwarrantable invasion of their privacy?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I will examine the situation to see whether it is within the terms of reference of the Arctic pollution bill.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mrs. Maclnnis:: Will the minister seek some unprotected legal advice on this matter from the Minister of Justice?
[Mr. Fairweather.I


DISCHARGE OF MERCURY INTO ST. LAWRENCE RIVER
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Fisheries. It has to do with pollution. In view of the past experience of the government in connection with mercury discharges similar to those attested to by three offending Quebec companies, and since two of these companies are situated on rivers which flow into the St. Lawrence in areas where commercial fisheries are valued at between $250,000 and $350,000 per year, will the minister consider undertaking an immediate examination of the situation of these companies in order to determine, before the fishing season opens, the amount of mercury discharged, and would he then enforce measures to end mercury discharges from these sources?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Plans are under way to investigate the sources referred to. Fish downstream of those locations are being tested in Winnipeg at the present time. Our inspection service is also testing all fish destined for sale. None are being released which show any degree of contamination. We have not run into any incident of that kind as yet.


HISTORIC SITES
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development; it is so urgent that it may already be too late.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I wish to ask the minister whether, through the Historic Sites and Monuments Board or through other arrangements, anything is being done to acquire for the nation .Glensmere, the long-time residence of Sir Robert Borden, which is now in imminent danger of demolition?
tTranslation]


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of that problem. Of course, we consider that that residence has historical significance. However, from the information on hand, our appropriations are not sufficient for us to purchase that residence, the price of which seems quite high.
April 15, 1970


POLLUTION
Mr, Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Can he tell us whether it is the intention of the government to introduce legislation in respect of our Atlantic and Pacific coasts which will provide parallel protection against pollution from shipping to that which is being proposed in the bill in respect of the Arctic, so far as our territorial and contiguous zones are concerned?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As I have indicated on a number of previous occasions it is my hope to bring forward a considerable number of amendments to the Canada Shipping Act during the current session. I have, on the best advice available, felt that it was wise to withhold this until we see the ultimate fate of the Arctic waters bill in the House because the two are more or less companion pieces of legislation. The amendments will be brought in as soon as possible.


HARBOURS
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Following the Easter recess, can the minister now advise when tenders will be called for work on the ferry terminal at Caribou, which is the Nova Scotia base for the P.E.I.-Nova Scotia ferry service?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Within a very short time, Mr. Speaker. I had some conversation with the government of Nova Scotia and the plans have been drawn. I have seen them within the past two or three days. The obective is, as I understand it, to get the work finished within the 1970 calendar year.


Howard Russell MacEwan: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the minister can advise us that the government is still considering the possibility of a third ferry for that service?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence and he can take it as notice if he wishes. I would ask him whether the bulldozer airdropped by the armed forces in western Canada was the same bulldozer used by a Liberal minister in starting the construction of the P.E.I. causeway before an election?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Because of the rejection by Indian people in various parts of Canada of the government's proposals for a new Indian policy, has the government hired or entered into a contract with a consultant or consultants to advise the government on means of gaining acceptance of this new policy by the Indian people?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we have met with several people and inquired about the best ways to air the new Indian policy. We have hired several persons to give us information on publicity, and so on. However, I do not know exactly whom the hon. member is alluding to. If he would be more specific, I should be glad to reply.


Robert Simpson: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister whether Mr. W. I. C. Wuttunee, who has been such a strong advocate of this new policy, was hired on a $200 per day, plus expenses, government retainer to advise the government on means of getting the Indians to accept the new policy?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the supplementary question should be placed on the Order Paper.


David Orlikow: I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the hon. member has a point of order.

April 15, 1970
Inquiries oj the Ministry


Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege that not only affects the members of this House but a large majority of the Indian people of Canada. I asked the question because the government has indicated on many occasions in the House that it will not put this policy into effect without full consultation with the Indian people. The Indian people have interpreted this as being an indication that the government is willing to accept amendments to the new policy. We now learn that the government has asked for the opinion of these consultants as to how to gain acceptance of the policy by the Indian people, and as it now stands I think a question of privilege is justified.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member will appreciate that it is difficult for the Chair to place that interpretation on the question he has asked. In view of the hon. member's explanation and the fact that the minister is rising on the question of privilege he might be allowed to reply to the question.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to the question of privilege. It is true that this man has been hired by the department as a consultant. He is a lawyer of Indian background. I want to point out that we spend thousands and thousands of dollars through the Indian Association. Many of them are not in agreement, but we hope to give them money to have a real public debate. We are happy to give them money to make sure that a public debate will take place and for the best facilities-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


DISCONTINUANCE OF SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Is it the policy of his department that all school lunch assistance, including lunches in public schools, milk, lunch tickets, and lunches prepared by lunch committees be discontinued as part of the government's austerity program?


Mr. Speaker:: I should think that this question might be considered at the time of adjournment if the hon. member wants to discuss it at greater length.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. What steps is he taking or does he plan to take in regard to the increase in the price of milk in Vancouver yesterday?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, when rumours of such an increase occurred I referred the matter to the Director of Information and Research under the Combines Investigation Act who is inquiring into the matter. If any offences are committed, action will be taken. At the moment there has been only one increase, and I would hope other dairies would not increase-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have allowed the minister to reply to the question, but I wonder whether this type of question is in order and whether we should during the brief time we have at our disposal from day to day ask about individual increases in prices of individual commodities in individual cities. I have some doubt whether this is in order. In any event, the hon. member has obtained the information he is seeking.


FISHERIES
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minster of Fisheries. When is it the intention of the government to appoint the president and the board of directors of the Canadian Saltfish Corporation, especially now that we have the anomalous situation of the chairman of the corporation having been named?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, we will be announcing the appointment of the president hopefully this weekend, possibly on Friday or at the latest next Monday.


DEPARTMENTAL ACTION RESPECTING MARKETING OF SALTFISH
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: In view of the fact that the corporation is not off the ground and that the trade has been
April 15, 1970

eliminated from marketing, can the minister say what initiatives are being taken within his department in lieu of corporate efforts in order to have the fisheries of the east coast of Canada adequately represented in the trade markets?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, all possible initiatives have been taken with the particular help of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce abroad.


John Howard Lundrigan: In view of the fact that the minister has indicated that nothing more than initiatives are being taken, would he be prepared to make a statement on motions some time before the week is out in order to outline the work done, in view of the tremendous concern on the part of the fishermen and the trade as to the loss of markets on the part of the east coast industry?


John (Jack) Davis: The hon. member is really referring to the sale of this summer's catch of fish, as he well knows. We will be announcing prices for the first time in the history of the industry in May; that is the price the fishermen will receive during the summer. That is important. We will be able to sell this summer's catch readily, I am sure, and I hope at an improved price on the world market.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will allow a supplementary by the hon. member for St. John's East, but I must remind the House that we have only four minutes left.


James Aloysius McGrath: I will be brief, Mr. Speaker. I want to ask the minister whether there is anybody in the markets now booking orders so it can be determined what the price is going to be? Otherwise, what are you going to base the price on?


John (Jack) Davis: There is no one in the market now booking orders, but there is not normally at this time of year.


John Howard Lundrigan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister in responding to the question certainly took advantage of the House to drop a couple of broad hints about the fisheries situation. Perhaps his hearing aid is not working correctly. Would he now take the opportunity to indicate whether he will make such a statement on motions? He did not indicate this in his previous response.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I do not see the reason for a special statement in the House at
Inquiries of the Ministry this time, but we will be announcing the appointment of members of the directorate of this new corporation over the next couple of weeks. It will be fully established and operating within the next three or four weeks.




Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Following the resounding criticism by the Council of Europe of the government of Greece for its infringement of the civil liberties of its citizens, has the Canadian government taken any action in the form of constructive criticism made to its ally in NATO on this question?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the resolution of the Council of Europe was based upon a report the contents of which have not yet been made available to us. When the report is made available to us we may have something to say.


John Edward Broadbent: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister try to speed up his action? He gave the same answer, in the same tone, four months ago.


PUBLIC BUILDINGS
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Since three ministers were in attendance in Montreal yesterday when the announcement was made of the building of a $100 million complex according to a project designed by a French Canadian company, and as the government representatives gave an indication that they were willing to invest $30 million in the venture, could the minister inform the House how this amount of $30 million will contribute to the carrying out of the project?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, it will be a complex consisting of three towers.
[Later:f


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to repeat my question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.

April 15, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
I was not being facetious at all when I asked the minister to tell us if the $30 million required to build this important complex would be supplied as grants or loans?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, this building is to be built and paid for by the federal government.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. It arises from a news release in Manitoba today that the remaining training units at Rivers are to be moved, one to Portage and one to Edmonton. Is the minister now in a position to indicate the programs that will be substituted for these units?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I hate to rely on the stock answer I have given for quite some time, but actually I have no immediate information that would be useful. We have alternative proposals but they have not yet come to fruition.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, is the minister contemplating consultation on this matter with the communities concerned?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I would, if I were sure this would help, but I do not think it would. So I am trying to do my best to fill the voids that are necessarily taking place, and I hope that eventually I will have good news to announce.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think I should bring to the attention of hon. members that the question period expired about two minutes ago. However, with the indulgence and unanimous agreement of hon. members perhaps we might hear the hon. member for Elgin who has been waiting for a few days to ask a question. Also, the hon. member for Joliette has been deprived of the opportunity to ask a supplementary.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of extreme urgency because it has just occurred. Perhaps I could direct my question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Will he be having consultations on the matter with the communities concerned?


Jean Marchand: I did not get the question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We might return to this question tomorrow. The hon. member for Elgin.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. H. E. Stafford (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice of which I have already given notice. In the exercise of the minister's established and proven impartial judgment, does he give first consideration to those judges who have proven their worth as members of the lower courts before appointments are made to higher tribunals?


An hon. Member:: A question cannot be asked in that form.


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



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, through one of those intuitive communications flowing between the House leaders I understand the government House leader is anxious to tell us the business for the remainder of this week and for next week.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to place on the record the telepathic communication which has already taken place. Tomorrow, as hon. members know, we will consider Order No. 87, second reading and reference to the standing committee of Bill C-202. It is anticipated that this debate will continue on Friday. On Monday next we will consider Order No. 89, second reading of Bill C-204, to amend the Fisheries Act. Tuesday of next week will be an opposition allotted day. On Wednesday we will discuss Order No. 88, the bill in respect of the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act. This will be followed by continuation of the debate on the national marketing council. Thursday of next week will be the final day of the budget debate.



PRIVILEGE


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I did not do so during the question period
April 15, 1970

because I knew members were waiting to ask questions of certain ministers. This matter arises from the question of privilege I raised earlier today. I should like to refer to page 5823 of Hansard, where the hon. member for Annapolis Valley asked the President of the Treasury Board whether he had sought legal advice from the law officers of the Crown. This is the answer given yesterday by the President of the Treasury Board:
Mr. Speaker, I have been advised by our legal advisers that we are proceeding entirely legally.
On the strength of that answer given by the President of the Treasury Board I asked the Minister of Justice whether the government had sought advice from the law officers in reference to the jurisdiction of the Auditor General. If the President of the Privy Council was entitled to give that kind of answer yesterday, how can the Minister of Justice try to hide under the rules and refuse to give the same answer to the same question on a different matter but basically on the same grounds? Surely that usurps the rules of the House, if it is not really a thrust against the integrity of those men sitting opposite.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege, I gave no such answer yesterday.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: It was
the President of the Treasury Board, Mr. Speaker. The President of the Treasury Board was asked a question about Montreal and the hiring of postal employees. He was asked whether he had sought a legal opinion and whether this conflicted with the Public Service Employment Act. I did not ask what the opinion was, but the President volunteered that not only had he sought it but that he had been informed the government was proceeding legally.
So I think the point raised by he hon. member for Calgary North is most valid and most relevant because today, even though I can appreciate the difficulty of the Minister of Justice, the hon. member for Calgary North was not asking for the opinion; he was asking whether an opinion had been sought. From my brief experience here, and I think the experience of all other hon. members, surely this is a type of question which can be asked. We cannot find out what the opinion is but we can certainly ask if an opinion has been sought, and this answer has to come from the Department of Justice or the Solicitor General.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, if I might I should like to say a word in respect of the question of privilege. I think the position I have taken has been well established under our rules and under the rule of the House at Westminster, and I maintain my position.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege may I say that I found considerable fault with government members in this regard when the Devco situation was examined. Members of the government cannot distinguish between the law officers of the Crown and the legal officers of the various departments. It would be good advice to tell them they should make themselves knowledgeable on this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Without going into all the difficulties of the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Calgary North, it may be that the hon. member is right. But at the same time there is a well-known citation to the effect that an hon. member cannot raise as a question of privilege the refusal of a minister to answer a question. Whether or not the minister has the right to refuse to answer the question asked by the hon. member is quite clear under the rules. I have allowed the question. So far as I am concerned, from the standpoint of the Standing Orders and precedents the question is in order, but a minister can refuse to answer this or any question. I suggest to the hon. member that in view of the precedents and citations this cannot be raised as a question of privilege.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I agree in part with your ruling, temporary as it was, in that the minister can refuse to answer any question. But surely if the minister answers the question and his answer is incorrect, any member of this House can raise a question of privilege to clarify the situation. This is a point which I think should be considered by the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: But the hon. member raised a question of privilege and when he had made his point I tried to reply to the original point to the best of my ability by referring to the relevant citation. I do not think there is much point in pursuing this particular aspect of the question of privilege.


Mr. Bell:: The answer is yes, anyway.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.

April 15, 1970
The Budget-Mr. Lewis



GOVERNMENT ORDERS	Apparently the President of the Treasury

[Stage Direction]
Board does not intend to sit through my
remarks, and this will emphasize the value of THE BUDGET	this kind of intervention at this time.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, March 19, consideration of the motion of Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance) that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I enter this debate in order to deal with the problems that have arisen as a result of the mismanagement by the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans), and later by the government, of the postal situation in Montreal. I do that because Your Honour yesterday held you could not allow a motion under Standing Order 26 and suggested that one of the reasons was the opportunity that the budget debate would give us to deal with this matter.
I hope Your Honour will not think me presumptuous if I take advantage of this opportunity to suggest very respectfully that an omnibus budget debate is really not a substitute for a debate on a special matter of specific importance. I took the occasion this morning to notify the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) and the Minister of Communications that I intended to seek the floor this afternoon, and I indicated the purpose for which I would seek it.
I notice that the President of the Treasury Board at least is in the chamber. If he intends to sit through my remarks, I wish to express to him my appreciation. But I do hold, as I said, with the greatest respect, that whatever the situation in the past may have been, under the new rules an omnibus debate such as the Throne Speech debate or the Budget debate does not really meet the situation usually sought by a member for a special debate to deal with a special emergency for which he considers it important to have a debate in the House.
There may have been other reasons for Your Honour not allowing the motion, but I thought that with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would make the comment that it is a small consolation to be able to make a speech in an ominbus debate instead of having the attention of all hon. members directed to one point which a motion under Standing Order 26 would do.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He
has come back.


David Lewis: At the outset I want to make clear that my colleagues and I regret very much the violence which has taken place in Montreal as a result of the difficulties that have arisen. Not only do we not condone that violence, but I take the liberty to express the hope on behalf of my colleagues and myself- and I am sure on behalf of every member of this House-that the violence will end, that whoever may be responsible for it will avoid escalating it so that some solution may be found in an atmosphere other than one of violence.
There has been talk, particularly by the Minister of Communications, about not yielding to blackmail. I say to him that as one who has had some experience in labour relations I am thoroughly fed up with an employer talking about blackmail when his employees are making certain demands. I say to the minister and to the government that if the word "blackmail" is applicable in this situation at all, it is applicable to the occupants of the treasury benches who are saying to the employees involved, "Either you sign up by midnight, Wednesday, April 15, or you are without a job". If that is not blackmail, I would like to know what is. But in any case, using the word "blackmail" does not help us very much one way or the other.
It may well be that the wrong road along which the government has travelled on this issue has brought it into a corner so that it now has no alternative but to stick by its present position. It may well be that the situation in Montreal is now so complicated and so perverse that it is impossible for the government to reverse its position and take another line. I hope not. I hope the government can still see its way clear to do what in my submission should have been done in the first place.
But if it is in that corner and if, as a result, there should be greater disruption and continuing violence in Montreal which, as I have said, I hope with all my heart will not be the case, I say that the responsibility will be entirely that of the government and of every member of this government, particularly those members whose labour history many of us respect very deeply, as I do. I refer in
April 15, 1970

particular to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand). That a government which has him as a member, as well as the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mack-asey) and the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier), who was once on the staff of the CNTU in Quebec, should have so utterly, completely and callously mismanaged the situation in Montreal I suggest to you, Sir, speaks volumes for the fact that when this government comes to deal with ordinary people, with working people, with labouring people, it does not deserve to govern. There is no other conclusion possible.
I think that what has happened in this case has been a complete negation of some very basic principles to which this government should have been committed. I will try to suggest to Your Honour and to the government that what has happened in this case is a complete negation of the spirit of the Freedman report which the Minister of Labour has said he intends to legislate upon as soon as he produces his intended amendments to the relevant statute.
What did the Freedman report say in effect, without referring to the actual words? What Mr. Justice Freedman said was, in moral and social terms-and the President of the Treasury Board had better not smile because I suggest to him that this is accurate-


Mr. Drury:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it clear that my smile was not in relation to the seriousness or otherwise of the matter but to the preface-
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


David Lewis: I assume-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I assume the minister is seeking the floor on a point of order or a question of privilege. The hon. member for York South has the floor.


David Lewis: I assume that is what he was rising to say, Mr. Speaker. What Mr. Justice Freedman said, and what every modern thinker on labour relations and industrial democracy in every western country has said, is that in the modern society it should not be free to an employer, or indeed to a group of employers, to make changes in their operations, to introduce efficiencies in their operations at the expense of the employees without consulting the union concerned before the decision to change the operations is made, and without working out some program 22218-27$
The Budget-Mr. Lewis which will at least reduce the hardship imposed on the employees as a result of that change. I will indicate, I think factually, that the government-perhaps not all of the government was involved in the early stages-or at least the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications violated that principle.
Aside from what Mr. Justice Freedman has said, it seems to me clear that the government of Canada, and the government of any democratic country, ought to be a model employer. It ought to act in such a way that every citizen in the country can see the concern which government has and which society collectively has and should have for the rights and the welfare of ordinary working people, and the rights of the union that represents them.
Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the action of the minister and of the government in this case has been another denial of all the protestations about participatory democracy, in any meaningful sense of that term. What happened in this case? The Post Office authorities, perhaps for good reason-I do not know-decided that the arrangement which they had had in the past and which was to end on March 31 of this year was inefficient and that they wanted to change it. So they called for tenders from contractors to do the job of picking up and delivering the mail.
What was the first duty of the government, Mr. Speaker, if it was a government with any principle whatsoever relating to decent labour relations, if it was a government acting in a way in which everyone in this House and everyone in Canada has the right to expect it to act? What should have been the first thing the Postmaster General should have done in his invitation for tenders? I suggest that the invitation ought to have contained, as a condition of the tender, a guarantee of the job security of the employees, a guarantee of their wage schedule and a guarantee of the continuation of their bargaining rights. I have looked at the documents that were filed, and I can say that the failure to have any one of those conditions in the invitation to tender was a callous disruption of the lives and the security of some 450 workers and their families. In a moment I will indicate why, in my opinion, that was not done, Mr. Speaker.
So the Postmaster General got five contractors every one of whom, according to my information-four out of the five, at least, according to the documents tabled by the President of the Treasury Board-

April 15, 1970
The Budget-Mr. Lewis


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: There were only four.


David Lewis: Well, four contractors; and all were shadow corporations that were not in existence. They did not exist as corporations; they were merely individuals who signed letters of intent with the government, I suppose undertaking to go through the necessary legal steps to incorporate themselves for the purpose for which they were tendering. These shadow corporations, from which the government did not have any bond and from which the government could not obtain any guarantee, were allowed to sign agreements with the government, and the government signed contracts with them, to do this job without any guarantee for the security of the workers, for their seniority, for their wage rights or for their bargaining rights.
Is anyone in this House or in the country surprised that when that was done the workers resented it, and that they would take whatever steps, in their desperation, they thought were open to them at that time.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Condoning violence?


David Lewis: Not including violence, Mr. Speaker. I have said already that I regret the violence. But I say to the President of the Treasury Board that it is easier for him and for me to advise that people contain themselves and control themselves than it is for people who are hurt to do so. It is the fault of those who provoke the situation that creates the violence, just as much as it is the fault of those who engage in the violence. I am not condoning the violence, but I say that the Postmaster General, his department and his associates in the government who acted so meanly as well as so stupidly provoked a situation which they should have known would lead to violence, and it is their responsibility just as much as it is the responsibility of those in Montreal who have engaged in violence.
It is possible for the people in Montreal to stop their violence, as I appeal to them to do, but it is apparently not possible for the people in Montreal to get the government to reverse its stupid and mean actions of the past. Now the workers are in the position that either they accept the conditions the government is forcing on them or they remain unemployed, with their families in the condition in which the families of unemployed people usually find themselves. It is the government's fault, Mr. Speaker, and not the fault of the people concerned.

Having heard about this, having had the pleasure and the honour of being visited by a committee of the union in early March-I did not bother looking up the date-when they told me about the situation in Montreal-


Eric William Kierans: It was early February.


David Lewis: Yes, it may have been in February.


Eric William Kierans: Do little more research.


David Lewis: I did not hear the minister, Mr. Speaker.


Eric William Kierans: I said, do a little more research.


David Lewis: The Minister of Communications ought to have the humility not to make that kind of remark, in view of the mess for which he is responsible. If there is a minister of this or any other government who has been responsible for as many messes in labour relations in a department as he has been in the Post Office, I think that government ought to look at itself very seriously.
When I had the pleasure of being visited by a committee of the union-the minister has reminded me of when it was, and in a moment I will tell the House why he knows the date-some time in February and I listened to their story of this situation, I immediately remembered and drew to their attention a section of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, under which the union of course had been certified by the Canada Labour Relations Board.
I immediately drew their attention to section 9 (3) of that act which permits a bargaining unit for more than one employer if all the employers concerned consent thereto. I said to the union that it seemed to me that was their answer, that they should persuade the government to make a condition of the contracts with these contractors that they should all consent to one bargaining unit for all their employees collectively, under section 9 (3) of the act, and if necessary they should go to the Canada Labour Relations Board for confirmation of that. Then their bargaining rights, their bargaining unit and the bargaining agent would continue as previously and there would be no disruption of their situation.
The members of the union committee who were in my office at the time said, "Mr. Lewis, the government won't do that." I asked them, "Why do you say no?" They replied "Because the present contractors cannot meet
April 15, 1970

the requirements of our present collective agreement, and therefore the government will not be able to twist the arms of the contractors to agree to one bargaining unit as provided in the law."
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Realizing the seriousness of the situation in Montreal, I took it upon myself to visit the Minister of Communications the day following or within a day or two of having met this committee. He was good enough to express to me some of the problems he had in the situation. Obviously, they were very real and very serious problems: I do not deny that. I drew his attentiotn to the same section of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act and urged him to take steps to get the contractors to agree to have the one bargaining unit continue as the bargaining agent. In this way, he could have both objectives. Instead of having one contractor doing the job from one headquarters in Montreal, he could have had his four contractors, with the resulting economies which he hoped to achieve by dividing Montreal into four regions. At the same time the workers would have had their seniority, job security, wages and so on guaranteed.
He had not known about that section in the act. I do not blame him for that because it was not his field, as it had been mine for some years. He told me that he would immediately see the Minister of Labour and the Deputy Minister and discuss it with them. Some days later when I asked in this Chamber what had happened, the minister replied that he could not do that because one of the employers was connected with the Teamsters Union. I do not have the answer before me, but that is my clear memory of it.
I have investigated that statement, Mr. Speaker. I regret that it was given by a responsible and respected person-because I do respect him. His reply to my question was the kind of half-truth which demolishes the integrity of the person giving it. I did not speak to the employer concerned, but I am informed that it is true that one employer had some connection with the Teamsters Union. However, the separate unit that was to be created for carrying out the operations under the Post Office contract had nothing to do with the union.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister has risen on a point of order.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I simply want to say to the hon. member that the person who got the contract
The Budget-Mr. Lewis was already unionized by the Teamsters, and that the person who had lost the contract was not unionized by the Teamsters. In other words, what he is suggesting is that in order to make that particular section of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act work, we should have cancelled the contract with the contractor who had it because he had the Teamsters Union in there and was, therefore, from his point of view, no longer eligible.


David Lewis: Not at all, Mr. Speaker. What I am saying to the minister is that there was a corporation which had a contract with the Teamsters, that a separate corporation was going to be set up for the purposes of a contract with the Post Office, and that separate corporation did not have any contract with the Teamsters and could not take over the contractual right of the Teamsters with the other corporation. The two corporations are legally and entirely separate units; the one had nothing to do with the other.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister rises on a point of order.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say that legally the contractor, H. Lapalme, who got that contract, had a contract with the Teamsters. He could have formed any other kind of corporation he wanted. But he is the only one who had a contract, and the connection with the Teamsters which the hon. member is suggesting-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the minister this is not a point of order. At the same time, I wonder whether the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) who has the floor is not pleased that he is getting this debate out of his participation in the budget debate.


David Lewis: I am, Mr. Speaker. I do not mind at all, because I think the minister's interventions show clearly that he did not care about the situation. He did not try to understand it. He did not get any legal advice, and he does not know what he is talking about.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: H. Lapalme had a contract with the Teamsters as H. Lapalme. That does not give him the slightest connection with the Teamsters as an entirely different corporation which was going to be incorporated for the purpose of carrying out the contract with the Post Office. The Teamsters were not in the

April 15, 1970
The Budget-Mr. Lewis picture at all. Had the minister the slightest concern for the situation he could have found that out from a junior lawyer in any firm doing labour relations work.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that there was no obstacle whatever to the minister doing what I suggested. I take no credit for the suggestion; anyone who knew a little about the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act would have given the same advice. Here we had four contractors and one previous bargaining unit. The law provides that you can have one bargaining unit for employees of all contractors if they consent to it. He was one party to the contract with these people and he could have said to them, "As a condition of the contract you have to agree to the employees being in one bargaining unit." That would have made good sense, aside from the difficulties in Montreal.
No employer who wants industrial peace, no employer who is not interested in disrupting labour relations would be happy with a situation where you had four contractors, all doing the same work, the employees of each contractor doing the same work, four separate bargaining units and four separate contracts. No employer in his right mind wants that. Perhaps that is the answer-that the right mind was not there.
When it was suggested to the minister that he get these contractors to agree to one bargaining unit, the suggestion was not merely a concession to the workers. It was a good suggestion in itself from the point of view of labour relations. It was much better to have one contract and one bargaining unit for employees of all contractors doing the same work than four competing contracts with four competing unions trying to outnegotiate each other. There was an easy, simple, human solution, but the Postmaster General would have none of it. Why? Because he did not want the CNTU to remain.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: One of the reasons why I say this, Mr. Speaker-I do it with some hesitation, but I think the situation is so serious that it ought to be made public-is that I am informed on the best authority that there is in the hands of Mr. Goldenberg, the commissioner, a memorandum made at his request in which the Minister of Communications and/or one or other of his officers is quoted as saying that one of the purposes of the entire exercise was to get rid of this CNTU local in the situation in Montreal.
The existence of that memorandum about which I was assured and from which the person who spoke to me had made notes at one point-how he obtained it, I do not know-made me ask the other day that all the documents in Mr. Goldenberg's possession be tabled. When the minister yesterday tabled the documents other than those that were confidential, I shouted across the floor, perhaps improperly, Mr. Speaker, that of course the interesting documents would not be there. Of course they were not, because I suppose that was a confidential document.
That is the first point I make, Mr. Speaker; that the employees and the union concerned were convinced that one of the purposes of the exercise of four contracts of a certain type in a certain context was to get rid of the union. The suspicion was confirmed by what was seen in a memorandum in the confidential possession of Mr. Carl Goldenberg. In Mr. Goldenberg's report there is a clear statement of the reason why the Postmaster General did not want to do what was obviously the right thing, namely, get one bargaining unit and the same bargaining agent. At line 7, page 7, of Mr. Goldenberg's report he deals with the various contracts with the employers as follows:
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I am not in a position to pass a proper judgement on their bids but, on the basis of contemplated wage rates and the attitude to labour relations disclosed to me, I am of the opinion that they-
Namely, the contractors.
-will be unable to fulfil their commitments within the fixed price and, at the same time, maintain industrial peace.
In plain English, as I read Mr. Goldenberg's words, he is saying that the Postmaster General signed the kind of contract with the contractors which made it impossible for them to pay wage rates to the truck drivers which the truck drivers were then receiving, that the contractors had indicated they were not interested in decent labour relations and that therefore the whole thing could not work. That is why nothing was done about using the instrument of the federal labour law in settling the problem in such a way that the employers and the union concerned would have no difficulty.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member at this time, but his time has expired unless there is unanimous approval of the House that he continue. Is this agreed?

April 15, 1970


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Lewis: Sir, I did not realize the time had slipped by so quickly. That was the way, in my submission, to have solved the problem and guaranteed the people the rights they were entitled to. As Mr. Goldenberg points out in that report, we are not dealing with novices, with men who had just started work in this field. We are dealing with men with very considerable service. Mr. Goldenberg sets this out right at the opening of his report, at the bottom of page 2. Of these employees 20 of the 450 had a seniority of 20 years or more, and 88 had a seniority of between 10 and 20 years. So a total of 108 had a seniority of more than 10 years. Of the other employees, 85 had a seniority of between 5 and 10 years. Therefore, a total of almost 200 had a seniority of more than 5 years, and 159 had a seniority of between 2 and 5 years. Of the 450 employees, 360 or so had a seniority of more than two years and about half of that total had seniority of more than ten years. That is a considerable length of service.
In our modern society a man does not work for wages alone. He does not merely acquire wages. In a good union and labour relations situation he also acquires an equity in his job resulting from seniority and other benefits he is able to win collectively through his trade union. By ignoring this, the government caused desperation among these men for no reason whatsoever. That is what made the men so angry about the situation. There was no reason for its happening.
The Postmaster General had it within his power early in February to act wisely. Indeed if he had taken advice, as he should have months before that he would have been able to settle the problem in such a way that the CNTU local would remain and the CNTU bargaining agent would remain, the people concerned would have been reassured about their wages and job security. All this could have been done months ago by the simple application of section 9(3) of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act.
Even though he did not do this before February, and even though his attention was drawn to this matter-it so happens I was the one who drew it to his attention-six or seven weeks before the deadline would have been time enough for him to carry out the policy that would have avoided the desperation, the violence and the disruption that has taken place and threatens to continue in
The Budget-Mr. Lewis Montreal. We are in this mess because of the complete insensitivity of the Postmaster General to the rights of workers.
I am reminded-if I may interrupt myself for a moment-that even a good person cannot escape his background. No one denies that the Postmaster General is a well-meaning person. But his having been president of the Canadian Stock Exchange and the Montreal Stock Exchange was simply not the kind of training that makes possible a good appreciation of labour relations involving ordinary working people in a situation as critical as the one in Montreal. He ought to have stood aside and allowed someone who displayed some sensitivity to labour relations to take over.
The government, having brought the country and the people of Montreal to this mess, then appointed Mr. Goldenberg as a commissioner. He recommended that the government take over the operation in Montreal. It so happens that I have had the pleasure of knowing Mr. Goldenberg since my undergraduate days at McGill ever so many years ago; I hate to say how many. I think Mr. Goldenberg was wrong. I think the advice he gave the government was wrong. It would have made sense if his advice had been that all people who do similar work across Canada everywhere, in every centre of the country, be public servants and in the public service. If that had been the advice and if the government had applied it throughout the country, that would have been one way of acting. But when you enforce on the drivers in Montreal a decision based upon a report designed to clean up a mess for which the government was responsible, that is another thing. The advice was not well based and the government was not wise in accepting it.
I shall not take much more time. I am grateful to hon. members for allowing me this additional time. I wanted to put these things on record for three reasons. First, this is an example of the attitude of this government towards labour relations, and it frightens the hell out of me. It frightens me beyond words that a relatively uncomplicated situation which ought to have been relatively easy to control should have been permitted to develop the way it has developed, with all the consequences it will have on the lives of about 459 Canadians and their families in Montreal. That frightens me and indicates an attitude toward labour relations by the government that does not bode well for the future of that aspect of Canada's activities.

April 15, 1970
The Budget-Mr. Lewis
Second, one can be disturbed also by the way in which this government has dealt with labour relations in the total Public Service. Postal unions are now undergoing a process of conciliation after six months of negotiation. This is the kind of thing that creates bitterness. Third, one hopes that there is still time for the government to change its attitude and to revert to original policy and try to find a responsible contractor or two, three or four contractors in Montreal. I am sure there are such contractors who would take on this job on tenders which would enable them to pay decent wages to the truck drivers, wages similar to those the truck drivers have received until now. In that context the truck drivers ought to be allowed to continue their union membership and their union and collective bargaining rights. There is still time for the government to do this.
I appeal to the two ministers here to take another look at the situation and see whether they cannot do some of the simple things I have suggested, for I fear if the government does not, if the government remains adamant, two things will-not may-happen. One will be a continuing disruption of the postal service in Canada's largest city, accompanied possibly with continued strife and violence. Although I hope there will not be violence, I know enough about the situation to realize that there well may be violence. The second thing that will happen is that several hundred Canadians will be without a job and on the unemployment rolls which this government's policy has increased in size, particularly in Quebec and in Montreal.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has just delivered an impassioned speech based perhaps a little more on what he calls sensitivity and what I call emotion, rather than fact.


David Orlikow: You don't have any emotion.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Perhaps I should regard that as a compliment that the approach is one of reason rather than heartfelt ignorance.


David Lewis: The absence of emotion does not necessarily mean reason.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The hon. gentleman has said that he does not condone violence. He has just finished a speech in which he condemned the adoption by the government of the report of a distinguished labour expert, Dr. Golden-

berg. He has proposed what he states is a simple solution which the government could easily offer and thereby avoid what he predicts, and by his prediction I suggest it is at least a partial invitation to that course of action-


David Lewis: Come on, now!


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I regret-


David Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I resent the suggestion that any of my words were an invitation-


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That is no point of order.


David Lewis: I say to the minister-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair can deal with only one point of order at a time. I am prepared to hear the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury)-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) was first.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: -after I have heard the point of order of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis).


David Lewis: I resent the suggestion of the minister. It is entirely unwarranted. I remind him, the man without emotion who thinks that means he has reason, but I suggest in this case he is perhaps without either, of the letter he sent to the president of the local union in which he made similar predictions and therefore a similar invitation.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, that is not a point of order but merely an intervention. I regret that when I was engaged in a similar operation earlier I yielded and did not pursue the point. I will now. Whether the hon. member resents it or not, I will persist in stating that such a prophecy, preceded by such a pseudo analysis of the present situation, is in itself an invitation to violence. I condemn this.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: You must be in desperate straits.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I have been engaged-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: You are in the mess. Tell us what you are going to do about it.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: With respect to the hon. gentleman Mr. Speaker, I think if anybody is in a mess it is the New Democratic Party.
April 15, 1970


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: It is now in the very unfortunate position of trying to espouse what is in effect an endeavour at the present moment to reject an eminently reasonable offer by the government to provide security of employment to these individuals. The response to this is encouragement to those people who resort to violence. I condemn this and will continue to condemn it in spite of the heckling by the leader, deputy leader and other members of the NDP.


David Lewis: You can lie and condemn at the same time. That is what you are doing.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I challenge the hon. member for York South to substantiate the statement that I am lying.


David Lewis: I did not invite violence.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Either substantiate it or withdraw it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I
remind hon. members that is not the sort of statement that can be made in this House. If the hon. member for York South did so, I invite him to withdraw it.


David Lewis: Since Your Honour was good enough to ask me to rise, I say to Your Honour and the minister that I think it is an irresponsible misrepresentation of the words of a member of this House. On several occasions I went out of my way to express my regret at the violence that has occurred and to appeal to the workers concerned, if they are responsible for the violence, to stop it. I merely said that they are so desperate that violence may occur. I used the words "might happen" not "will happen". For the minister to try to make cheap political capital by misrepresenting my words is utterly reprehensible. If I am not permitted to say the minister was telling a lie, I will withdraw that statement and say that he is guilty of total and reprehensible misrepresentation of what I said.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, during the course of his remarks the hon. member mentioned that everyone is the prisoner of his background. I suggest that perhaps the remarks of the hon. gentleman should be looked at in the light of his particular background. I think there is a lot of truth in the statement that if a man is not a prisoner, he is at least conditioned by his background.
The Budget-Mr. Lewis


David Orlikow: We see it in you. A silver spoon!


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: We should examine the remarks of the hon. member in light of his background. During the course of his remarks the hon. gentleman made mention of the fact-I want to put this on the record-that the President of the Treasury Board was not prepared to sit in the House and listen to these remarks when, in fact, I had to expose myself to them.


David Lewis: I apologize for that.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Secondly, the hon. member said I was smiling in the face of a serious matter. I was smiling because of the introductory remarks with respect to the hon. member's view of the Freeedman report. I copied down what the hon. member said. He said, when looking at the Freedman report, "Let us not be governed by the words he used." This is the kind of approach one often hears-"Don't be entrapped by what the man said; I will tell you what he thought". He then proceeded to give his version of what Mr. Justice Freedman either thought or meant to say. I suggest we should look at what Mr. Justice Freedman said on this occasion. It is a doctrine with which I am in full agreement. An employer does not have the right, or should not endeavour to exercise the right to alter substantially the terms and conditions of the lives of his employees without discussing with them means of alleviating the consequences of changes which would be brought about to the employees advantage.


David Lewis: Oh, oh!


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: If I can proceed without further interruption, I point out to the hon. gentleman that in this case this is not what he said. I have told the hon. member, not what Mr. Justice Freedman thought or meant to say but what he did say. Applying the doctrine of Mr. Justice Freedman in this case, the government should have negotiated with a group of their employees and their union representative before taking action in relation to this operation. I point out to the hon. member that the employees in question had a contract or collective agreement with an independent employer. They were not employees of the government. The government did not have a collective agreement with this particular group of employees.


David Orlikow: Who did the contractor work for?

April 15, 1970
The Budget-Mr. Lewis


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Don't you know?


David Orlikow: Obviously you don't know.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: It is difficult, Mr. Speaker, in the lace of such lack of knowledge of the facts to conduct an intelligent debate.


David Orlikow: Can I ask the minister a question?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No.


David Orlikow: You are afraid, that's why?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I suggest the hon. member should inform himself, I do not have time in my speech to try and correct this state of ignorance on his part. He can read the papers. If the hon. member for York West-


David Lewis: York South. Please get my riding straight.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Excuse me. I apologize. If the hon. member would read the papers tabled in the House he would see that the collective agreement with the Lapalme workers was one which could not have been entered into by the government.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


David Lewis: I did not say it could.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I did not say you did. I said if the hon. member had read it, he would see-


David Lewis: I did read it.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In that case, you would see-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I invite the minister to address his remarks to the Chair, when perhaps there would be less of this Committee of the Whole approach.


David Lewis: It makes it more interesting.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I accept the admonition, and apologise for my lapse. While it may be said that to proceed otherwise would make a better exercise in participatory democracy, I respect the rules and would like to be governed by them. I regret that in leading up to his concluding remarks, which indicated that the government was entirely to blame for the present situation and inferred that those who felt aggrieved could be excused for taking whatever action commended itself to them, the hon. member should have failed to look at the offer which was made.


John Edward Broadbent: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the minister has once again mis-
[Mr Orlikow.]
construed the argument in a basic respect. He said the hon. member for York South-


An hon. Member:: You don't like listening, do you?


John Edward Broadbent: -was suggesting the
Lapalme workers were justified in taking whatever action they wished. My hon. friend from York South said no such thing.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I am not sure whether that is a question of privilege or not, but I will continue. The hon. member for York South did not take the trouble to analyse the offer made by the government or the reasons given for the rejection of that offer. He will find, if he takes the trouble to read the latest information about it, that it does incorporate virtually all the provisions which were sought, and which the government has in its power to grant under the existing law. The workers, in the hon. member's view, were entitled to job security. This has been offered.


David Orlikow: At the end of the negotiations, not at the beginning.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: If the hon. member who is talking from his seat had followed this discussion closely, he would appreciate the dichotomy which exists in his party. I have been accused of inflexibility, of stubbornness, of being unwilling to make concessions, yet the hon. member is making exactly the opposite charge. It is difficult, I know, to have your cake and eat it but the N.D.P. is in full swing, as usual, trying to do it.


David Lewis: It is not cake, though.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The workers have been offered job security, they have been offered a very satisfactory living wage, they have been offered the right to apply, like other citizens of Canada, for the bargaining union of their choice.


David Lewis: What do you mean, "offered"? They have that right already. They do not need your offer.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: One has to tell them they have it.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The government is charged with not being generous in its offer, or with claiming generosity in respect of the offer. My submission is that the offer made by the government is a fair one. It rectifies all the alleged omissions listed by the hon. member. But he did not take the trouble to look at it and explain in what way it is unsatisfactory.
April 15. 1970	COMMONS
According to him, the government is at fault for not offering something better, and the failure of the union to accept it will result in continuing disruption of the postal service in Montreal and a situation which, though he would deplore it, might result in violence in that city. I would deplore it, too.


David Lewis: And in unemployment.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: It would have been very much more constructive had the hon. member addressed himself to the situation as it is today, to the kind of offer which has been made, the kind of offer which has been rejected-


David Lewis: You would like that, wouldn't
you?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: -instead of threshing old straw.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
minister a question, since his time has not expired? First, would he tell the House, in connection with this offer of which he speaks, whether the length of service with which these men are to be credited is given them as a permanent thing, or whether this seniority position will be in effect for only three months; second, whether the wage rate offered is a definite wage rate or whether it is subject to the result of negotiations by the Council of Postal Unions; third, whether he thinks that the desperate attitude of the drivers in Montreal does not stem from previous failures rather than merely from their present position with regard to his offer.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I am a little surprised I shoud be asked a question about seniority and wage matters. That question has already been asked, and I have given full information. Nevertheless, I will repeat that the wage offer, is that their current wage rate should continue until such time as a new contract is signed between the Council of Postal Unions and the government. At that point, employees who have previously been employed with the Lapalme firm will receive wages as fixed under the new agreement.
Second, with regard to seniority, this is a term which covers a great many facets of postal operations. The aspect to which the hon. member refers is the position of preference in relation to assignments, in relation to shifts and the taking of vacations. Seniority has been offered to the Lapalme workers for a period of three months in preference to anybody else. After that, they will not enjoy 22218-28J
DEBATES	5907
The Budget-Mr. Macquarrie this exclusive preference in relation to the particular area of work in which they have been operating.
The hon. member asked me, finally, whether I feel the Lapalme workers are justified in feeling resentment. I am not sure whether the connotation is that they were justified in taking the action they have taken.


David Lewis: No.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: There does exist, quite understandably, some apprehension among these workers as to their future status and this apprehension, this worry, produces disturbance. I do not deny this at all. I am fully sympathetic to this worry on their part. Not unnaturally, they wish to do as well for themselves as they can. I recognize this. But I do not recognize for a moment that this apprehension, this desire to better their situation justifies in any way or at any time acts of violence against other people. I repeat, I object to those who hypocritically or otherwise represent actions of this kind as being in any way justifiable or seek to condone them.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, this has not in the last few minutes been a particularly agreeable or stimulating debate. I found it somewhat reprehensible on the part of the minister to suggest that the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) in forecasting what might happen, was inferring that it ought to happen. I have been convinced for weeks that the government's case was far from strong. The exchanges we have heard this afternoon, on the lines of "you did-I didn't" convince me that its case is indeed abysmally weak.
I am sure no man of the stature of the hon. member for York South would in any way rejoice at violence. Nor would I. But the fact is, things have happened in Montreal in recent weeks and this, together with recent fiascos in the management field, would lead anyone interested in the social scene to fear a recurrence. I am one of those who believe in vigorous protest but never in violent protest. Never at any time have I had conversations with the men involved here, or with the union. I am prepared, however, to accept the charge of being emotional. I am definitely susceptible to emotion on occasions where human suffering is involved. If I say I am profoundly disturbed by the thought of what it may mean to their dependants, let me point out that after many agonizing weeks of uncertainty, of brittleness and expectance of
5908	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Macquarrie finding themselves removed from their livelihoods they are still uncertain. If that be emotion, make the most of it.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I think, too, that this long and agonizing problem affects more than the unions and more than cabinet members in their relevant positions within cabinet; it affects the public not only in Montreal but in all of Canada. The government, through whichever minister at a given time was its spokesman, has been far less than sufficiently forthcoming in dealing with the problems of these people. Such information we have has been received through press releases or through speculative reports of digging newspapermen. This is not good enough. The people of Canada have a mighty important stake in this matter.
This particular problem is one of the most painful and serious eruptions in the postal service itself. It is an eruption in a service which for a long, long time has been something less than healthy. I am often amazed at the frequent expressions of the daily press that today mail service in Montreal is near normal. Even when it is normal it is terrible. There is a backlog there which is abominable.
I have a file of letters 18 inches high testifying to the outrageous service which is being visited upon the people of Montreal and the people whose service is dependent upon transit of mail through Montreal.
I hope in our great concern for this particular and unique problem we do not forget that the deterioration of the Post Office Department has been a problem for the past few months. As a result of this deplorable mess we have found an incapacity to deal with some basic considerations. There is the question of job security which has been in existence for some time. No man need be a leading cabinet member or an expert in labour relations to realize the importance of the question of job security. Commissioner Goldenberg noted this in his report, which strikes me in itself as a clear and definite indictment of the government.
Mr. Goldenberg did not have much time to work on that report, but conceivably it did not take him too long to size up the situation in the eleventh-hour assignment given to him. It strikes me he lays the blame pretty definitely at the door of the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) and his colleagues. He tells us that the G. Lapalme employees were fearful of the loss of their status and rights as employees under their collective agreement,
[Mr. Macquarrie.!
DEBATES	April 15. 1970
and that this created a state of fear, insecurity and demoralization. Who would not realize that this would be the kind of reaction of these men, many of whom had been involved in carrying the nation's mail for many years and doing a very good job of it? I notice, as well, that Mr. Goldenberg examined carefully the reasons Lapalme was not able to continue. He goes back to one of the points many of us have been discussing for months and months. He refers to the reduction in postal services from six days to five days. We need not go into that question now, but it will be gone into again and again.
Another interesting thing is that Lapalme advised the union and asked for its co-operation in preparing its tender. Mr. Goldenberg went on to say that considering that tenders would be based on rates of pay below those in effect under the collective agreement, the union refused to negotiate. Accordingly, Lapalme did not tender for any of the five contracts. Much of this problem has stemmed from that will-o-the-wisp search of the Postmaster General for some measure of economy in order that he could somehow, some day in some way prove that, by jove, he would make this department pay. The public will be appalled when the full bill in dollars and cents, to say nothing in terms of human measurements, comes in. This will be one of the most costly fiascos since the costly abandonment of the Prince Edward Island causeway. If the Auditor General is still around next year, I predict he will find an interesting situation here.
I do not know that there is much value in my continuing the denunciation which was so eloquently put forward by the hon. member for York South. We have reached the stage where to condemn is not to be helpful. Surely the government does not need me to dig it deeper into this mess. I would not want to do that at this stage of the game because I think through its ineptitude, at least to the extent of 90 per cent, we are facing a serious situation. I do not know what will be done tomorrow and I do not know where the government will get experienced men. I do not know what is in store for the long-suffering people of Montreal.
I note, to my horror, that in this whole mess there was more concern for the trucks than for the truck drivers, because in one of the contracts with Lapalme there was reference to the fact that the government, if it took over the service, would purchase the trucks. What about the drivers? Perhaps I am
April 15. 1970

being emotional in suggesting that the drivers are more important. We have not been told the story about this cost and I endeavoured yesterday to obtain this information from the minister. He is a little more evasive than the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) and a little less arrogant, but the combination of the two is not very helpful.
o (4:20 p.m.)
I wonder whether in its last offer-the kind of thing which had it been made weeks ago might have avoided a great deal of trouble- the government might have reached a situation where the whole concept of the illusory notion of economy had been by-passed and might have reached a stage where the minister might reasonably have said that this is not working, that a mistake has been made and that we should go back to an earlier situation and carry on.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A mistake! They would never admit that.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: This is something, it
would strike me, that rational, reasonable men more concerned with saving the situation than with saving face might have done. I was impressed by the latest emanation from the office of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury). I refer to this long, precise and brittle letter to the President of the National Syndicate of Employees dated April 14. We talk about the politics of confrontation: it is all here, not any notion of gentility of emotion. At the end of the letter, in the final paragraph, I come to something that is very interesting. This will be of great concern to many people:
May we suggest to you that you inform your members that they have until midnight on Wednesday the 15th to accept the government's offer. After that date, we shall fill our positions but the employees who are hired will obviously not be able to claim the special advantages which we have offered to you.
There will be reflection upon that in many places in the future.
The public has the right to require an efficient postal service and the government has the duty to furnish such a service.
I would say, in the discharge of that duty, there is no room even for self-applause on the part of the President of the Treasury Board. The government has failed abysmally in this matter. I hope in the eleventh hour-


An hon. Member:: Five minutes to midnight.

The Budget-Mr. Kierans


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: -five minutes to midnight, as my friend says-they might be able to discard a little of their brittleness and exercise a little reasonableness, because we do not want any more trouble in the Post Office than we have had in the past many months. No one gains any satisfaction from the fact of the government being embarrassed over the Post Office. This has happened so many times that there is not much novelty to it now. The real novelty we would like to have in this country is good mail service.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I wonder would the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) permit a question?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I will attempt it.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I confess that throughout the whole operation I have been looking for advice and seeking views. The hon. member suggested that perhaps we had not proceeded in the best possible way, and I believe he suggested that rather than proceed as we are now we should go back and carry on. I have in mind that he means carry on something done before. Would he indicate to me what we should be carrying on.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, that is a bit unfair. Without being immodest, I think I could have helped him some time ago, but surely on April 15, just hours before the deadline, he is not going to ask me to solve the problem for him. It is a little too late. I think he knows I was talking about the contract rather than government service. The government, as I understand it, has gone back to pretty much the same cost as the contract would have been. He should have asked me a week ago for real help.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, there are always a great many speeches made by people in which they say they never
condone violence and they always wind up by saying "but we can understand it", whereas in the case of the hon. member who opened this discussion, he can excuse it.


David Orlikow: You precipitated it.


Eric William Kierans: He can place the blame somewhere, and somehow he can rationalize violence although he does not condone it; he can only excuse it.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege or on a point of order, whichever you like, this is the last time I will rise on

April 15, 1970
The Budget-Mr. Kierans this point but I hope the minister has something on which he can really defend mismanagement, instead of saying that I excuse the violence which I think is an obvious and not really honest misrepresentation of what I said.


Eric William Kierans: We will wait for Hansard to confirm that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We will wait for Hansard.


Eric William Kierans: The point I want to make is that we did not suddenly face the employees of Lapalme or the CNTU with a midnight deadline. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) said that we are now exerting this blackmail or pressure on them. This goes back to at least a year ago January. I am sure the hon. member must know this because we went through 32 days of violence and intimidation in February and March of last year. At that time, on March 3, I publicly announced that as a solution I intended to take over the delivery service in Montreal. The terms were almost as generous as those offered by my colleague during the recent negotiations. But the refusal was for exactly the same reason: the refusal was that there was no legal way in which the government could recognize a union prior to taking in its members.
At that time I said that since the members of this particular union had lost their employer, Hod Service Limited, we were now going to substitute ourselves. I said that the great majority of the drivers employed by Rod Service at that time would be offered employment, and I urged them to report for work as usual on March 14. The following day the postmaster of Montreal sent out a letter. Within 24 hours of the members acting on their own accord we had well over 200 applications. But that particular arrangement was not consummated or completed because the union began to think of itself and its position rather than that of its members. So eventually, since the union had had a collective agreement with an employer, Rod Service, that was to last until March 31, 1970, we in the Post Office decided we would recognize that agreement although it was not our responsibility that they had lost their employer. Their employer, working with them, could ho longer provide the services to which the people of Montreal were entitled.
We decided to ask other people and to approach many trucking firms in Montreal to See whether they were interested in taking

over the contracts and the members. We were successful in doing so. At that time over a year ago-this is not midnight tonight-we warned the members of the union that this was the last one-year contract. We advised them that whatever might be the solution, whether the government would take over the services or go to tender as it does throughout the country, there would be a different solution to the problem because, as my colleague has said, this insecurity and uncertainty has recurred annually.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
It was not good for them, it was not good for the Post Office and it certainly was not good for the people of Montreal because in the three years up to that time there had been five stoppages of work and five threats which have been carried out, of which only one was legal. They were clearly warned. They were also told at the same time that instead of 398 employees, the Post Office felt that the work could be done by a reallocation of the work load, by a scrapping of the old method of dividing services provided into departments and rearranging them geographically into sectors. We believed that this would lead to increasing productivity and would lower the cost to the taxpayers of Canada. In effect, while we agreed to Lapalme taking over 396 employees, we felt that progressively the work could be done by fewer and fewer people and that the appropriate number, including management personnel and supervisory staff, might be something like 330.
They were well aware of this, but during the past year the members acquired control of the union and of the 459 members only three, the two Lapalme brothers who own the operation and their general manager, Mr. Breton, were not members of the union. They progressively increased the cost to the people of Canada. So that the staff did not go down from 396 to 330 but went up from 396 to 459.
I do not wish to recite all of the attendant malpractices both from a union point of view as well as a management point of view that have taken place during the past year, because I do not wish to criticize either union or management here. Suffice it to say that there was every justification for looking for better ways of providing service to the people of Montreal, and the Post Office was bound in its responsibility to the taxpayers of Canada to seek them. This we did.
April 15, 1970

It is not midnight to night that becomes a sudden threat, as the hon. member for York South seeks to imply. But even leaving aside the dates of January, 1969, and March 1969, it was last September when the contractor and the union were officially notified that we intended to go to tenders. Here I refer to the misrepresentation that the hon. member for York South is seeking to impose on this House that some of us on this side have never read the Freedman report or have no understanding of what the report is all about. We do. Mr. Justice Freedman could not have asked for anything more than we have done, because the people who are talking about midnight tonight were notified in September of 1969, which is beyond the six months that Mr. Justice Freedman suggested.


David Lewis: Of what were they notified?


Eric William Kierans: They were notified that we were going for tenders and that there was therefore a possibility that there would be new employers. So there was a clear indication to everyone concerned. But what happened during the six months was not that they either sought to co-operate with their employer or sought to retain the contracts; in fact, their actions were the complete reverse. So much so-and I come to the famous meeting with the hon. member for York South to which I would not have referred, but he has done it first-that again they lost an employer, and just as Rod Services felt they could no longer continue to operate with the costs, with the lack of productivity, with the lack of loyalty to the service, to the employer and to the people of Montreal, they decided not to submit a tender under the existing contractor's name but to submit a tender under another operation that they control, namely H. Lapalme.
One of the clear advantages of this to the Lapalme brothers was that they felt that in dealing with the Teamsters they would be dealing with a more responsible union that would take account of its contractual obligations. In other words, I am as pro-union as any man in this chamber but I am not one of those who is willing to say that at all times, under all conditions and in all places a union is eternally right. A union, just like a business, large or small, can price itself out of a particular market. This appears to be what the present union is doing.
On February 4 the members of the union went to see the hon. member-it was not in early March-and on February 9 he came to
The Budget-Mr. Kierans see me. We went over the suggestion that he proposed. I was looking for solutions and I told him that I would consider it. But I also presented to him a number of hard facts; that the cost of delivering mail in Montreal had gone up about 73 per cent in four years, whereas the cost of delivering mail in Toronto, with a more rapidly increasing volume and operating from the same base within a difference of three or four cents, had gone up 33 per cent, and that in all conscience as custodian of the public interest I had had to ask for tenders.
I am not saying whether or not he agreed with any of this. I am simply saying that he proposed that I look into the possibility of asking the new contractors to recognize the CNTU in some global fashion or in some partial shape-up fashion, and to agree to hire all the employees that they needed from the prevailing seniority list. But I am sure the hon. member is aware of one fundamental condition in that possibility, that is that the contractors themselves have to agree or consent.
What made his solution impossible is that the contractors would not consent because at this time there was all the evidence of violence which led them, whatever might have been their original intentions, to pull back progressively from hiring those who were responsible for the violence, those who reduced the number of mailboxes in Montreal from 1,800 to 400 and who today fired two bullets into a car in downtown Montreal, a security car protecting the royal mail. They were unwilling, and so the solution that he proposed at that time fell of its own weight. It also fell for another reason, which accounts for the silence of the hon. member since that time, aside from a few inconsequential questions and his last-minute, midnight interest in this problem.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I informed him that one of the contractors to whom we had given the contract was H. Lapalme Transport Ltee., that this man had a union, and that that union was the Teamsters. It is all very well for the hon. member to hint, suggest and imply that legally it would have been possible for him to set up another phantom company, but the contract was not given to another phantom company; it was given to H. Lapalme Transport Ltee., and precisely for the reasons that, according to him at the time, he had the Teamsters and nobody else. And the hon. member, whose interest in the Teamsters and the CLC are at
April 15, 1970

The Budget-Mr. Kievans least as great, I would have thought, as his interest in seeing that justice is done to the CNTU, became very quiet.


David Lewis: Oh, come on!


Eric William Kierans: I am simply telling the hon. member that. I am not the one who raised that conversation. He raised it, not me. He suggests that I committed a heinous offence in not including in my tenders the following three clauses: that whoever gets a tender must subscribe to and guarantee the job security of those who work for the firm that had lost the tender; that those who get a tender must guarantee the salaries, after they employ them, of those who worked for the firm that lost the tender; and that those who get a tender must agree to take in and certify the union of those who had lost the tender, regardless of what unions they may have had, what employees they may have had or what this might have done to their prevailing wage rates. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, why in hell should you ask for tenders if you are going to put in this type of condition; and who is going to submit quotations in response to tenders that contain such conditions?
I am as sensitive as the hon. member to the fact that labour legislation may swing this way some day, and perhaps it should swing this way some day; but I say to him that when it does, and if it does, it should be after a full-scale debate in this House in which all of us decide that that is what we want, and not in reply to bullets through windshields or violence in the streets of Montreal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, there is not very much more I want to say about this matter, except that the government has been patient, it has been tolerant and it has been generous. It has used up several ministers in the process.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eric William Kierans: No, I may say it. When those of us who have been involved in this began to lose a little patience, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)-and I applaud him for it-wisely decided that he would bring in my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), whose patience is limitless and had not been used up. I must say that I, as Postmaster General, appreciate all that he has done in the past several weeks to achieve a solution. I applaud him and thank him for what he has done, not only for me personally

but also for the 48,000 people who work in the Post Office, for the rest of this government and particularly for the people of Canada.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saini-Hyacinihe):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to take a few minutes to entertain the House on a subject not connected with the Post Office, but which is extremely important for a great number of my fellow citizens, and also for a great number of Canadians from other constituencies.
I should like to illustrate that we must urgently take steps to protect a homegrown industry, namely the textile products industry.
In the past years, this law-abiding industry has behaved as a good citizen. We should therefore give it the consideration it deserves. It played an important part during the war, and thereby not only won the praise of the public, but is also entitled to its gratitude.
The textile industry is going through very difficult times. It is not looking for charity nor is it asking for subsidies, but it does want to know if the present government wants a Canadian textile industry or not. It wants to continue sharing in the development of Canada and providing employment for Canadians. Workers in the textile industry are not seeking favours, they merely want the opportunity to continue working at a trade they have been practicing for a long time in order to be able to provide for their families.
Labour unions are not asking for favours either, they only want to go on working to improve the conditions of workers in this industry and prevent them from becoming unemployed.
All these good citizens want only one thing, and they deserve it: more attention from the government.
Let us examine rapidly the official figures in order to find out what the textile and clothing industry means to Canada.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
The textile industry has been established in the province of Quebec since 1845. Indeed, the first textile plant or mill as we used to say was founded in the city of Sherbrooke.
Today, the textile industry has 37 plants and employs 83,000 Canadians. In the province of Quebec, 47,000 people earn their living in primary textile products industries. In Ontario and the Maritimes, many have found
April 15, 1970

a job in the textile industry. In Quebec, the annual production of primary textile products is valued at $850 million. From 1946 to 1967, the cotton industry spent the impressive amount of $350 million on the construction and repairs of buildings alone. From 1960 to 1964, the productivity of textile plants increased almost fivefold.
During the past ten years, it is interesting to note that the price of textile products has remained almost the same. There has been only a slight increase and this in spite of the fact that the industry had to face the problem of salary increases and higher costs for services and transport.
As for the clothing industry, it provides employment to 110,000 workers, 50,000 of them in Montreal, 19,000 in Toronto and 6,000 in Winnipeg.
Let me remind you that in the forties, the Canadian textile industry supplied about 75 per cent of the domestic market. Today, it scarcely supplies 60 per cent of the consumption and if the present economic conditions persist, it is to be expected, Mr. Speaker, that its share of the Canadian market will dwindle even more. What are the reasons for the smaller share of the Canadian market going to the Canadian industry? Imports from countries where labour is cheap are mainly responsible for that.
I would like at this stage to quote a few statistics to better enlighten the House on the conditions existing in this industry.
Imports from Japan, which were 2 million pounds in 1954, have now reached 37 million pounds. In 1954 imports from Asia totalled 4 million pounds, today they amount to 47 million pounds. In 1954, we were importing one million pounds of textile products from eastern Europe, when today 20 million pounds find their way into Canada. From low income countries we were importing half a million pounds in 1954, and today we get 15 million pounds from them.
As far as the United States are concerned, their exports to Canada have increased from 68 million pounds in 1954 to 110 million pounds today.
Our imports from the United Kingdom are still much the same, that is 26 million pounds annually.
These increases in our imports, Mr. Speaker, have resulted in 5,000 fewer jobs since 1966. As for the shirt industry, statistics are shocking.
The Budget-Mr. Ricard
One can read at page 36 of a publication entitled L'avenir du textile et du vetement au Quebec, the following:
Our industry makes up 50 per cent of the total market. In 1966, total imports of shirts represented only 25 per cent of the whole market. Imports have doubled in less than three years.
Further on, the following comparison is given:
In 1965, domestic production amounted to 1,841,000 dozens: imports, to roughly 750,000 dozens.
In 1966, domestic production amounted to 1,674,000 dozens; imports, to 764,000 dozens. In 1967, domestic production was 1,477,000 dozens and imports 1,042,000 dozens. In 1968, domestic production amounted to 1,296,000 dozens and imports to 1,400,000 dozens.
I go back to the quotation:
In the first three months of 1969, total imports of shirts increased by 70,000 dozens-
Such statistics are surely conducive to some concern on our part. They constitute warnings of which the government should take note even now.
The leaders of the textile and clothing industries, as well as those of labour unions have been expecting the government to come out with a textile policy, but it has yet to come.
A few statements have already been made on the matter.
The April 7 issue of the Globe & Mail gives an account of what was said by Mr. E. Douglas James, President of the Cotton Institute of Canada and of Cosmos Imperial Mills Limited, of Toronto, a company employing 1,500 workers. I quote:

If they say they don't want a textile industry we will be ready to close down our mills. If they say they want a viable industry we're prepared to stay.
When Mr. James says "they", he means the government.

In the same article, we can also find what was said by Mr. Gerald Bruck, President of Bruck Mills Limited, of Montreal. Here is what it says, and I quote:

The plants are in great shape. They (the manufacturers) are paying a lot for labour and they are pressured by imports.
Mr. B. S. Saunders, managing director of Wabasco in Montreal, says:
This lack of information is like going to the doctor and getting all the x-rays taken and having

April 15, 1970
The Budget-Mr. Ricard
him say, "come back in two weeks" and six months later still nothing has happened.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)

It would be interesting to know what the officials of some industries, one of which is a local one, are thinking. I have here a letter addressed to me by Mr. Midgley, Vice-President and General Manager of Penman's Limited, which reads in part as follows:

You undoubtedly know that the government is in the process of considering the above-mentioned subject and that an announcement is expected in the near future. For many years, the industry has called upon the government for a statement of policy. The main problem which has just been made public, and with which you are conversant, is that of "imports at low prices".
The need of a policy is proving obvious, because manufacturers want to determine whether their position is viable before making capital available in the future for investments which could create new jobs. Canadian manufacturers supply at the present time only 50 per cent of the domestic textile market. We are the only country with such a fully developed industry to tolerate imports of goods at low prices in such quantities that they become the cause of such harmful pressures.
What we are seeking is a statement of policy concerning the role which our industry will be called upon to play in Canada, in order to prepare adequate plans.

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian textile industry wants to know whether or not this government wishes it to continue its operations. For 1967 alone, if the products which came from countries with low production costs had been manufactured in Canada, the Canadian textile industry could have offered 20,000 more jobs than it does now.
Is it the intention of the government to give the death blow to the textile industry? It is time that those interested in this industry know what the situation is, and that as soon as possible.
When we consider the efforts made by management in this industry and its longtime investments in Canada, it seems desirable to limit imports so that the Canadian industry may rely on 70 per cent of the Canadian market. As I say, the Canadian industry does not want subsidies; it only wants to know whether the government really wants it to carry on. It is a very simple and straightforward question. It is time for the government, who has been beating around

the bush for months, to stop doing so, in the best interests, not only of the industry but also of the workers and of their families to whom it provides their daily bread.
Is it really to much to ask the government to take the necessary steps in order to preserve one of our oldest industries? I do not think so.
I believe that it could be possible to allow this industry to provide more jobs, since, according to its own information, if it could be assured of a share representing 70 per cent of the Canadian market, it could, from now until 1975, guarantee 16,000 or 18,000 extra jobs.
Since the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) spends millions of dollars to promote new industries, it would probably be only logical to try, at least, to keep those already existing in this country. I believe that I am not asking too much and I wish the responsible minister, that is the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), would tell the public, and this, as soon as possible, what the government policy towards the textile industry will be in the years to come.


Mr. Rud L. Whiting (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, although it is a little over a month since the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) presented his budget, I expected to receive more comments than I did as I travelled through my constituency during the Easter recess.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The people know it is no use commenting.


Rutherford (Rud) Lester Whiting: It may be that the budget was received by the people as a sort of anticlimax, the minister having received his due share of public attention during the past few months. This is not to say that the budget that he presented did not parallel his previous budget as to the timeliness and appropriate measures which it contained. We are all aware that inflation was the No. 1 problem around which he had to build his budget. I think the government is to be commended for the introduction of credit controls.
I recently raised a question in the House on the indiscriminatory manner in which leading financial institutions and various companies engaged in retailing are distributing credit cards. I am pleased to see that the government is investigating the use of credit cards and the effect these cards are having on inflation. It is my contention that this credit could serve Canada far better if it were granted in order to increase the productivity and efficiency of this country. It is through increased
April 15, 1970	COMMONS
productivity and efficiency that we will break the back of inflation, and not through the indiscriminate distribution of credit cards. I am thinking of the man, for example, who could be given the same credit with which to expand his plant, to buy more efficient machinery, to update his manufacturing methods to lower the cost of his products, thereby helping to beat inflation and also to create more jobs.
In the minister's reference to the economic prospects and fiscal outlook for the coming year he anticipates that the growth rate will be lower by between 1.5 per cent and 2 per cent than last year's rate of 4.8 per cent. Wlhile there will be an increase in employment, it will not keep pace with the growth of the labour force, resulting in an increase in unemployment. The latter is evident now. In this respect, in my opinion the record should be set straight. This government is not using unemployment as a tool to fight inflation, as implied by certain opposition members of this House and certain groups outside. No government, Mr. Speaker, could be so callous or cruel. I for one could not be party to such action.
To me, labour leaders today should show the same foresight as leaders in the business community did in co-operating with the Prices and Incomes Commission in trying to control price increases, instead of their present attitude of criticizing the government's attempt to fight inflation. We are all aware that every labour union in this country is an autonomous group. Nevertheless, the men who speak nationally for labour might well have endorsed in principle a policy of wage restraint during this critical period and in so doing displayed leadership to the men and groups they represent. Surely labour should be co-operating with the government and be thinking of the job security of their workers, because indeed, Mr. Speaker, if they do not inflation will continue and unemployment will increase in direct ratio to the rate of inflation.
Another matter I would like to bring to the attention of this House is a recent statement made by the Governor of the Bank of Canada, who stated that 7.75 million man-days were lost as a result of Canadian strikes in 1969. These strikes and the hardships they cause to the membership of the union, the business and the community involved are, in my opinion, another direct effect of inflation. Unless inflation is brought under control we can look for more strikes, more bitterness and more strain. So inflation is not only a dollars and cents proposition; it tears at the very
DEBATES	5915
The Budget-Mr. Whiting fabric of Canadian life by dividing us in this way. So again I call upon labour to co-operate with the Prices and Incomes Commission in its efforts to control rising prices. This cannot help but improve employment conditions.
It is no secret, Mr. Speaker, that I represent the riding with the highest per capita income in Canada. This means that my constituents are presently carrying a better than average taxation load. So it is no wonder that they are most concerned by the effects the final version of the white paper will have on their lives.
I was pleased when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in his speech at a fund-raising dinner in Toronto, reassured the people of Canada that the white paper contained proposals only and the legislation which will ultimately be brought before this House will contain many of the suggested changes submitted by thoughtful people. I was pleased because this was an assurance to the people of Halton who have taken the time to make many worth-while suggestions that we will end up with a tax structure that will be fair and equitable. Although I have received a few "nut" letters, the majority of the hundreds I have received have been constructive and well thought out.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
The great majority of these letters were primarily concerned with the deemed realization of capital gains every five years in equity ownership of widely held Canadian corporations and the elimination of the preferred tax rate on the first $35,000 of corporate earnings which would have its greatest effect on small companies. For example, the Oakville Chamber of Commerce in their letter to me stated that the deemed realization of shares in widely held Canadian corporations is discriminatory and elimination of the preferred tax would be punitive. However, I am happy to see that the Minister of Finance has already stated and has asked the committees studying the white paper to consider some method to offset the adverse effect that an increased tax would have on small companies.
I wish to make a suggestion to the members of the committees. I believe they should call in officials from the Industrial Development Bank when this proposal is being studied. I believe that the Industrial Development Bank could provide the committee with a lot of very useful information in this area, because they are dealing constantly with small businessmen and businessmen in general and they know their problems.
April 15, 1970

The Budget-Mr. Whiting
Other suggestions I received were concerned with the proposed capital gains tax on the appreciation in the value of homes and personal possessions. It was felt that it was unrealistic and should be changed. A $1,000 limit in Halton is not feasible because houses have appreciated $2,000 and more per year. I have the figures to prove this. I urge the committee to study this proposal very carefully because I hope it is not the government's intention to collect taxes on the sale of private homes. I hope it is not the intention to tax a man who, say, receives a promotion or wishes to upgrade his living standard and sells his old home at a capital gain in excess of $1,000 per year, plus the cost of repairs, to buy a more expensive home: Surely it is not the intention to penalize this individual. Many other letters dealt with the proposals to increase tax on earning from $10,000 to $20,000 per year.
If the legislation, when enacted, produces the surplus projected, I recommend to this House that this surplus be used to reduce the tax burden, rather than launching into any more universal welfare programs. I must say that most of my constituents are in favour of the principle of capital gains but do not agree that it be set at the same rate as that of income, and further, that should a capital gains tax become law, the estates tax should be substantially reduced or abolished.
I think that I have received a directive from my constituents through these letters and comments, and I believe this is the case with every member of this House. I therefore regard it as my duty as the member for Halton to express the views of my constituents and to represent these views in this House. The people of Halton have been genuine in their desire to play a part in participatory democracy. Many have written me more than once, clarifying and sometimes tempering their suggestions or strengthening the points they had made previously. I have met through their letters people in my riding whom I might never have been in contact with otherwise. It has been a warm experience in most cases, as have been the meetings I have attended. Courtesy by those who disagree has been impressive. I was pleased that my coupon mail showed that almost everyone knew their member's name. It was not because of my constituents that Mr. Brown lost his Ottawa post office.
I would now like to discuss a problem which is of vital concern to me and to many other members of this House. Over the past

two years I have been called upon by three municipalities in my riding-Acton, Georgetown and Milton-which have received what might almost be termed ultimatums from our national railways. Canadian National Railways advised the town of Acton that they proposed to remove the agent and all railway business would be transacted from their Guelph master agency. I dealt with this in my maiden speech. Apparently, the CNR did not get the copy of Hansard I sent them because the station agent was subsequently removed.
The town of Georgetown has received word that certain passenger trains which have served the people of Georgetown for many years are to be discontinued. A hearing was held before the Railway Transport Committee of the Canadian Transport Commission. This discontinuance of service will also affect the town of Acton. The town of Milton received word from Canadian Pacific Railway that it intended to curtail passenger train service in that community. Previously, four trains serviced Milton, but now this service has been cut in half. Canadian National Railways has long since discontinued passenger service here also.
It would appear that when either of the railways set upon a course of action there is little that can be done to stop them. It is true that hearings are held, but having attended and participated in the hearing held in Acton I am convinced it is little more than shadowboxing. The communities have really no facilities at their disposal, while the railways appear with their pseudo experts armed with their slide rules and brief case loaded with data and statistics, but not necessarily relevant facts. It all looks very sincere, honest and impressive, but it always seems there is one thing overlooked-the people. Of course, standing up for the people is like being in favour of motherhood in the eyes of the commissioners. Nevertheless, there is something lost in the community when railroads take these actions. A way of life that has helped to make these communities a desirable place to live is being taken away. And further, these changes create many inconveniences. For example, the discontinuance of the trains in Georgetown will have a far-reaching impact upon the public's convenience and necessity for transportation service, particularly between Georgetown and Toronto. These trains are used by people who wish to travel back and forth between the two communities as well as by regular commuters.
April 15, 1970	COMMONS
We hear a lot today that we should guard with all our might against impeding the development of small business, but what about the small communities? Should we not have equal regard for them? I think we should. It would seem that in any decisions that are handed down by the Transport Commission, the benefits that would accrue to the railroads are always upheld. Of course, the plea of the railroads at any of these hearings is the need for economy, but are the railroads the only -consideration in cases of this kind? I believe that decisions of this nature have broader implications and go far beyond the Canadian Transport Commission.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Our highways, for example, are being plugged with automobiles, and ways and means must be found to alleviate this situation. The cost of building highways is astronomical. Train service is one of the answers: this is proved by the Go train service running east and west out of Toronto. While highways are a matter of provincial jurisdiction, nevertheless this does not prevent the railways from co-operating with the provinces, with federal backing. The railways have played a dominant role in the building of Canada and they are responsible for the location of many of our present day communities. They have contributed to the prosperity of those communities. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker the railways have a new role to play. There is a growing transportation problem in this country and the railways must provide part of the solution. Highways cost money, and if the railways will lessen the need for highways, why should we demand that every branch line and every station has to pay its way? The federal government should have something to say. I believe it is time we had a national transportation policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Rutherford (Rud) Lester Whiting: Welfare, Mr. Speaker, is a part of any budget. Any way which can be found *of reducing these charges means a reduction in taxes for all taxpayers. More than costs are involved. In my opinion, one of the greatest social injustices we have in Canada is that suffered by deserted wives and children. Not only does the husband who deserts throw the support of his family on the shoulders of the taxpayers, but he can run around Canada without responsibilities, having himself a fine old time. If he can be located, then our courts can take the necessary action to make him assume his share of the burden of raising his
DEBATES	5917
The Budget-Mr. Whiting family and housing his wife. But I was surprised to find out how hard this location problem is for the wives.
Remember, these are women who are suddenly left alone, without means of support other than mothers' allowance paid by the province, of which the federal government pays half, and any welfare assistance they are able to secure. Her state of existence is surely one to wrench at your heartstrings. I recommend that hon. members who are not lawyers should take the time to talk to family court judges in their ridings and listen to them outlining the problems they face in trying to assist these deserted wives. I have had discussions with the provincial family court judge, Judge Kenneth Langdon, in my riding of Hal ton. I have also discussed this question with lawyers, social workers and police officials. They all agree that this is a pressing and serious problem.
Let me give the House an example of one case which occurred in my own constituency. A mother with four children, two of them of pre-school age, called me requesting some assistance in obtaining a Canada Manpower retraining course. Her husband would not give her any money to buy food for herself and her children; they were two months behind with the rent and other obligations; any day she expected to find the bailiff at her door. In order to put food on the table and clothe herself and the children she did housework, taking the two younger children with her. Her husband had found other interests which took most of his time and most of his money. A clerk-typist course was not the answer.
A court order was issued and the husband was made to pay a portion of his earnings to his wife in order that she might provide for herself and her children. This woman, in my opinion, was one of the more fortunate wives inasmuch as the family court knew where the husband could be found and where he was employed. What would have happened to this family had this man run off, say, somewhere out west? In this case, as in so many others, the wife had no money to enable her to trace her husband. He gets off scot-free except for the tax he pays on his earnings; the taxpayers would have had to support his deserted family.
Now just suppose there were some way to trace these types of men. No one would want to force them to return to their wives, even if the wives would have them. But the courts can and would make them bear their financial
April 15, 1970

The Budget-Mr. Whiting responsibilities. The results would be that welfare costs in all parts of Canada would drop. Indeed, they would be dramatically reduced, since the number of deserted families is much higher than is generally realized.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
There would also be another advantage, not monetary but of real importance. The deserted family would no longer be on the welfare rolls. The sense of dignity for these women and children would be restored. They would be able to pay their way and hold their heads as high as they are entitled to do. For this reason I do not see this primarily as a taxation problem, although it is an expensive one. It is a "just society" action to find some way to locate these deserters effectively, economically and quickly.
Before I outline a possible solution to this problem of how to trace these husbands I want to emphasize two main points. First, in Ontario when fathers are separated from or leave their children, at the time funds are to be made available from provincial or local welfare agencies to buy food, clothing and to care for them they insist that a charge be laid against the husband under the Deserted Wives and Children Maintenance Act.
Second, where there are children under 16 separated from their fathers for whatever reason, the provincial judge in all cases makes an order ordering the father to support these children. Regardless of why a husband or father is living apart from the children, he is legally obliged to provide support. I should like to add that it is of deep concern to me that the obligation is only valid until the child reaches age 16. I believe that serious consideration should be given to raising this age limit.
In my opinion, when a provincial judge hands down an order that a deserting father or a deserting husband must make payment to his family for their support, and his whereabouts are not known, the judge should be able to request the most up-to-date information as to where the husband or father might be found. Here, Mr. Speaker, is where I believe the federal government could be of substantial assistance to the provinces. When a provincial family court judge would like to know the whereabouts of a husband or a father, he could notify an appropriate provincial department; for example, in Ontario it could be the Department of Social and Family Service. This department in turn could contact the federal government requesting the TMr. Whiting.]
last known address of this husband and father in question. How much information is now available at the federal level is not known to me. However, I believe a pool of such information could be obtained from the Unemployment Insurance Commission, the Canada Pension Plan and other branches of government which might be used to provide this source of information.
If we put the two things together, the evasion of responsibility by individuals so that others have to pay and the reduction of the number of families on welfare, surely it would be in the interest of all Canadians, except those husbands who want to "live the life of Riley", if we were to examine this problem in depth. This is another area where the federal government could show leadership. I am sure this would receive the co-operation of all the provinces, the provincial family courts, welfare workers and every municipality, because they realize the seriousness of this problem. I would suggest, therefore, that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) include a recommendation to this effect in the white paper on social welfare which he proposes to present to this House in the near future; or perhaps this could be made the subject of separate action on his part.
I believe that some method of tracing these men could be found that would be practical, economical and which would not run counter to our Canadian way of life or our civil liberties. If we can liberalize, as we have done, the laws on abortion for the betterment of women, we must also be able to find a way to make a family court a place where something can be done for those women who so desperately look to the law to right their wrongs, instead of the way it is at present.


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in some of the remarks made by the preceding speaker, the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Whiting). I was particularly interested in what he had to say about the suggestion that has been made from this side of the House that this government is deliberately setting about to create unemployment. I am not sure that I got the hon. member's words correctly, but I believe he said he would not want to be part of a government that would deliberately set about to create unemployment.
Let me remind the hon. member that his leader, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), has said on television that if necessary he and the
April 15, 1970

government which he heads is prepared to drive the unemployment figure to 6 per cent to curb inflation. In light of that statement and the remarks made by the hon. member, I wonder whether he would want to be a part of this government which would drive the unemployment figure to 6 per cent or more. I am sure, after what he has said this afternoon, that he would not want to support the Prime Minister and this government which would set out to achieve this aim, that is, to deliberately create unemployment to the point where it reached a national average of over 6 per cent.
I look at this budget as a Member of Parliament concerned-


Rutherford (Rud) Lester Whiting: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. After listening to the remarks made by my hon. friend, I wonder whether he realizes what the unemployment figure would be if the government did not attack inflation, which is the No. 1 problem in Canada today.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: That is debate, not a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please.


Rutherford (Rud) Lester Whiting: Where would the unemployment figure go?


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, I am more concerned with what has happened in the past year and how the unemployment figure has been driven up because of this government's phony war on inflation. I can understand the hon. member's lack of concern for unemployment because, by his own admission a moment ago, he said he represents a riding that has the highest per capita income in Canada. I am not surprised to know that he is not too concerned with what is happening on the national scene with regard to unemployment.
Nor is the hon. member concerned about the deliberate attempt on the part of the government he supports to drive unemployment to the point where it has become almost unbearable to a large segment of our population, especially those 500,000 Canadians who have been forced to go on the rolls of the unemployed. This is the result of the heartless and cruel policies of the government which he supports, which has deliberately driven the unemployment figure to the point it has now reached.
I look at this budget as a Member of Parliament concerned with Canada as a whole and as a Member of Parliament with particular
The Budget-Mr. Carter interest in and a duty to the constituency of St. John's West. From whatever point I view it, it is something like a cat that was dragged in. As I said before, we have a government which has deliberately set out to create unemployment. As if it is not enough that it should set out deliberately to force men out of jobs and onto the unemployment rolls, this government has the brazen gall to brag about it. We have heard the Prime Minister say that if necessary he is prepared to see the unemployment figure go to 6 per cent. We have heard the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) make similar remarks. As I said before, not only is the government taking this stand and adopting this policy with that effect, but it has the gall to brag about it.
It is perfectly obvious to most of us, and indeed to most Canadians, that the economic policies of this government as represented by the Budget at this stage guarantees no assurance of success and no assurance that it can beat inflation without ruinous results. It is also perfectly clear from the Budget address that inflation is not being licked. We have no better evidence of that than the evidence given by the Minister of Finance. He forecast a reduction in the real growth of the gross national product of 3 per cent this year. The major consequence of this lower growth rate is an unemployment level ranging over the year at 6 per cent.
During the past two years much has been made of the fact that this government was elected on the charisma of the Prime Minister who made no promise except to build a just society. It is quite obvious to this House and to the majority of Canadians that the Prime Minister did not keep that promise. In fact, he has done just the opposite; he has built an unjust society. Obviously the government is anxious to keep the Prime Minister's Christmas promise of a 6 per cent unemployment figure. This, of course, means much higher levels in the low-growth areas and in areas which are subject to seasonal employment fluctuations.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
In this country and during this decade a federal government budget is of immense importance. By experience and common sense, and because of a desire to do great and noble things, the people of this country have given our government vast fiscal and monetary powers. The government does not have these powers for petty reasons. Generous and talented people have charged the

April 15. 1970
The Budget-Mr. Carter government with the task of leading us in shaping a fulfilled society. Essentially, the policy of Canada is the pursuit of common goals to end uncertainty, to end poverty, to moderate the causes of strife, to help Canada grow, to improve and make things work, and to keep the country and make it ours.
In diverse expression these common goals are being sought by 21 million people. My colleagues and I consider it our right and responsibility to judge the present government's budget in terms of these energetic, national goals. It is from this standpoint that we condemn this budget of the Liberal government. Frankly, we hold the opinion and the suspicion that good government in Canada is somewhere in exile.
In terms of historic experience, the reduced growth of our gross national product and higher unemployment should have a substantial dampening effect on inflationary tendencies, but in Canada today we have a different situation. Prices and wages still continue to increase to what the Minister of Finance calls unacceptable levels. The meaning, of course, is unmistakable. Despite a downturn in the economy and higher unemployment, the inflationary forces at work in the economy are not yielding. The minister admits in his statement that it is particularly hazardous to try to make any forecast of price and income changes in the balance of this year.
This inflation has not disappeared as it should have. The government's restrictive fiscal and monetary policies have not budged it. Prices keep on rising. The interesting question we must ask ourselves-I am sure most Canadians are asking it-is what the situation will be six months from now, with unemployment running at deliberately increased levels in order to produce a slack in demand while inflation is still continuing at or near the present level.
The minister is confronted with a dilemma for which so far he has no answer except to pray that the Prices and Incomes Commission will have an impact on the economy. So far the results do not appear to indicate that is likely to be forthcoming. The Prices and Incomes Commission, as laudable an effort as it may be, has not at all shown that it can achieve price stability in the economy. It has no teeth and no power to force labour to enlist in the anti-inflation fight. In fact, the budget speech notes that there will be difficult wage negotiations this year with perhaps several costly, prolonged strikes. This, again, is an

outright admission by the minister that costs, and consequently prices, will continue to escalate in 1970.
In a return tabled in this House some time ago it was very interesting to note that the co-chairmen of the Prices and Incomes Commission are being paid $40,000 a year. As the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) would say, they have won then-war on poverty. I think the half million people out of work in this country, many of them forced to be jobless by a cruel and heartless government which deliberately creates unemployment, will be heartened to know the men working for them to keep prices down and spike the inflationary psychology are doing very well at $40,000 a year.
It is quite obvious that as a result of the present policies of this government unemployment will continue to be very high. Inflation apparently will continue. Will the answer simply be even more tightening of the screw? How much unemployment is socially or politically acceptable in the name of beating inflation? The Minister of Finance, on CTV's Question Period show, said that higher unemployment may be necessary if we are really to beat inflation. This is a shocking statement. I would refer also to the remarks of the hon. member for Halton who a moment ago expressed the opinion that he would not want to be a part of any government that would deliberately set about to create unemployment.
The record will show that the Minister of Finance on this CTV program did admit that it may be necessary to increase unemployment in order to beat inflation. I think there is in Canada a great deal of sympathy for the Minister of Finance. I believe he has shown some real determination to beat inflation. I am sure he has taken some very serious political risk. So far, however, his policy has not done the job. The minister's speech implies that if it does not work in the next six months, at the moment he does not have any better ideas. It is quite obvious that the minister and his leader, the Prime Minister, and indeed the government as a whole are gambling on a theory that may or may not work. I think this is a very serious matter, because in so doing he is inflicting a lot of suffering, perhaps unnecessary suffering, on the Canadian public, on the taxpayers and on our working force. I feel this is a very serious and dangerous course on which the government has embarked.
April 15, 1970

For the sake of Canada and our unemployed I hope this policy will work, but like my colleagues and most other Canadians I have very grave doubt whether the government's anti-inflationary policy will prove to be in the best interests of Canada and will indeed work as it has planned. It would appear to be pretty obvious that there will be another budget this fall. The indicators at this point suggest that even sterner measures will be taken. The minister's measures have not worked to date. They are not likely to work any better in the next six months. The minister will be back here in the House with another budget. He will be pouring on more restraints and taxes. I believe the unemployment figure must not be allowed to increase even further in order to help the minister prove his point that the policies he has adopted and those of his colleagues in the cabinet will have the desired effect of beating the inflation which we have in Canada at this time.
I should like to make a few remarks about the consumer credit controls proposed by the minister. How effective will these controls really be? The 20 per cent down payment and the 24 months' period for repayment are not very far from normal practice. Even the minister's own advisers are sceptical of his estimate that the effect will be to reduce consumer spending by about $400 million. The people in the credit business estimate the figure to be only about half that. What is $400 million, anyway? If that figure is accurate, consumer spending in Canada in 1970 will be about $49 billion instead of $49.4 billion.
The potential loopholes in the program envisaged by the minister are innumerable. The minister says he does not expect any buying spree in the next few weeks before the controls are imposed. I am sure we can all visualize dealers in some of the remote parts of Canada who are saddled with large surplus stocks offering in the next few weeks no down payment and seven years to pay if for no reason other than to move their stock.
These controls on credit will hurt the people who contribute least to inflation. The Prime Minister told reporters outside the House last week that this measure would protect the little guy. I say that is hogwash. It will not protect the little guy; it will make things much tougher for him in trying to obtain employment to earn enough to keep body and soul together and to retain his independence.
The Budget-Mr. Carter
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
As I have said, the program appears to be full of loopholes. In fact, the government appears not to have thought about the details of the program at all. There are dozens of ways in which the program could be circumvented, and the government has not really built up much legal justification for the controls, which might prevent a constitutional challenge from the provinces.
So we have a government that has quite obviously embarked on a policy of which they are not too sure. They are not convinced in their own minds that the policy to curb inflation on which they have embarked will work. They are gambling with the lives and the livelihood of the Canadian people, the average working man in Canada. By their own admission they have set about to deliberately create unemployment, hoping that this will have the desired effect of curbing inflation. I am convinced, and I am sure that many Canadians will agree with me, that they are wrong.
Their policy, which has been pretty well adopted right across the board, according to which the "have not" provinces are being forced to take the same medicine as the "have" provinces, where the people in the economically depressed areas of Canada are being forced to take the same medicine as that dished out to the better off provinces, is wrong too.
I should inform the minister that in my province of Newfoundland there is no sign of inflation. Inflation down there is pretty well a foreign word. Unemployment is probably at its highest peak since Confederation. At present it is estimated to be approaching the 22 per cent mark. The national unemployment figure rose to 6.5 per cent, while in the Atlantic region it is 11 per cent or 12 per cent. There are provinces, such as the one which I have the honour to represent where the unemployment figure is reported to approach the 22 per cent level. This has been brought about largely by the government's illogical policy with regard to inflation and its attempts to curb inflation.
I am convinced, and I am sure other members will agree, that while we have inflation in certain areas of Canada, we should not penalize people in the depressed areas, which is what is happening. I think the Premier of Nova Scotia was right when he said that the present government's policy can be likened to a family in which one child is sick but the entire family is being forced to take the same
The Budget-Mr. Carter medicine. In Canada there are certain areas where inflation is present, but we should not impose the same restrictions and policies on the "have not" or economically depressed areas where inflation is a foreign word.
This government must accept its responsibilities to all the regions of Canada and must make good its promise to bring an end to regional disparity. In the past couple of years we have heard much talk about the Prime Minister's so-called just society. We have heard much talk about bringing an end to regional disparity. But so far we have seen very little action. I grant that certain measures are being taken by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to help some of the "have not" areas in Canada, including the Atlantic region; but I am not convinced that these measures will be sufficient to bring about an end to disparity and to bring the "have not" areas of Canada up to a level where they can enjoy the status of first-class citizens.
In Canada a large number of people do not enjoy the status of first-class citizens. I can think of a large segment of our population in Newfoundland which does not enjoy the rights and the status of first-class Canadians. Until such time as Canada can give all its people equal rights and equal opportunities. I do not think we can boast of the influence that we have in certain parts of the nation and say that all our citizens are being treated alike and enjoy the status of first-class citizens.
April 15, 1970
Many measures have been taken by the government in recent months that have had a detrimental effect on the provinces. We have seen the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) close down a large number of post offices. The argument that he is using is that it is cheaper to initiate the rural delivery system than to maintain the present post offices in various parts of Canada, especially in my riding of St. John's West. I think the Postmaster General's policies are wrong. I think time will prove that the system he is now trying to inaugurate will eventually cost more than it would have cost to retain our present post offices and the system under which a large number of the smaller outports in Newfoundland, and indeed in the west of Canada operate.
I would liken the Postmaster General to someone who is groping in the dark and who is trying to find an answer to some of the problems that are obviously facing his department. I do not think that the elimination of post offices in Canada-and I can speak with some authority for my riding-is the answer, and time will prove that the Postmaster General is wrong.
In the matter of the fishery, which of course is very important in the Atlantic areas of Canada, we have serious problems.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member because it is six o'clock. This house stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

April 15, 1970



APPENDIX &quot;A&quot;


[Stage Direction]
Unclassified
Pm Wshdc Apr 15/70 no/no standard To exter 1129 flash
Info pmoott (head) pcoott (robertson) de ott Arctic Pollution Legislation
Following is text of statement to be released by State dept at noon briefing Apr 15. Text begins.
Last week the Cdn govt introduced in the House of Commons two bills dealing with pollution in the arctic, fisheries and the limits of the territorial sea. The enactment and implementation of these measures would affect the exercise by the USA and other countries of the right to freedom of the seas in large areas of the high seas and would adversely affect our efforts to reach innatl agreement on the use of the seas.
The bills seek to establish pollution zones in arctic waters up to 100 miles from every point of cdn coastal territory above the 60th parallel. Within these zones, cda would assert the right to control all shipping, to prescribe standards of vessel construction, navigation and operation, and to prohibit, if CDA deemed it necessary, the free passage of vessels in those waters. Additionally, the legislation seeks to authorize the establishment of exclusive CDN fisheries in areas of the high seas beyond 12 miles, such as the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Bay of Fundy, and of a 12-mile territorial sea off CDAs coasts.
Innatl law provides no/no basis for these proposed unilateral extensions of jurisdictions on the high seas, and the USA can neither accept nor acquiesce in the assertion of such jurisdiction.
We are concerned that this action by CDA if not/not opposed by us, would be taken as precedent in other parts of the world for other unilateral infringements of the freedom of the seas. If CDA had the right to claim and exercise exclusive pollution and resources jurisdiction on the high seas, other countries could assert the right to exercise jurisdiction for other purposes, some reasonable and some not/not, but all equally invalid according to innatl law, merchant shipping would be severely restr, and naval mobility would be seriously jeopardized. The potential for serious innatl dispute and conflict is obvious.
The USA has long sought innatl solutions rather than natl approaches to problems involving the high seas. We are working for appropriate action within the UN framework looking toward the conclusion of a new innatl treaty dealing with the limit of the territorial sea, freedom of transit through and over innatl straits and defining preferential fishing rights for coastal states on the high seas.
We are also seeking new innatl means for controlling pollution on the high seas. Last fall 47 countries, including the USA and CDA, participated in the preparation of two innatl conventions establishing the right of a coastal state to take certain ltd anti-pollution measures against vessels on the high seas, and also imposing strict liability upon the owners of vessels responsible for pollution. These conventions which the USA has recently signed were concluded under UN auspices at BRU. Other innatl approaches to control of pollution are underway at NATO and the UN. Moreover, the USA is acutely aware of the peculiar ecological nature of the arctic region, and the potential dangers of oil pollution in that area. The arctic is a region important to all nations in its unique environment, its increasing significance as a world trade route and as a source of natural resources. We believe the arctic beyond natl jurisdiction should be subject to innatlly agreed rules protecting its assets, both living and non-living, and have noted with pleasure the CDN Prime Ministers public statement that CDA would be prepared to enter into multilateral efforts to develop agreed rules of environmental protection. To this end, we intend shortly to ask other interested states to join in an innatl conference designed to establish rules for the arctic beyond natl jurisdiction by innatl agreement. We would be pleased if CDA were to join us in organizing such a conference.
We regret that the CDN govt, while not/not excluding these cooperative innatl approaches to our mutual problems involving the oceans, now proposes to take unilateral action to assert its own jurisdiction and establish its own rules pending the conclusion of innatl agreements satisfactory to it. For the reasons indicated earlier the USA cannot/not accept these unilateral jurisdictional assertions and
[Stage Direction]
April 15, 1970
we have urged the CDN govt to defer making them effective while cooperating in efforts promptly to reach innatlly agreed solutions.
If, however, the CDN govt is unwilling to await innatl agreement, we have urged that in the interest of avoiding a continuing dispute and undermining our efforts to achieve innatl agreement, that we submit our differences regarding pollution and exclusive fisheries jurisdiction beyond 12 miles to the innatl court of justice, the forum where disputes of this nature should rightfully be settled. CDAs action last week excluded such disputes from its acceptance of the innatl courts compulsory jurisdiction. However, such action only prevents CDA from being forced into
the court. It does not/not preclude CDA voluntarily joining with us in submitting these disputes to the court or an appropriate chamber of the court.
With respect to the 12-mile limit on the territorial sea, we have publicly indicated our willingness to accept such limit, but only as part of an agreed innatl treaty also providing for freedom of passage through and over innatl straits.
The history of US-CDN relations is unique in world affairs for its closeness and co-operation. We are confident that, in this spirit, our two countries will continue to resolve our differences amicably and with mutual understanding. Text ends.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, April 16, 1970