1970-03-18

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, in French and in English-Mr. Isabelle.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that I have approved the making of an amalgamation agreement between the Provincial Bank of Canada and La Banque Populaire for submission to their shareholders as provided by sections 100, 101 and 102 of the Bank Act. Details of the agreement will be sent to the shareholders of both these banks in the near future. In giving my approval to the making of this agreement, I have satisfied myself that the public interest will be served in this amalgamation.



TRANSPORT


Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellington-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I ask the unanimous consent of the House to
propose a motion in the following case of urgent and pressing necessity.
Under the National Transportation Act the Canadian National Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway systems continue their applications to the Canadian Transport Commission for orders to discontinue or reduce passenger train service, in the case of the Canadian National, one-fifth of its passenger service and in the case of the Canadian Pacific, all of its passenger trains. The most recent in this series of which I have notice is an application by the CNR to discontinue passenger service on the Toronto-Palmerston, Palmerston-Owen Sound, Palmerston-South-ampton, Stratford-Kincardine, Stratford-God-erich and Guelph-Toronto commuter services, and by the CPR from Toronto to Owen Sound.
The commission has undertaken general and specific research studies to enable it to implement the national transportation policy, and the commission has informed this House that these studies are not yet completed. It is therefore premature of the commission to grant orders to discontinue or reduce passenger train services on the basis of local ad hoc studies without informed references to the national transportation policy.
The commission should delay its discontinuance orders for the maximum one-year period allowable under section 314(7) of the Railway Act until such time as its relevant research studies now under way are completed. This delay would also permit the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications to consider the propriety of the manner in which the commission is implementing the national transportation policy.
Therefore, if the House gives unanimous consent, I intend to move that whenever hereafter the Canadian Transport Commission determines that the operation of an uneconomic passenger train service or part thereof should be discontinued, this House is of the opinion the Commission should by order fix a discontinuance date one year from the date
5160	COMMONS
Adult Occupational Training Act of the order; and that the whole question of passenger train service should be re-examined before the Committee on Transport and Communications in order that all affected bodies such as labour and municipal and provincial governments may have an opportunity to present their views on this very important national problem.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the proposed motion. It cannot be put to the House unless there is unanimous agreement.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity. The motion cannot be put at this time.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACTS


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-198 entitled "An Act to change the name of the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1965, to the Canadian Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1965".


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


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-199, to amend the Adult Occupational Training Act.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Explain.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this amendment is to provide that any woman who has been engaged in the domestic services of her home shall under certain conditions be deemed to have been a member of the labour force and shall be eligible for acceptance under the Act on the same basis as a man, thus making it possible for her to 
DEBATES	March 18, 1970
secure living allowance while training and in this way providing additional womanpower services for Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. McGrath:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I did not realize that Your Honour had passed on from motions so quickly, and there is an important matter to which I want to direct the attention of the House.
This morning the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion issued an important press release concerning a major re-organization of his department. In our view, the minister might at least have taken advantage of the provisions of Standing Order 41(2), unacceptable though that procedure would have been, to bring this press release officially to the attention of the House. This was an important statement concerning reorganization of the department and the minister's action this morning demonstrates once again the contempt in which he and the government hold Parliament. Surely the House is entitled to receive this information by way of a statement or at least to be informed of it under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2) rather than having to learn of it through the back door in the form of secondhand information from the press.
I hope the minister will at least have the good grace to follow the example set by the Minister of Transport a few days ago in similar circumstances and immediately arrange for a meeting of the Standing Committee on Regional Development in order that hon. members may have an opportunity to ask questions and examine in detail this major statement of policy which the hon. gentleman did not have the courtesy to make in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Col-chesier North) moved: the first reading of Bill S-21 (from the Senate), to amend the Criminal Code.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
March 18, 1970



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Nysirom: 1.	What was the annual salary of J. Watson Mac-Naught, former Chairman of the Dominion Coal Board?
2.	When did Mr. MacNaught resign as Chairman of the Dominion Coal Board?
3.	When was Mr. MacNaught appointed as Special Advisor to the Deputy Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources?
4.	What is Mr. MacNaught's present annual salary?
5.	What are Mr. MacNaught's responsibilities and specific functions as special advisor?
6.	Was there a public service competition for this position, and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: 1. Salary range $19,000 to $23,500 a year.
2.	Mr. MacNaught's appointment as Chairman of the Dominion Coal Board was terminated on July 17, 1969.
3.	His appointment to Energy, Mines and Resources took effect on July 18, 1969.
4.	The salary now being paid to the Hon. J. Watson MacNaught is the same as that paid to him as Chairman of the Dominion Coal Board. This salary is within the range from $19,000 to $23,500 a year.
Questions
5.	Mr. MacNaught is adviser to the Deputy Minister on coal during the transition period immediately following changes in the organizational structure of Dominion Coal Board. In this capacity, he has been asked to review, in detail, federal government involvement with the coal industry, past and present, with a view to developing an effective federal course of action for the future.
6.	No. This was an appointment to the exempt staff rather than a public service appointment. It was desired to utilize immediately the special knowledge and understanding of coal problems and of the Board's role which Mr. MacNaught gained as Chairman. He is being paid from the Departmental administrative budget.


RESEARCH, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, TRADE AND COMMERCE
Mr. Comeau: 1.	In 1968-69 and 1969-70, what were the estimated sums spent on research in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and what was the purpose of each research project?
2.	How much money was actually expended according to Dominion Bureau of Statistics figures?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: 1. Expenditures made by the Department in fiscal year 1968-69 and estimates of the Department for fiscal year 196970 for research and development in engineering and natural sciences only are as follows:
Questions


MUD RIVER, ONTARIO-INVESTIGATION INTO ICE CONDITIONS
Mr. Pelers: 1.	Did the RCMP receive any correspondence from a Canadian citizen in Northern Ontario regarding a request made to him by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to report on local ice conditions in the Mud River area and, if so (a) did the RCMP undertake an investigation into the above area (b) what are the results of the investigation?
March 18. 1970

2.	Is it common practice for the United States Army to approach a Canadian citizen directly for information instead of going through the Canadian Government?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: 1. Yes; (a) No. The matter was referred to the Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs; (b) In a statement made in the House by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on February 24,	1970 the
background to the requests made to Canadian citizens by the Corps of Engineers to report physical data on ice and weather conditions in the Canadian part of the Great Lakes Basin was explained. It was stated that in informal working level discussions about three years ago, the United States Army Corps of Engineers had sought assistance from scientific officers of the Meteorological Branch of the Department of Transport in carrying out a survey designed to provide information for research on the effects of ice formation and ice decay on navigation in the Great Lakes. It was believed that the information to be obtained would be valuable to Canada, and it was suggested that Canadian observers living around the Lakes might be hired to gather data. It was also indicated that the Corps of Engineers requested Ontario Provincial Police assistance in obtaining names of observers and that these observers were contracted on a personal basis by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It was noted that
Questions
the Corps' data collection program on the Canadian portion of the lakes ended in November, 1969 and that the Corps now has no Canadian observers under contract.
It also should be noted that all the information from the activity has been made available to the International Great Lakes Study Group, an informal body consisting of representatives of the governments and universities in Canada and the United States. One result of the Corps' investigation has been the publication by the Corps of a Great Lakes Ice Atlas which was presented to the 11th Meeting of the Pan-American Consultation on Cartography.
2.	No.


DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION-RETENTION OF CONSULTANTS
Mr. Coates: 1.	How many consultants not associated with the Public Service of Canada have been retained by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion since its establishment?
2.	What are the names of the firms or individuals retained, what was the reason in each instance for retaining the service and what was the cost in each instance where a firm was involved and what was the fee and expense where an individual or individuals were involved?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1. 39.
2.
Name	Service	Fee

Franco Traddle	Editing	585B. G. Cook	Research in information systems	13,000S. Searle	R. D. Training Team	19,250Connor Development Limited	R. D. Training Team	19,250P.-Y. Pepin	Editing of Saguenay Lac St-Jean report	4,000ABT Associates	Evaluation of N.B. FRED Plan	98,750Winthrop Adkins	Advisory services to Social and Human	Analysis Division	600F. Bayliss	NewStart graphics	4,800Giles Beaudet	Study of Parent radar station conversion	4,000Canadian British	Gaultois water supply study	Project UnderEngineering	ReviewCertec Inc.	Implementation study	4,850Bruce Cook	Mapping systems study	13,000Creative Sight and Sound Ltd.	NewStart audio-visual project	1,500M. Deskins	Advisory services N.S. NewStart	250
March 18. 1970
Questions
Name
Service
Ernst and Ernst
Ernst and Ernst George Frail Hickling-J ohnston Limited
Benjamin Higgins Lalonde Valois Lamarre Valois Associates Jean B. Lanctot
M. W. Mackenzie
F. Martin
Dr. S. Rosenberg
V. Rossiter
M. Scheffknecht La Societe Sotar J. C. Wickett
Christina Wright William Erasmus Lawrence Spence Veronica Morin Eastern Designers Limited
Shawinigan Engineering Ltd.
Alphatex Systems Limited
McGill Computing Science Centre B. Schwartz J. Parikhal A. Raynaud
Analysis of experimental projects in human resources development Planning study
Project engineer, Avon River Causeway Dam Interlake FRED management study
Study of socio economic problems in Quebec Transportation study of Gaspe region
Study of adaptive services to migrants and immigrants
Federal provincial committee for Saint John industrial complex
Study of socio-economic problems Quebec Advisory services-Social and Human Analysis Division
Project director-Nfld. Fisheries Household Resettlement Program Advisory services-N.S. NewStart Cantons de l'Est tourism study Study of nutritional levels in selected population areas Cataloguing services Advisory Services Alberta NewStart Advisory Services Alberta NewStart Advisory Services Alberta NewStart Saint John Water Supply Study
Saint John Water Supply Study
Computer addressing system
System for generating target populations
Advisory services-N.S. NewStart Regional Migration Study Study of socia-economic Quebec
Fee

2,100
22,000
24,000
40,650
4,000
225,000
2,100
15.000
4.000
4,500
10.000 250
1.000
5.000 1,020
100
60,000
24,000
1,625
1,100
1.000 4,000


LANGUAGE TRAINING SCHOOLS
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	How much did the Canadian Government spend on the Language Training Schools for the years 1965-66-67-68-69?
2.	How many students took part in these courses?
3.	How many were civil servants and how many were Members of Parliament?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: 1. The
[Mr. Marchand.l
amounts spent on language training in schools operated by the Public Service Commission in each fiscal year were: 1965-66, $753,000;
1966-	67, $2,101,417; 1967-68, $3,939,497; 196869, $4,142,976.
Amounts spent by the Department of Public Works: 1965-66, $77,768; 1966-67, $111,668;
1967-	68, $656,795; 1968-69, $2,007,813.
2.	The number of students enrolled in Public Service Commission schools in each
March 18, 1970

academic year was: 1965-66, 2,793; 1966-67, 3,188; 1967-68, 5,642; 1968-69, 4,525.
N.B. There were a number of students, in each academic year since 1966-67, who were enrolled in a previous year's course.
3.	The records of the Public Service Commission indicate that 25 Members of Parliament were enrolled in its schools during the period 1965-69. With very few exceptions, the balance of the student population was made up of public servants, including officials of Crown Corporations, members of the Armed Forces and R.C.M.P., and officials of other Canadian Government institutions and agencies.


GUIDELINES RESPECTING NATIONAL PARK RESIDENTS
Mr. Forresiall: 1.	Are the guidelines established with respect to permanent residents in areas being taken over for the purpose of establishment of our National Parks and, if so, what are they?
2.	Are the guidelines established with respect to summer residents in areas being taken over for the purpose of establishment of our National Parks and, if so, what are they?
3.	Is a policy of extending life occupancy to existing owners of private homes being followed and, if not (a) for what reason (b) what is the policy with respect to permanent residents, and to owners of summer residences?
4.	Is the creation of "enclaves" within Park Boundaries permitted for such purposes as preserving long established and thriving fishing communities and (a) if so, is this possible under present policies covering zoning (b) if not, for what reason?
5.	What policies are presently in effect with respect to churches, cemeteries, schools and other non-private institutions?
6.	What policies are presently in effect with respect to small private industry such as boat yards for the construction of inshore fishing boats?


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1 and 2. The National Parks Policy tabled in the House of Commons in 1964 provides that the province should obtain the land for proposed parks and turn it over to the Federal Government free from all encumbrances. In the event that permanent or summer residences exist, therefore, the province acquires these before the park is established.
3.	(a) No, but exceptions in extraordinary circumstances have been made. Life occupancy provides a special privilege for the persons concerned and must be strictly controlled. (b) Permanent residents are not normally permitted in National Parks. However, 21774-49
Questions
size and other special factors are considered in reaching a decision if, for example, a person is required to serve the National Park or Park services. In acquiring lands for National Parks, the policy, in effect for some years, is not to grant life occupancy privileges with respect to summer residences. All existing private summer homes will be acquired in time.
4.	Under present policy, enclaves are not permitted within park boundaries. Commercial operations which have no connection with a national park have no purpose in a national park. Such a resource harvest is in conflict with park uses. In larger parks visitor service centres must be provided. In some cases, subject to appropriate zoning agreements, these can function as enclaves.
5.	When a national park is created, the province usually acquires public institutions as a matter of equity. The people who used these facilities have moved and the funds provided permit them to re-establish elsewhere. Cemeteries, of course, are a special category.
6.	Present policy states that private industry for purposes not directly related to national parks (i.e. boat yards for the construction of inshore fishing boats) will not be permitted within park boundaries.


AUTOMOBILE SAFETY-EXPERIMENTAL VEHICLE
Mr. Mather: 1.	Is consideration being given to constructing a prototype safety automobile to reduce crash dangers?
2.	Is consideration being given to co-operating with the United States' Department of Transport in the latter's safe-car construction project?


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliameniary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. No.
2.	No.


MANAGEMENT OF OTTAWA STATION
Mr. Isabelle: 1.	Does the Ottawa Terminal Railway Company manage the Ottawa Station and, if so (a) who are the members of the company's executive (b) in what year was the company established?
2.	If the Ottawa Terminal Railway Company does not manage the Ottawa Station, who is responsible for its management?


Gérard Loiselle: The Canadian Transport Commission advise as follows: 1.

March 18, 1970
Questions
There is no such company as the Ottawa Terminal Railway Company.
2.	The Ottawa Station is administered by Canadian National Railways under a "Joint Facility" agreement between Canadian National Railways and Canadian Pacific Railway, entered into October 4, 1967.


SOCIAL WORK TRAINING GRANTS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How much money has been allocated under the welfare training grants to help pay for the education of people desiring to improve their qualifications in the field of social work?
2.	How many people are now at recognized professional schools under the provisions of these grants?
3.	What are the amounts of the bursaries provided?
4.	Has any money been allocated for research projects in the field of social service?
5.	Have any plans been developed for research into appropriate use of sub-professional staff in the field of social welfare?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. During the fiscal year 1969-70, a total of $261,700 has been expended in direct support programs and programs shared with the provinces toward education in the field of social work.
2.	148.
3.	Bursaries shared with the provinces, approximately $2,000 each*; Direct support scholarships, $2,500 each; Direct support fellowships, $4,000 each.
*Amounts determined by the provinces.
4.	During the fiscal year 1969-70, an amount of $500,000 has been allocated for research in the field of social welfare. An amount of $300,000 was available during the current fiscal year for research and demonstration activity in the welfare aspects of mental retardation.
5.	The Children's Aid Society of Vancouver is conducting a research study in the use of non-professional personnel and, in particular, case aides. Other research or demonstration activities in this general field are in a developmental stage.


CYCLAMATE BAN-COST TO FOOD AND BEVERAGE INDUSTRIES
Mr. Soulham: 1. Based on the government's decision last fall to bar cyclamates in Canada following the U.S.A. action, has a study been made to assess the cost of this order on the food and beverage industry in Canada?

2. Has any consideration been given to some form of compensation for losses incurred in these industries as a result of this decision?


John Carr Munro: 1. No study has been made to assess the losses suffered by the food and beverage industries in Canada following removal of cyclamates from food products.
2. No consideration has been given for the compensation of losses incurred by these industries in view of the fact that the cyclamates were removed from foods to protect the health of Canadians.


AIR CANADA SHAREHOLDING IN AIR JAMAICA
Mr. Godin: 1 Does Air Canada hold shares in Air Jamaica, and, if so, what is their total value?
2. Has Air Canada transferred any planes to Air Jamaica, and, if so, (a) how many (b) what model (c) at what price?


Gérard Loiselle: The Management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. Air Canada holds shares in Air Jamaica and their total value is $8,408,000.
2. (a) One; (b) Douglas Model DC-8-61; (c) The actual price is not a matter Air Canada feels free to disclose without the consent of Air Jamaica.


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION -EXPROPRIATION PROCEDURES
Mr. Fortin: 1.	What is the status of the expropriation procedures undertaken by Cape Breton Development Corporation on March 30, 1968?
2.	For what reason has the expropriation not been settled to date?


Jean Marchand: 1 and 2. The actual expropriation procedures have been completed but the determination of the compensation payable as a result of the expropriation has not yet been made, pending approval of appraisal data recently concluded.


STUDENT SUMMER EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What number of High School and University students were registered with Canada Manpower Offices for summer employment in the months of May, June, July and August for the years 1967, 1968 and 1969?
March 18, 1970

2.	Of this number, how many were placed for employment and how many was the Department unable to place for employment in each of the above months for each of the above years?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: In so far as the
Department of Manpower and Immigration is concerned: 1. As stated in my answer to Question No. 631 on December 9,	1968,
(Hansard p. 3647) statistics on the number of students registered with Canada Manpower Centres for summer employment for the years 1967 and 1968 were not compiled separately. As far as 1969 is concerned, the number of High School Students registered with Canada Manpower Centres is as follows: May, 34,462; June, 53,415; July, 43,891; August, 19,046.
Statistics for University Students have not been compiled separately. They are a part of the statistics on Post-Secondary Students which include, apart from universities, community colleges and technical institutions. The number of these Post-Secondary Students registered with Canada Manpower Centres for the year 1969 is as follows: May, 21,813; June, 11,919; July, 11,388; August, 4,003.
2. Again, as stated in my answer to Question No. 631, (.Hansard p. 3647 December 9, 1968) statistics for 1967 and 1968 are not available. During the summer of 1969, statistics on the number of referrals and placements have been kept separately. The number of students the department was unable to place for employment cannot be determined completely, the reason being that a large number of students do not report to Canada Manpower Centres results of referrals. However, confirmed placements which have been
Questions
reported to us during the months of May, June, July and August 1969, are as follows: High School	Post-Secondary
Students	Students
May	1,447	12,389June	8,643	10,637July	16,293	6,179August	9,422	4,567


DEPARTMENT OF MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION-EMPLOYMENT ON CONTRACT BASIS
Mr. Orlikow: 1	(a) How many individuals have been employed on a contract basis by the Department ot Manpower and Immigration since the Department was established (b) what is the name and qualification of each person who has been employed under each individual contract since the Department was established (c) what has been the daily, weekly, monthly or annual salary for each person working under a contract for the Department (d) how much per diem did the Department of Manpower and Immigration pay for those individuals under contract while (i) in travel status (ii) at headquarters?
2.	How many individuals are now working under contract for the Department of Manpower and Immigration and to what specific branch or branches in the Department are they assigned?
3.	Could the work performed by individuals under contract be performed by the regular staff of the Department?
4.	Are individuals employed under contract by the Department of Manpower and Immigration being hired through (a) Public Service Commission (b) Department of Manpower and Immigration?
5.	What desirable qualifications are required for those positions and what are the criteria used in making the selection in each case?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. (a) Twelve.
(b) Name Bissonnette, E. Bollen, J.
Brooker, W. M. A. Dewis, G.
Fletcher, A. Freisen, P. A. McLean, C. (Miss) Nault, C. (Mrs.) Stevens, W. R. Thibodeau, G. H. Whitney, R. C. Zeitoun, L.
Qualification	(c) Annual Salary
Professional Consultant	$13,000
Training Specialist	19,000
Training Consultant	15,000
Professional Consultant	14,500
Senior Technical Writer	14,500
Senior Technical Writer	16,800
Professional Consultant	15,000
Professional Consultant	10,000
Regional Training Manager	18,000
Regional Training Manager	18,000
Regional Training Manager	18,000
Professional Consultant	15,000
(d) (i) $22,187.62; (ii) Nil. 21774-491
Questions

March 18, 1970
2.	Nil.
3.	No.
4.	(a) No; (b) Yes.
5.	There were no desirable qualifications specified tor these positions. The criterion used in making the selection in each case includes the following essential qualifications: a Bachelor's Degree in education, psychology, social work or business administration; five or more years experience in the field of staff training and development at a senior level; and the ability to manage, communicate and maintain effective interpersonal relations.


AIR CANADA-ADVERTISING EXPENSES
Mr. Skoberg: 1.	How much did Air Canada spend In the past fiscal year advertising Florida (a) on television (b) in the printed media?
2.	How much did Air Canada spend in the past fiscal year advertising places in Canada (a) on television (b) in the printed media?


Gérard Loiselle: The Management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. (a) and (b) $329,618.
2. (a) and (b) $3,179,101.


LEGAL OPINION, PHOSPHATE DETERGENT BAN
Mrs. Maclnnis: Did the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources or his departmental officials request a legal opinion from the Justice Department regarding the ability of the Government of Canada to enforce a ban on phosphates and laundry detergents and, if so, what opinion was offered by the Department of Justice?


John James Greene: Any communication between the Department of Justice, and the Minister is, in the normal manner, privileged communication.


FINANCE-CRITICISM OF WHITE PAPER
Mr. Diefenbaker: How many letters, telegrams and/or other communications criticizing or condemning the White Paper in whole or in part have been received by the Minister of Finance since the 1st of January, 1970?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker it is not possible to answer this question in a completely accurate way because of the problems of classification. Many letters state their general approval of the white paper but offer suggestions for 
changing one or more proposals. Some letters comment only on features of the tax system not dealt with in the white paper proposals. Coupons and form letters submitted as part of an organized campaign against particular proposals have not been enumerated. However, during the period January 1, 1970 to February 18 some 5,300 communications were received, of which approximately 3,000 would have been critical of the white paper, in whole or in part.


AIR CANADA-EMPLOYMENT OF STEWARDESSES
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	How many stewardesses are employed by Air Canada?
2.	How many of these stewardesses are based in
(a)	Halifax (b) Montreal (c) Toronto (d) Winnipeg (e) Calgary (f) Edmonton (g) Vancouver?
3.	How many stewardesses are bilingual in English and French and, of these, how many have (a) English (b) French, as their mother tongue?
4.	Is bilingualism in English and French a prerequisite for employment with Air Canada as a stewardess and, if so, when was this policy initiated?
5.	(a) What happens to non-bilingual applicants for the position of stewardess (b) how many applicants have been turned down on language grounds during the past two years?


Gérard Loiselle: The Management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. 1,393. In addition, number of pursers employed, 211.
	Stewardesses	Pursers
(a)	nil	nil(b)	640	108(c)	493	81(d)	136	nil(e)	nil	nil(f)	nil	nil(g)	124	223.	Number of bilingual (English-French) stewardesses, 762; (a) Number of flight attendants (stewardesses and pursers) not having French as mother tongue (English, German, Scandinavian, Spanish, etc.) 1,148; (b) Number of flight attendants (stewardesses and pursers) having French as mother tongue, 456. (All figures are as of January 31, 1970).4.	Bilingualism is not a prerequisite for employment by Air Canada as a stewardess, but the Company has an increasing requirement for both bilingual and multilingual
March 18, 1970

flight attendants to satisfy its commercial objectives in serving passengers who speak both official languages of Canada and in serving passengers from other countries on the Air Canada international route structure. Because of this, Air Canada has, over the years, been increasing the proportion of multilingual and bilingual flight attendants. Of the four bases maintained for flight attendants, the Montreal base has for some years carried with it a requirement for total bilingual capability and, more recently, it has been the company objective to increase the proportion of bilingual staff available at the other three bases- Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver-in relation to the need existing at these points.
5.	The qualifications for flight attendants are stringent, and for some time it has been the policy of the Company, if other qualifications are met, to give additional preferential ratings for bilingual capacity for the reasons indicated above. This has not meant exclusion of unilingual English-speaking applicants, but rather a strengthening of the rate of bilingual and multilingual intake. The Company has been fortunate in receiving applications from persons having bilingual capability from all parts of the country, so that its recruiting can be carried on on a wide national basis.


QUEBEC-CROP INSURANCE ACT
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	On what date was the Crop Insurance Act implemented in Quebec?
2.	Is it a joint plan and, if so (a) who are the partners (b) what percentage is each responsible for financially?
3.	What percentage must each of the partners pay (a) for the administration of the said Act
(b)	for the compensation paid to the insured?
4.	Since the implementation of the said Act, by year (a) how many Quebec farmers have joined this crop insurance plan (b) how many Quebec farmers have submitted claims and for what amounts (c) how many Quebec farmers have been compensated and in what amounts (d) what was the total amount invested by each of the partners (e) what were the total premium receipts?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: 1.	The Crop Insurance Act has not been implemented in Quebec since the program established in that province does not meet all the conditions of the Act. Canada has shared costs on the authority of a Vote Title of the Quebec crop insurance program to assist the province in developing the program so that they may come under the Crop Insurance Act as soon as possible.
Questions
2.	and 3. The crop insurance scheme operates with contributions from farmers and the two governments. Quebec administers the program with advice from farmers and from the Government of Canada. Administrative expenses are shared equally by the Government of Quebec and the Government of Canada.
Farmers pay 50 per cent of insurance premiums levied, the government of Quebec pays 25 per cent and the Government of Canada pays 25 per cent.
The Government of Quebec is responsible for any monies required to pay indemnities that are in excess of all premiums collected.
4.	(a) In 1968-69, 19,177 farmers purchased insurance; In 1969-70, 16,400 farmers purchased insurance, (b) The Quebec Crop Insurance Board has not reported the exact number of farmers who submitted claims. It is estimated approximately one-half of the farmers insured submitted claims, (c) The Quebec Crop Insurance Board has not reported the exact number of farmers paid for losses in 1968-69. The Board reports approximately $4,850,000 paid to farmers who bought insurance in 1968. Claims for the insurance year 1969-70 are now in the process of being paid therefore the number of farmers paid and the amount of payments have not been reported by the Quebec Crop Insurance Board.
(d) and (e)	1968-69	1969-70 (9 months)
Premium Receipts		
Farmers	$1,062,592	$1,078,790Quebec	531,296	539,395Canada	531,296	539,395$2,125,184	$2,157,580Administration	Quebec	$ 668,704	$ 433,338Canada	668,704	433,338$1,337,408	$ 866,676Indemnities in Excess of	Premium Revenue	Quebec	$2,725,000


ATHABASCA CONSTITUENCY-PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS
Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	What new structures, and at what cost in each case, have been built by the Department of Public Works in the constituency of Athabasca within the past fiscal year?

Build-to-Lease basis Build-to-Lease basis 41,923.
31,700.


LEVEL CROSSING TRAFFIC TIE-UPS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many complaints have been received by the Board of Transport Commissioners from each province in each of the past ten years in respect to train stoppages at level crossings which bring about traffic tie-ups?
2.	Did the Board of Transport Commissioners investigate these complaints and, if the complaint was verified, what action did the Board of Transport Commissioners take?
3.	Were any of the complaints followed by prosecutions in the Courts and, if so, (a) on what dates (b) at what locations (c) by whom were the prosecutions carried out (d) what were the results of the prosecutions?


Gérard Loiselle: The Canadian Transport Commission advise as follows: 1. No statistical records of this type are maintained.
2.	The Railway Transport Committee investigates any complaints received and undertakes remedial action with the railway concerned.
3.	No statistical records of this type are maintained.


MANPOWER POLICY-CHANGE TO ASSIST POOR CANADIANS
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,359
Mr. Robinson:: Will the federal government consider changing the Manpower Policy so that a large number of "poor" Canadians, who are able and anxious to work but are unemployed, under-employed or seasonally employed and lack the prerequisite education and job skills for secure employment, will be assisted?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Federal manpower programs are having a direct anti-poverty effect by facilitating the placement of workers

in employment, providing training and vocational rehabilitation, information about job opportunities, and financial help for workers to explore these opportunities and relocate if necessary.
A basic function of the Department of Manpower and Immigration is to bring together workers and jobs. Canada Manpower Counsellors are making about 700,000 placements in employment annually. A great many of the persons placed are poor, or would have sunk below poverty levels had jobs not been found for them.
The Canada Manpower Training Program significantly helps poor workers. The proportion of the poor among those who apply for and receive Occupational Training for Adults training is more than twice as high as among the population at large. In 1968-69, for instance over $100,000,000 were spent on training poor people that year. It is expected that some $120,000,000 will be spent on the poor this year.
Training is also directed toward the relatively uneducated. Based on 1968-69 figures roughly 16.5 per cent of all O.T.A. trainees referred for full-time training have eight or less years of education in public institutions or in apprenticeship.
The program not only enhances the employability and earning power of its graduates but also directly attacks seasonal employment to which the poor are particularly vulnerable. This year roughly four times as many trainees are taking courses during the seasonally slack period January to March as took courses last June, July and August peak employment period.
The program's expenditures have been deliberately directed toward those geographic regions with the highest incidence of need as indicated by their unemployment and
March 18, 1970

poverty rates. This factor is illustrated by the following table:

Expenditures Unem-Per Labour ployment Poverty Force Member Rates Incidence*
Region	1968-69	1968	1961$	%	%Atlantic	41.07	7.3	47.7Quebec	29.59	6.5	30.8Ontario	21.52	3.5	23.0Prairie	19.62	3.0	31.2Pacific	11.36	5.9	26.9Canada	24.04	4.8	29.1
Family heads and unattached individuals.
A survey of the 1968-69 O.T.A. trainees taken three months after they graduated showed that where only about 40 per cent had jobs when they entered training (and many of these were on the point of losing them) close to 80 per cent were employed after training. The earning power of the average graduate also rose by close to 20 per cent as a result of training.
The Canada Manpower Mobility program helps workers who are unemployed or underemployed and for whom there are no suitable jobs available locally. Many of these workers, particularly with large families are poor. The program says their complete cost of moving and provides an additional resettlement allowance based on family size which may exceed $1,000, and a housing allowance that will be $1,500 if the worker has to sell his old house and buy another in the new area. Expenditures in exploratory and relocation grants will rise from $4.2 million in fiscal 1968-69 to close to $6 million this current fiscal year.
The Department of Manpower and Immigration participates with the provinces in the administration of the Vocational Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons Act. The goals of this legislation have broadened from the rehabilitation of the physically and mentally disabled to include the socially and psychologically disadvantaged. As a result, the federal share of a rapidly expanding expenditure has grown from some $1 million in 1966-67 to an estimated $5.3 million this year.
The Department of Manpower and Immigration provides strong support to the continuing initiatives in regional expansion. The Department of Manpower and Immigration is in-
Questions
vesting heavily in existing FRED programs, as shown by the following figures:
Interlake, $18.9 m., 10-year plan commencing April 1, 1967; Mactaquac, $2.3 m., 10-year plan commencing April 22, 1966; Northeast N.B., $25.4 m., 10-year plan commencing September 1966; Lower St. Lawrence, $92.0 m., 5-year plan commencing April 1, 1968;
P.E.I., $6.5 m., 15-year plan commencing April 1, 1969.
By co-operating and integrating federal employment, trading, and mobility programs with Regional Economic Expansion programs that stimulate industrial expansion and social capital, Manpower measures obviously are going a long way towards easing the plight of the poor and ensuring a regionally more equitable division of income and employment opportunities throughout Canada.


BORDEN-CAPE TORMENTINE FERRY SERVICE-ADDITIONAL SHIPS
Mr. MacLean: 1.	What completion date was specified in the contracts for the construction of the two additional ships for the Borden-Cape Tormentine ferry service?
2.	Is it expected that these ships will be completed on schedule?
3.	Does the design of these ships include sleeping accommodation for crews and, if not, what would be (a) the estimated additional delay of completion (b) the estimated additional cost required to provide such sleeping accommodation for the crews of these ships?


Gérard Loiselle: 1. 15 April, 1971 and 1 May, 1971.
2.	Yes.
3.	Present design of the ships does not include sleeping accommodation for crews and such accommodation could not be incorporated without completely redesigning the ships, (a) Estimated delay 18/24 months, (b) Estimated additional cost $3.3 m.
(This answer has been prepared in co-operation with the Department of Supply and Services.)


MANPOWER RE-EDUCATION AND RETRAINING
Mr. Chappell: How much money has the federal government expended during each of the past two years for Manpower re-education and retraining (a) by institutional or school class instructions (b) by incentive to industry?

March 18. 1970
Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1968-69	1969-701
(a)	185,500,000	231,676,000(b)	4,467,000	9,768,000
Planned


TAX EXEMPTION FOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO CANADIAN COUNCIL FOR FAIR TAXATION
Mr. Orlikow: Has the Canadian Council for Fair Taxation applied for an exemption from income taxes for contributions made to that organization as a charitable or educational organization?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister of National Revenue):: No.


NATIONAL REVENUE-INCOMES UNDER $3,000
Mr. Chappell: In 1967, how many taxpayers reported incomes under $3,000 and what percentage of this group were (a) students or housewives doing part-time work (b) seasonal employees?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: 1,665,920. No information is available concerning (a) and (b).


MANPOWER RETRAINING AND INSTRUCTION, MANICOUAGAN
Mr. Blouin: During the present fiscal year what amount was spent by the Department of Manpower and Immigration on re-training and general instruction courses for adults in the constituency of Manicoua-gan?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is estimated that the Department of Manpower and Immigration, in fiscal year 1969-70, will spend approximately $4,073,244 on adult training in the constituency of Manicouagan, broken down as follows: Training Allowances, $2,669,307; Purchase of Training, $1,403,937.


HOURLY WAGE RATES, CANADIAN FORCES BASE, VALC ARTIER
Mr. Godin: Is the government contemplating revision of the hourly wage rates currently paid to casual employees at the Canadian Forces Base, Valcartier and, if so, is it intended to increase these rates to make them comparable to those paid locally to workers in the same category?


Mr. David W. Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: No.
Under the regime of collective bargaining which was introduced in the Public Service by the Public Service Staff Relations Act the government is paying the rates which were negotiated between the Treasury Board and the Bargaining Agent representing the members of the General Labour and Trades Group in the Quebec area. These same rates apply also to the casual employees at Valcartier. The collective agreement governing the terms and conditions of employment for this Group expired on 30 September, 1968, but continues in force by agreement of the two parties until a new contract is signed. The parties to the agreement are now in the process of bargaining a new collective agreement which will be effective 1 October, 1968. The government will pay any rate revisions, which may be agreed to, retroactively to that date.


AGRICULTURE-VOLUME OF GRASS SEEDS
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	What is the volume and value of each of the several varieties of grass seeds in storage in Canada which will be suitable for seeding this Spring by prairie farmers?
2.	What steps are being taken by the government to obtain necessary supplies of the various varieties of grass seed for said farmers?
3.	From what countries has the government made arrangements to secure imports of such needed varieties of grass seed?


Mr. Florian Cole (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is as follows: 1. There are statistics on the volume of grass seeds held by the main seed processing firms in Canada as at January 31, 1970. They are given on page 2 of the DBS daily bulletin for Thursday, March 5, 1970. We have no figures on the value of such seeds.
2.	Government officers met with representatives from the Canadian Association of Seed Dealers in order to examine the importance of the western program and the condition of seed supplies. It has been estimated that they will be adequate to provide the necessary grass seeds for the acreage eligible for payments under the program for reducing wheat stocks.
3.	None.
March 18, 1970


PENSION OF RETIRED CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION EMPLOYEE
Mr. Muir (Cape Breion-The Sydneys): 1.	Has the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion received a letter from Mr. Pius Hennessey, Secretary of the Sydney Mines Pensioners Union, on behalf of Mr. Alfred Pendergast, a former employee of the Cape Breton Development Corporation, protesting the treatment of this gentleman in regard to the pre-retirement pension?
2.	Has a complete investigation of this workman's case been undertaken by the Minister and, if so (a) what did this investigation consist of (b) what was the nature of the reply provided Mr. Hennessey (c) what consideration has been or will be given to Mr. Pendergast regarding preretirement compensation?


Jean Marchand: 1. Yes, on March 9.
2. The Cape Breton Development Corporation, which is a Crown corporation, has been asked for a full report, and any appropriate resulting action will be communicated to Mr. Pendergast and others concerned.


COMPANIES AFFECTED BY BANNING OF CYCLAMATES
Mr. Rynard: 1.	How many companies were affected by the decision to ban cyclamates?
2.	What was the total loss to companies with stocks containing cyclamates?
3.	Has any compensation been paid to these companies?


John Carr Munro: 1. Not available.
2.	Not available.
3.	No.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mrs. Maclnnis: 1. For the fiscal years 1966-67, 1967-68 and that part of 1968-69 which still come under the responsibility of the Food and Drug Directorate of the De-21774-50
Orders for Returns
partment of National Health and Welfare, what firms or companies were charged with economic fraud in food and food products?
2. For that part of the fiscal year 1968-69 and the fiscal year 1969-70 up to November 14, 1969, what firms or companies have been charged with economic fraud in food and food products by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?
Return tabled.


MARITIME PROVINCES-EMPLOYEES RETIRING, REDUNDANT OR TRANSFERRED
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Since August 1, 1969, how many employees of the Government of Canada in Prince Edward Island have (a) retired (b) been sent redundancy notices
(c)	transferred to other departments or locations?
2.	How many from each of the Provinces of Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia?
3.	For what reason or reasons were these diminutions in personnel carried out?
4.	For the same period, how many prevailing wage rate employees were released from duty with departments of the Government of Canada in Prince Edward Island?
Return tabled.


THEFTS FROM POST OFFICE
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What was the total number of thefts from the Canadian Post Office since June 25, 1968?
2.	Where and when did these thefts occur?
3.	What is the estimated value of items stolen?
4.	What amount of compensation has been paid to Post Office patrons?
5.	What claims for compensation are still outstanding?
6.	Is consideration being given to providing greater security to the transportation of mail?
Return tabled.


FAMILY ALLOWANCES-CLASSIFICATION OF FAMILIES
Mr. Laprise: What is the classification of families according to number of children based on family allowances paid in March of each year 1944-1949 and 1959-1969?
Return tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, even after one notes that questions 183 and 231 have been answered today, there are still 18 questions on the Order Paper that have been there since the first day of this session, nearly five months ago. It strikes me

March 18. 1970
Motions for Papers
that all but one of them could be answered
without too much trouble. I wonder whether we could expect the first day's questions to be cleared up very soon?


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Some of the questions, No. 167 and following, require the investigation of the ownership, in whole or in part, of something like 800 corporations. Under the circumstances, I think it must be expected that there will be some delay in getting all the information.


Mr. Carter:: Mr. Speaker, for the fifth time I would ask the House Leader when I can expect an answer to question 516, dated November 20. I am rapidly getting the impression that the government does not want to answer it.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is wrong. As an Easter gift we expect to be able to answer this question next week.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I have had question No. 328 on the Order Paper since October 30, 1969. It is not a difficult question to answer. All I am asking is that the government inform the House which cabinet ministers have offices in their constituencies that are being maintained at public expense. There is no reason for this question not having been answered.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, I will make the necessary inquiries and try to have the question answered as soon as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion No. 346 for production of papers is acceptable to the government, under the usual conditions for confidential papers and subject to approval by the governmental authorities concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations or conditions expressed by the Parliamentary

Secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that Notice of Motion No. 346 be deemed to have
been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN CORRESPONDENCE, NEWFOUNDLAND

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 346-Mr. Marshall:
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 Province of Newfoundland in relationship to a Regional Development Plan for Newfoundland.
Motion agreed to.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions Nos. 53, 54, 83, 232, 293, 299, 313 and 345?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.



''MANHATTAN&quot; PROJECT-DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND HUMBLE OIL COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 53-Mr. Thomson:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence between the Department of External Affairs and the Humble Oil Company and its partners in relation to the Manhattan project.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I move this motion on behalf of the hon. member.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there has been no correspondence between the Department of External Affairs and the Humble Oil Company and its partners in relation to the Manhattan project. I therefore request that the hon. member withdraw his motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why
has there not been?


Mr. Diefenbaker:: That reveals the story exactly.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is dropped.


John George Diefenbaker: No action again.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
March 18, 1970



&quot;MANHATTAN&quot; PROJECT-DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND U.S. GOVERNMENT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 54-Mr. Thomson:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence between the Department of External Affairs and the United States Government in relation to the Manhattan project.
['Order, please.\n5178\tCOMMONS DEBATES\tMarch 18, 1970\nAlleged Inadequacy of Answer to Question']
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I move this motion on behalf of the hon. member.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, in this case there is correspondence. It is part of the confidential communications between governments and therefore I suggest should not be made public. In these circumstances I wonder whether the hon. member would withdraw his motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 83-Mr. Saltsman:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence between the Government of Canada and the NCS Foundation and Trust General du Canada regarding its incorporation under the Canada Corporations Act.
Mr. Paul Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this motion is acceptable on the understanding that the production of the documents requested will be limited to copies of correspondence dealing with the actual process of incorporation of the NCS Foundation and its dissolution.


Mr. Saltsman:: Mr. Speaker, that is not acceptable.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations or conditions expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary, is it the pleasure of the House-


Max Saltsman: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not acceptable. That would not be acceptable and would not provide adequate information.
Motions for Papers


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


INDUSTRY, TRADE AND COMMERCE INFORMATION PROGRAM
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 232-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report by W. R. Wright on departmental information programs undertaken for the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the past Session.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce wishes to inform the hon. member that the document referred to in this motion was commissioned as an internal study for departmental working purposes only. This study is confidential and therefore I would ask the hon. member to withdraw the motion.


Mr. Skoberg:: Mr. Speaker, I think we should have some of these internal studies made public and I call for a vote.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


CORRESPONDENCE, STUDIES AND REPORTS RESPECTING PHARMACEUTICALS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 293-Mr. Roberts:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence between members of the public and 'the Government of Canada and its departments and agents relating to (a) costs, prices and safety of pharmaceuticals: sales tax, tariffs and dumping duties applied to pharmaceuticals; and policy concerning pharmaceutical patents and trade marks (b) studies and reports of these subjects by the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, the Royal Commission on Health Services and the House of Commons Special Committee on Drug Costs and Prices (c) Bill C-190, An Act to amend the Patent Act and the Trade Marks Act, in the Second Session, Twenty-Seventh Parliament (d) Bill C-102, An Act to amend the Patent Act, the Trade Marks Act, and the Food and Drugs Act, in the First Session, Twenty-Eighth Parliament.
Paul Langlois: Mr. Speaker, the correspondence called for in this motion was submitted to the government in the belief that it would not be published. Making it public now would inhibit written submissions to the government by private persons in future. I hope that the hon. member would consent to withdraw the motion.

March 18, 1970
Motions for Papers


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question!


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


REPORTS AND SUBMISSIONS RESPECTING ANTI-COMBINES LEGISLATION
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 299-Mr. Saltsman:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all reports or submissions received by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs since January 1, 1969, regarding changes in Canada's anti-combines legislation.
Paul Langlois: Mr. Speaker, this motion is acceptable subject to the originators of such reports and submissions giving their prior consent.


Max Saltsman: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations or conditions expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that Notice of Motion No. 299 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 313-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the report on the decision of the National Film Board to impose film charges on local school boards, libraries, etc., as mentioned by the Secretary of State and reported in Hansard of December 17, 1969 at page 2,094.
Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the government's decision to cancel the new rental charges for films, I understand that the hon. member wishes to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Orlikow:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN STUDIES, NEWFOUNDLAND
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 345-Mr. Marshall:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all studies made in preparation of a Regional Development Plan for the Province of Newfoundland.
Mr. Martin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the current prepa-

ration of a development plan is being done by federal and provincial officials without commissioned studies. In view of this, I wonder whether the hon. member would be willing to withdraw his motion?


Mr. Marshall:: With deep regret, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that it be transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


EXTRADITION OF HAROLD C. BANKS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 290-Mr. Hees:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all papers, letters and other documents passed between the Governments of Canada and the United States from the 14th, May 1969, to the date of the return hereto relating to the extradition of Harold C. Banks.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on December 4 I placed on the Order Paper a request for production of correspondence between this government and the United States government dealing with the extradition of Hal Banks. This material should be readily available. I am sure the United States government would be agreeable to making it available to the government unless the government is trying to cover something up. I request that this material be produced immediately.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we would be quite happy if Your Honour wishes to call the question on this right away.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member wish the Chair to put the question?


Mr. Hees:: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have
And more than five members having risen: Mr. Speaker: Call in the members.
March 18, 1970


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. [Later:]


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which relates to notice of motion No. 290. I raise this matter so that there will be no misunderstanding. The reason for not producing the documents asked for is the traditional one that it is not customary to reveal inter-governmental exchanges of this nature.
Messrs:
Allmand	Cote (Richelieu)
Anderson	C6t6 (Longueull)
Badanai	Crossman
Barrett	Cullen
Bechard	Cyr
Beer	Davis
Benson	Deachman
Blair	Drury
Blouin	Dub6
Borrie	Duquet
Breau	Emard
Brown	Ethier
Caccia	Forest
Cadieux (Labelle)	Forget
Cafik	Francis
Chappell	Gillespie
Chretien	Givens
Clermont	Gray
Cobbe	Groos
Comtois	Guay
Corbin	Guilbault


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is it permissible for anyone to rise and reflect on a vote that has already been taken?


An hon. Member:: No, it is not.


Mitchell William Sharp: I am not reflecting.


Mr. Speaker:: The point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is well taken. Of course the Chair has no way of knowing what point will be raised when an hon. member rises on a question of privilege.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
minister just tries to get away with it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
5178	COMMONS DEBATES	March 18, 1970
Alleged Inadequacy of Answer to Question


ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS	Mr. Coates: How does the minister know
[Stage Direction]
the officials are misinformed?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising out of the purported answer to question No. 1265 which asked how many letters, telegrams and/or other communications criticizing or condemning the white paper in whole or in part have been received by the Minister of Finance since January 1, 1970. I asked a similar question of the Prime Minister and the answer quite properly applied up to the date the reply was filed in Parliament. However, the purported answer given this afternoon is a masterpiece of selective non-information and misinformation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: I am restricting my words so that there is no misunderstanding. The answer states in part:
Coupons and form letters submitted as part of an organized campaign against particular proposals have not been enumerated.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the widespread applause from the Liberal party indicates it is particeps criminis to what has taken place.


George Harris Hees: This is Information Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: I ask that this question be put back on the Order Paper and that it be given consideration. This House cannot be treated with contempt. As a matter of fact, even though the government may not wish to divulge the information I am told that its officials have received 60,000 communications of condemnation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, whoever told the right hon. gentleman that is grossly misinformed.


George Harris Hees: Give us the figures, then.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Give us the figures.


John George Diefenbaker: Give us the figures so that we may know the facts.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, if the right hon. gentleman will ask his question today and ask for the total number of such objections which have been received up until today, I will be pleased to give the information to him.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that answer in no way meets the situation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Drury:: The right hon. gentleman is confused with facts.


John George Diefenbaker: The question included the words "or other communications", and I submit no government has the right to select that portion of any information that it believes will be beneficial to it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman obviously not only wants to write the questions; he wishes to write the answers too.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to write the answer; I want the right answer.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I will go further; I will send the coupons over to my right hon. friend so that he can send them back to his friends.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not want the coupons. The minister can use them for whatever purpose he has in mind.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: The minister just cannot think of a smart reply.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege. Earlier this afternoon, when the House was provided with an answer to question No. 1265 a Liberal member on my right indicated that his office had received a greater number of objections than the answer indicated.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Oral questions.
March 18, 1970	COMMONS



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister which arises from a prediction made by a notable legal authority in the other place that the coercive features of the new wheat acreage reduction program can be challenged in the courts as being beyond the scope of the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Is it the intention of the government to refer this matter immediately to the Supreme Court for a decision in order to clarify the status of this government proposal so that the farmers of western Canada in particular will know where they stand?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I was not made aware of this information until this moment. I will look at it. If it merits study, 1 will study it. In the meantime I suggest that farmers should not renounce their hopes in this regard.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Am I to take it from the Prime Minister's answer that the government has not considered this legal question?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, obviously the hon. member cannot take that meaning. If we were to consider a question we obviously would consider its legal implications, but we cannot consider in advance hypothetical opinions which have come from an as yet unknown source.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice. Were the minister and his legal advisers requested to give an opinion as to legality of the procedures proposed in dealing with the reduction of wheat acreage?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding we were consulted, yes.


Mr. Forresiall:: There we see the right hand not knowing what the left is doing.
DEBATES	5179
Inquiries of the Ministry AIR TRANSPORT



ROUTES GRANTED TO TRANSAIR-REQUEST FOR DELAY IN IMPLEMENTATION OF DECISION-PUBLIC HEARINGS

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. It concerns the decision of the Canadian Transport Commission to grant rights to certain air routes to TransAir while at the same time refusing to allow public hearings. Since many Canadians are disturbed about granting these rights to a company, the leading two principals of which were formerly associated with the chairman of the commission, one as his executive assistant and the other as a leading bagman for the Liberal party-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member please ask the question?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I ask the minister if he would be prepared to delay the implementation of this decision until public hearings can be held at which those interested parties who have asked to be heard can be given an opportunity to place their case before the commission?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: In so far as the preamble is concerned, I think I can ignore it. In terms of the substance of the question, I do not believe that the Minister of Transport has the authority to delay the decision in the manner that has been requested by the hon. member. I will be glad to look into it to see whether that is the case. I am reasonably certain I have no such authority.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact the minister claims to have no authority and in view of the fact that this is a quasi-judicial board and it is not only important that justice be done but that it appear to be done, I ask the minister if he would be prepared to have a judicial investigation to assure the Canadian people there was neither favouritism nor patronage in the granting of these routes without a public hearing?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I can only say that I will take the question as notice. The commission is a duly constituted authority. As far as I know and on the evidence that I have seen, they have performed in precisely the proper manner. There was nothing omitted from the procedures they were required to do. I will take the question as notice.
March 18, 1370

Inquiries of the Ministry


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the minister's statement that they did not omit to do anything which they should have done, I ask the minister why public hearings were refused, despite the fact that a number of persons, including the government of Ontario, requested hearings and were informed they would be allowed to intervene and would be heard?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I think that question should more properly be directed to the CTC. I understand there are no requirements in cases such as this to hold public hearings. The only information that I have obtained, in seeking to get answers for hon. members who asked questions earlier, is that notices of the applications were published in the areas concerned and that the matter has been public knowledge for better than a year. In view of the decision, the CTC felt they had discharged their obligations in this regard. With Your Honour's indulgence, I might also refer to the fact the judgment in the case requires that within the first year of operation of any new service, a public hearing be held to determine whether it is working out satisfactorily.


J. Michael Forrestall: I wonder if I might ask the minister a supplementary question. What is important is the ability of people to travel efficiently from one point to another. Therefore I ask the minister whether he can give any assurance that Air Canada will not reduce its services? After all, that is what is important.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: As much as hon. members like to think otherwise, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport does not set the schedules for Air Canada. They are entirely free to do that within their own framework. As I do on all such occasions, I can only undertake to pass the statement on to Air Canada.


David Orlikow: In
view of the fact that the CTC did not hold public hearings with regard to this application, will the minister give consideration to reviewing the legislation to see whether an amendment is required which would instruct the CTC to hold public hearings when representations are made?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to do that. In fact, the act is under some review at the present time.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS POLICY RESPECTING RECOGNITION OF FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO CERTAIN PROGRAMS

Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question.
In view of the fact that the federal government has officially announced through one of its ministers that no money whatsoever will be paid to Quebec for regional development without a prior agreement between the two governments tending to determine the source of the funds, can the Prime Minister inform the House if this is an official policy and, if so, if he intends making an early statement in the House to that effect?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, without going into the details of the matter, I may say that on the whole the answer to the first part of the question is yes, but I must add that this policy does not apply only to Quebec and the federal government intends to apply it to all the provinces. We are firmly decided to make sure that the taxpayers of all provinces will know what part of their federal taxes is effectively spent in their province for projects in which the federal taxpayer is taking part through the payment of taxes.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Since the official policy, which has just been stated by the Prime Minister, implies agreements between the federal and provincial governments, can he tell us whether he expects that intergovernmental meetings will be held to determine whether the provincial governments accept that policy and are ready to co-operate with the federal government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, of course, it will be a contract agreement, to be negotiated between the federal government and the governments of the provinces concerned. There will be consultation to the extent that the contract will be submitted to them, but once again I tell the House that we will not yield on that principle, because we feel it is one of justice and democracy.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a last supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
Following the statement made recently in Quebec by the Minister of Regional Economic
March 18. 1970

Expansion, has the Quebec government made a protest to the federal government on that matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As far as I know, Mr. Speaker, no such protest has been made and, if I understand his signal correctly, I do not think that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion has received any.


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question to the Prime Minister?
Have any provinces other than Quebec entered into agreements in the past with the federal government providing for the installation of signs showing the contribution of the federal government to certain joint programs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In the past, Mr. Speaker, several provinces have shown enough honesty and decency to acknowledge the share paid by the federal government. Others however have not. We intend to make our contribution known in future.
Hen. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinlhe):
Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
Will he follow the same pattern to deal with the question of the $200 million which have been collected in the province of Quebec through the so-called social development tax of 2 per cent?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we should be very happy if, when medicare becomes operative, taxpayers were told that half the cost of it is paid by the federal government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: This series of supplementary questions should not turn into a lengthy discussion. I shall give the floor to the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe who wants to ask a supplementary question as well as to the hon. member for Sainte-Marie.


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question to the Prime Minister in connection with the answer he gave that no agreements have been signed as yet with the other provinces. Does the importance that the Prime Minister seems to give to such publicity depend on the coming provincial elections so as to help-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Prince Edward-Hastings.
Inquiries of the Ministry FINANCE



TARIFF TREATMENT ACCORDED TO MICHELIN RUBBER COMPANY

George Harris Hees: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Would the hon. gentleman take the first opportunity on motions to explain to the House why it is that at a time of considerable lay-offs in the Canadian automotive tire industry his department has granted to the Michelin Rubber Company of France the right to bring into Canada duty-free during the next few years an unlimited quantity of automobile and truck tires for sale in competition with Canadian products, thereby greatly worsening the employment situation in an industry already hard hit?


Edgar John Benson: should like to take the question as notice so that I may make sure of the details. However, the decision with respect to Michelin establishing a plant in one of the less-developed areas of Canada was one we felt should be supported at that particular time as part of the effort to attract industry into such areas. But I will look further into the particular advantages which were given.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Is it part of the government's policy to fight inflation by increasing unemployment in Canada and transferring jobs to Frenchmen in France?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



AIR TRANSPORT


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: My
question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Some three weeks ago I asked the hon. gentleman a question about the action of the Spanish government in imposing surcharges on flight bookings through Wardair Limited. Is the minister now in a position to give an answer?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The answer is rather lengthy. I can say briefly that there is actually no bilateral arrangement between Canada and Spain. Operations are on the basis of what is known as an authorization and it is because of this, since only one airline is involved, that a second airline was refused permission to enter since it did not meet requirements.
March 18, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry Consequently, reciprocal action was apparently taken by the Spanish government. I would be glad to send the hon. member the full story, which I have here before me, if he wishes.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouih-Halifax
East): My question is addressed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Since only ten or 11 days are left before Fairey Aviation is to be closed down, may I ask whether or not Bell is any nearer reaching an arrangement with Fairey of Canada to take over that plant?
Jean Marchand: Unfortunately, I cannot give any information today.


J. Michael Forrestall: May I ask the minister whether he will find some opportunity before the Easter break to make a brief statement as to the status of this plant and the remaining four or five hundred employees?


Jean Marchand: While negotiations are going on it is very difficult to make a public statement.



HIGHWAYS


Mr. Barry Maiher (Surrey):: I have a question which I should like to address to the Minister of Transport; I raised it last week and notice was taken of it at the time. Bearing in mind the application by a trucking company to the Canadian Transport Commission for authorization of unrestricted trucking operations on Sundays, and the adverse effect such trucking, if permitted, would have on traffic safety in Canada, would the minister look into this matter and make a report?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Having been raised as a very pious Presbyterian, I will be glad not only to make representations but to support those of the hon. member.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.

Would the minister tell the House what progress has been accomplished in the negotiations concerning the recognition of Red China and, should this take place, whether Nationalist China will persist in its attitude towards Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, negotiations are continuing; there have been meetings in the last few weeks and I expect there will be others held soon. We shall be recognizing one government of China, and since both the Peking and the Taiwan regimes purport to be governments of China our recognition of Peking would naturally exclude that of the government now in Taiwan.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: In view of the advent of the Chinese new year, called the year of the dog, during which the Chinese, fearing omens of bad luck, are extremely reluctant to enter into commitments unless the stars in the zodiac are propitious, does the minister believe progress will be made on this issue?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am sorry, but I am not an astrologer.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the minister tell us what the situation will be in connection with the trade which has been built up between Canada and the Republic of China in Taiwan, bearing in mind the fact that communist China operates through state trading corporations? What arrangements are being made to preserve the right of Taiwan to continue this trade with Canada, or is that trade to be sacrificed?


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not want to become involved in a technical answer to that question. Perhaps I might remind the right hon. gentleman that when he was in office-


John George Diefenbaker: Just answer the question.


Mitchell William Sharp: -when we entered into a trade agreement with China many years ago, notwithstanding the fact the mainland was separated from Taiwan, the mainland continued to get most-favoured-nation treatment. In other words, we have always considered China to be one. The question as to the treatment of Taiwan if we succeed in achieving diplomatic relations with Peking is one which I think would have to be looked at in the light of that general principle.
March 18. 1970


John George Diefenbaker: In connection with that
general principle, is the minister not in a position to advise us whether the millions of dollars of trade we now conduct with Taiwan will be lost unless it is channelled through communist state corporations?


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not think there will be any interruption in trade between Canada and Taiwan.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorklon-Melville):: Can
the minister assure the House that Canada will press for the seating of mainland China in the United Nations and for the representation of that country on the Security Council?


Mitchell William Sharp: I have made it clear, both publicly and to the representatives of the People's Republic of China, that if we do succeed in establishing diplomatic relations between that regime and Canada we would then support their membership in the United Nations.


John George Diefenbaker: A quid pro quo.


Mitchell William Sharp: There seems to be some misunderstanding of the position. China is already a member of the United Nations and of the Security Council. The only question is: who speaks for China?


An hon. Member:: Do you speak for China? [Later:]


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. When does the government expect to be permitted to stop fawning at the feet of Red China and be allowed by that country to recognize it?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: My
question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. On March 12, the hon. gentleman told my hon. friend from Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands that he was looking into a proposal under which the government, either alone or in conjunction with the province of Ontario, would take over and operate the Dunlop plant in Toronto, at least until such time as a feasibility study had been
Inquiries of the Ministry undertaken. I should now like to ask whether a decision has been made and, if so, what has been decided?


Jean Marchand: No decision has been made, Mr. Speaker.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Has the minister communicated with the government of Ontario concerning this proposal and what result, if any, followed such communication?


Jean Marchand: There is continuing communication between my department and the government of Ontario. I can ask for the information, ascertain the situation, and maybe make a report to the House.



CLOSING OF DUNLOP PLANT-EFFECT ON YARMOUTH TEXTILE INDUSTRY

Mr. Speaker:: I understand the hon. member for South Western Nova has a supplementary to a previous question.


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion whether he can tell the House if he has studied the impact of the closing of the Dunlop plant on other plants, and again I refer to the Cosmo-Imperial textile plant in Yarmouth?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will inquire, as I said a few minutes ago, and report to the House what is happening.



INDUSTRY


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance which arises from his brief remarks in his budget address last week. Will the government take appropriate steps to abate the current importation into Canada of terylene and other synthetic fibres and textiles from low wage countries that are unfairly taking over a large share of our domestic market, thus causing much unemployment in our country?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that the question now posed by the hon. member was asked yesterday by another hon. member, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe, I believe.

5184	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry TRANSPORT



ACTION ON RAILWAY FREIGHT RATE INCREASES

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he proposes to take any measures to prevent, defer or postpone the increase in transportation rates in the maritime provinces projected for early April, particularly since 1 understand an increase took place last autumn?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, my answer in this case is somewhat the same as that with reference to the CTC, that it is within the railways' own competence to set rates. However, as I advised the House while I believe the Leader of the Opposition was out of the chamber, this is a matter that has been referred to the Prices and Incomes Commission who are investigating the justification for these rate increases.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister make certain that these increases are deferred long enough to allow the appropriate committee of the House to look into their effect? I ask this question knowing the unremitting war that the government is conducting against regional disparity; and I am sure that the Minister of Transport would not want to join with the Minister of Finance in offsetting whatever good work is being done by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion to fight regional disparity.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, there may be a question in there somewhere, but I have not been able to find it.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmoni):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Minister of Transport could advise whether the Canadian Transport Commission has consented to a further freight rate increase that is contemplated for the Atlantic region some time later this year, making three increases within one 12-month period? Could the minister also give an indication whether or not this whole matter could be deferred until he and perhaps officials of the CTC appear before the transportation committee?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member obviously forgets-I am sure it is not a matter of ignorance-that the CTC does not in fact concur in rate setting or set rates for the railways. They are free, in the first

DEBATES	March 18, 1970
instance, to set their own rates. There are certain appeal procedures, but beyond that there is very little that the government can do other than what we have already done, which is to refer the whole question, as I advised the Leader of the Opposition, to the Prices and Incomes Commission.



EFFECT OF RAILWAY FREIGHT RATE INCREASES ON REGIONAL EXPANSION

Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Is there any communication or relationship between his department and the Department of Transport and/or the CTC with regard to how these freight rate increases might adversely affect attempts to promote regional expansion in many areas in Canada?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we are informed as are all other departments, and we try to determine what the effects will be.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A further supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker. I agree that the minister should not get his information from the newspapers, but I should like to ask him whether there is any branch in his department that has under active consideration the impact that the increased cost of transportation across Canada will have and how that might adversely affect attempts being made by the minister's department to upgrade conditions in some areas of Canada?


Jean Marchand: Yes, Mr. Speaker, officials of the department have been asked to study the impact of the decisions taken by the different government agencies.



FINANCE


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Does the federal government plan to take any action over the alleged fraudulent
March 18, 1970

practices and ultimate collapse of the Commonwealth Trust group of companies in British Columbia?


Edgar John Benson: should like to take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, since the minister has kindly agreed to take the question as notice, might I be permitted to put my supplementary question which he can also take as notice. I should like to ask the minister whether he would consider future legislation that would protect Canadian depositors who invest in companies similar to this one?



FISHERIES


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. In view of requests coming into the minister's office from fishermen and locals of the Newfoundland-Labrador Federation of Fishermen, as well as executive members, pleading that the minister not appoint a politician to head the Canadian Saltfish Corporation, can the minister assure the House and the people that an appointment of that type will not be made?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, we are going to make the best possible appointment, and I would hate to exclude politicians from this category.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS POLICY RESPECTING RECOGNITION OF FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO CERTAIN PROGRAMS

Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolietle):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
With reference to the questions asked earlier about the possibility of grants not being paid to the Quebec government for schools or joint programs, would the Prime Minister tell us if, when the time comes to pick a name for a school whose construction has been subsidized by the federal government, Quebec refuses to discuss-


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the question as put is hypothetical.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask an important question to clarify the situation.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Would the Prime Minister tell us if there is a Federal law containing some provisions whereby provinces would be compelled to disclose the Federal government's contribution to shared programs, or, whether he is considering an amendment to the law?


Mr. Speaker:: Since the first part of the question invites the Prime Minister, or a minister, to express a legal opinion, I do not believe that the question is receivable.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I am not asking the Prime Minister's opinion, I am asking if, under a federal law provinces are compelled to take such action?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that the remark I addressed to the hon. member is clear. An hon. member may not ask a minister if a law applies to a certain situation. That is why I suggest that the question as asked is not receivable.


Martial Asselin: I would like to reword it, Mr. Speaker.
Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the new policy he announced at the beginning of the sitting will apply to all shared-cost programs, such as hospitalization insurance and medicare or only to the building of technical schools?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, at the present stage we are discussing primarily a project in which the two levels of government would share the financing. We are not now discussing the contracts I mentioned earlier today which do not apply to all fields in which the federal government participates. There are far too many for us to start identifying them all. They would be buildings, constructions where, effectively, federal participation should be acknowledged. I refer to the building of roads, buildings, etc. with federal funds.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.


John Cole: Have you any objection?


Martial Asselin: No, I am not against that, but the point is to clear up the matter and to find out whether-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is obvious that a debate is beginning-


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish 1 could ask my question.
5186	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The exchange of views between the minister and the hon. member could well take place after the question period. I think now the hon. member is rising to ask a supplementary question.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
When he made his statement in Quebec about this policy, did he mean that this policy would apply only to technical schools, because he was talking then about technical schools?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the talk was not about technical schools at all but about agreements.



TRANSPORT


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport in connection with the regulations which were filed yesterday as an appendix to Hansard. Has the Humble Oil Company been categorically advised that the Manhattan will not be allowed to come into Canadian Arctic waters until she has complied with these regulations?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I think the preamble I gave to the explanation yesterday is the same. We have said that in terms of any assistance we would give the ship these regulations would have to be complied with.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question I should like to direct to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the minister or the government, to the minister's knowledge, advised the Humble Oil Company and/or the United States government that the Manhattan will not be allowed into Canadian Arctic waters until she has complied with these regulations?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, at the present time there is no law which would require the Manhattan to obey anything of this kind. We are intending to bring legislation forward within the next few days. Until then, I think the Minister of Transport is doing what is perfectly appropriate under the circumstances, that is, denying help to the tanker

DEBATES	March 18, 1970
until it complies with the requirements. Until there is an act on the statute books which lays down stipulations, that is the best we can do. I hope we will have the support of hon. members in respect of the legislation we intend to bring forward.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. While we understand the government is trying to establish the principle that the operator of a ship involved in a pollution mishap will pay the cleanup cost, will the minister assure the House that as far as the Manhattan is concerned our demands in respect of this principle are not negotiable?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure of the intent of that question and I wonder whether the hon. member would like to rephrase it in view of my stupidity?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Perhaps to make the question clearer, Mr. Speaker, I should put it this way. Since we understand that the government is trying to establish the principle that the operator of a ship involved in a pollution mishap pays the cleanup cost-I think that is perfectly plain-may we receive an assurance from the minister that as far as the Manhattan is concerned this principle will be non-negotiable?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member means that we want to ensure and confirm this principle, I can give him that assurance. There are, as I have explained in the House on numerous occasions in the past, difficulties in establishing liability in the absence of international law. We are trying to get the very best arrangement we can from the Humble Oil Company in this regard.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Is the minister implying, then, that these waters of the Northwest Passage do not come under the control of Canada?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question either to the right hon. Prime Minister or the Government House Leader. I notice that it has already been passed from the front row to the second row, even before I ask my question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: To the president.
March 18. 1970


An hon. Member:: Try the back row, you might get an answer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In
any event, it was not mailed. Has a decision yet been made regarding a question I asked a couple of weeks ago about the possibility of a discussion at this session of Parliament on the conflict of interest problem, either on the initiative of the government or by making use of my bill No. C-188?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, Mr. Speaker, no decision has been taken as yet.



HISTORIC SITES


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: My
question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Has the hon. gentleman been apprised of the impending demolition in Winnipeg of the former home of Hugh John Macdonald, the son of Sir John A. Macdonald, a Father of Confederation? In view of its historic importance, would he consider referring this matter to the National Historic Sites and Monuments Board, with a view to having this home recognized as a national historic site?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Norihern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to ask the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada to consider the problem and report as soon as possible.



TRANSPORT


Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport, and the importance of this question is directly related to the motion presented to the House earlier this afternoon by my colleague, the hon. member for Wellington-Grey, concerning railway applications for rail line abandonments. Can the minister indicate whether the CTC costing formula is being defended by the government before the Supreme Court of Canada, where it is presently being challenged by the CPR?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I seem to recall having answered
Inquiries of the Ministry that before in the affirmative, Mr. Speaker. If I did not, I want to assure the hon. member that this is being done, yes.


Richard Russell Southam: Mr. Speaker, could the minister assure the House that there will be no rail line abandonment applications accepted, received or dealt with until this formula has finally been dealt with by the Supreme Court?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I would have to take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker, in order to determine whether there is any prohibition against going ahead with hearings while this action is pending. I will be glad to look into it for the hon. member.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. It relates to the minister's announcement in the House on March 11 concerning special areas to be set up across Canada. Is he in a position to say how many federal governments have concluded agreements with the federal government in this respect and, if any, which provincial governments have done so?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, all provincial governments have been consulted and we have agreed substantially on the areas that have been designated.


Robert Simpson: I wonder whether the minister could say which governments have concluded agreements with the federal government?


Jean Marchand: There are no formal agreements on this. They have been consulted. We designate the areas. This is what we did after consultation with the provinces.



SIGNING OF AGREEMENTS WITH NEW BRUNSWICK AND NEWFOUNDLAND

James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, is it not a fact that two agreements are to be signed before April 1 with the provinces of New Brunswick and Newfoundland? On what day will these agreements be signed, and is the minister prepared to meet with the Standing Committee on
5188	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry Regional Development before the Easter recess to discuss these agreements with the committee?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am confident that these two agreements will be signed before April 1. Since I am not sure, it would be difficult for me to accept the proposal, because I do not know whether they have been signed.



DESIGNATION OF SPECIAL AREAS

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether, when he said there had been substantial agreement on the part of the provinces about these special areas, he meant simply that these areas should be designated or meant to indicate that there had been complete agreement between the federal government and the provinces that other areas should not be designated?


Jean Marchand: There has never
been any agreement, Mr. Speaker, concerning areas which should not be designated. I believe that those agreements will remain in force up to June 1972. It is possible that other areas will be designated. It has never been agreed that an area should not be designated.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege. Rather than bring up the same question of privilege again, I thought I could probably ask a question during the regular question period. However, as I indicated, this is the same question of privilege I brought up before and on which I did ask for a ruling from the Chair. At that time, the question of privilege was apparently accepted.
In view of the fact that this afternoon a considerable number of ministers were in the House for the vote, and that since the vote five or six ministers who, according to the roster system, should be in attendance today have been absent, I ask for a definite ruling from the Chair in respect of the roster system which I feel is a violation of the rights and privileges of members of the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
tMr. McGrath.]
DEBATES	March 18. 1970


Winona Grace MacInnis: I suggest that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. My recollection is that this point was raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre some weeks ago and that the Chair made a ruling at the time which I believe still stands. Unfortunately, I am not sure when the ruling was made. If it will be of assistance to the hon. member, I will identify the time and relay this information to him.


Winona Grace MacInnis: On a further question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, surely the Prime Minister, regardless of what he thinks of his roster system, should consider the fact that if his ministers can come in the House to vote they should remain for the question period. In addition, he should realize that his roster system has been violated by his own cabinet ministers.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



THE MINISTRY


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I regret to have to raise a point of order in relation to the same matter I raised earlier today. I was hoping I would catch Your Honour's eye during the question period. This is a matter which concerns the rights of members of the House. I will direct a simple question to the Prime Minister which requires a simple yes or no answer. I see the Prime Minister is half-way out of the House. Perhaps he will come in the rest of the way and answer the question. Is it government policy to make announcements outside the House regarding the reorganization of government departments?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will be back tomorrow.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, following the previous point of order on which there was some discussion, I should like to ask Your Honour at what stage is the consideration of Standing Order 5, and is this matter being actively pursued?


Mr. Speaker:: I would find it very difficult to reply to the hon. member's question. I do not consider it is the Chair's duty to review the rules. When questions of privilege and points of order are raised in the House, which I think are of importance and should be considered by the House Committee on Rules, I take the liberty of bringing these points to
March 18. 1970
the attention of the committee when it sits. If there is a suggestion that Standing Order 5 should be considered by the committee, I will be pleased to bring this to the attention of the chairman of the committee whenever the committee is called together and sits.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order and perhaps in relation to the same subject, I should indicate that several times during the session I have suggested that the House could make a general order referring to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization the rules, practices and procedures of the House so that a further discussion of these matters could be undertaken. If there is any general disposition to accept an order of that kind, perhaps we could make it right now.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed? I am not sure what is before the House. Is it a motion in the name of the President of the Privy Council?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, Mr. Speaker. I made the suggestion that perhaps if the House would like to deal with this at an early date we could make it a motion herewith.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Mr. Bell:: It is agreed, Mr. Speaker, provided such consideration includes the question of the specific attendance of ministers in the House so they will not be able to "scram" out of the House and not fail the representatives of the people.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Obviously there is no
agreement.


Louis-Roland Comeau: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I should like to ask you if someone other than a minister or a parliamentary secretary may answer Inquiries of the Ministry, since this role-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question put by the hon. member is hypothetical. Would he resume his seat?
Of course, the Standing Orders and the practice in the House do not allow hon. members to ask a question in that way to the Chair.


James Aloysius McGrath: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, since there is no agreement on this matter I have no alternative but to
The Budget-Mr. La Salle invoke the provisions of Standing Order 5 and ask Your Honour that the Prime Minister be directed to return to the House to answer my question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think this matter can be raised by way of a question of privilege. The hon. member must realize that Standing Order 5 does not apply specifically to ministers; it applies to all members. If we acted on the suggestion of the hon. member for St. John's East, members might ask that other individual members be called back into the House. Perhaps this would not be such a bad idea. However, I would think the question or the motion or proposal could not be put under the provisions of Standing Order 5 at this time.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, on the same question of privilege, in respect of Standing Order 5 could it not be implied that, since every member is bound to attend, the Prime Minister himself is violating that rule by predetermining the absence of Ministers through the setting up of a roster system which gives them the privilege to stay out of the House? In other words, by establishing his roster system he is violating rule 5.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, March 17, consideration of the motion of Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance) that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government and the amendment thereto of Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West) (page 5051).
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on the budget presented last week by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson).
The task of commenting the budget speech is not too demanding, because the budget did not contain many new proposals, except that it did not provide for any new tax, and was based on the prevailing inflationary situation.
In my opinion, unemployment should have the priority over inflation, because inflation is only an opportunity for the government to

5190	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. La Salle reduce its expenses on all accounts, with the frequent result of a renewed outbreak of unemployment which is felt in Quebec as well as in the other provinces.
The important point which the minister wanted especially to emphasize is the budget surplus with which it seems possible to justify everything. In the name of a just society, I wonder how it is possible, through surpluses alone which can only be prejudicial to a good many people, to bring the Canadian people to have confidence again in Parliament and how it is possible to govern the country with objectiveness.
There are surpluses in almost every field.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I wonder how one can boast that there will be surpluses when Quebec is deprived of $200 million from a so-called special tax taken from Quebec taxpayers' pockets. Furthermore, other provinces which did not avail themselves of this medical insurance scheme are not mentioned.
I am always somewhat surprised at the fact that few members, especially among those from Quebec, save put forward their arguments in the House. Instead by their silence, they condoned that hold-up perpetrated by Ottawa against Quebec a few weeks ago.
It is certainly easy for the Minister of Finance to bring down a surplus budget when such measures are involved. And he will keep on bragging proudly about a possible surplus.
It could also be said that the Post Office and Communications Department is looking for such surpluses. Apparently, according to this government's policy, the profitable operation of that department is the main objective, and no thought is given to the public service it is meant to offer.
More and more, it seems, the Minister and the goverment are facing increasing difficulties in this regard. Indeed, they are always striving for profitable operation at the expense of the people.
Worthwhile initiatives on the part of hon. members in general and Quebec members in particular are becoming scarce, while very difficult problems are cropping up right in the city of Montreal, and that is detrimental to the Canadian people as a whole.
In any case, let us suppose that such surpluses will occur. Why did someone not think of distributing such surpluses as a refund on the interest paid by people wishing to build a house? It is planned to promote long term and short term construction.

DEBATES	March 18, 1970
It has been proven that it is impossible for people earning $10,000 or less to get a loan because they will be unable to repay it due to the present rates of interest.
It seems that the government is definitely going to keep the surpluses, more often than not, to the detriment of the provinces. It is nevertheless surprising that no thought has been given to handing this refund over to these Canadians wage earners who would then be able to buy a house and become assets in the community, thus giving a boost to short term construction.
It is a joke. As a matter of fact, loans are made easier for building purposes but at interest rates which have gone up steadily in the last three or five years.
The only responsible way in which a so-called responsible government, speaking in the name of a just society, can make it possible for its citizens to purchase a house, in view of high interest rates, is to prepare as soon as possible a bill calling for reimbursement of a part of this interest to people in the middle salary range.
We would thus be acting in a responsible way. The government and Parliament would be offering the people a responsible, human policy in order to revitalize construction, which affects a large number of Canadian workers.
I should now like to express my concern about dairy producers.
An emergency debate was held recently. Several members took pride in siding with the dairy farmers, a class of people that deserves protection and encouragement. In fact, we only requested that a very small part of the surplus forecast by the government, that is the $10 million worth of subsidies that dairy farmers are to be deprived of this year, be still granted to them. This government's behaviour leaves them wondering, I believe, for, during this austerity period, it seems fair to hurt that class of producers who badly need the subsidies refused to them.
On the other hand, much to the surprise of many members, a minister announced subsidies of approximately $140 million to western wheat producers. I have no hesitation at all to support that measure, considering the difficulties facing them.
However, how can one accept without saying a word that there is no provision in the budget for granting again to dairy farmers at least that share of the $10 million that is absolutely necessary to the successful operation of the Quebec dairy industry?
March 18, 1970	COMMONS
What is more astonishing is the complete silence of a good number of the members concerned, while this $10 million cutback in subsidies will affect about 50 per cent of the Quebec dairy farmers. In fact, they are likely to lose $4,375,000, an amount equivalent to a sizeable part of the country's dairy production.
I am led by this silence to try to wake up those members who should make themselves heard and make the Minister of Finance understand the serious consequences of this cutback for Quebec dairy farmers.
Of course the minister cannot be informed of all the problems facing Quebec producers, but in view of the fact that Quebec is strongly represented within the government, I still hope that some day the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) will be forced to change his mind about the dairy producers in Quebec and in the rest of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, no mention is made in the budget speech of another very serious matter which has been brought up in the House quite often recently. I mean the textile industry.
I have before me some documents indicating that in October 1968 companies and unions met with the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and members of his cabinet in order to set forth the serious problem faced by the Canadian textile industry. Mention was made of an increasing penetration of imported items, which is detrimental to workers and businesses in that industry.
At that time they were assured of a quick solution to their problem. Instead of that, later on, the government decided to undertake a complete investigation of the textile and clothing industries. We are already at the end of March and we are still waiting for the result of that inquiry.
The main problem has to do with imports, it seems. In fact, 20 per cent of all textile products and clothing come from low-cost countries. Those products represent 42 per cent of the total imports. That affects 200,000 workers; here is the breakdown: 110,000 in the clothing industry and 83,000 in the textile industry, a total of 25 per cent of all Quebec workers.
We control only 55 per cent of the market, as against 70 per cent 20 years ago. No other country allows such heavy imports. In the United States, the industry contributes 90 per cent of the production and the government sets very stern import quotas. I will now say
DEBATES	5191
The Budget-Mr. La Salle a few words on the Pina tel Piece Dye Works Ltd., a textile plant in my constituency.
That company suffers from being 40 per cent below its normal quota of workers; I am referring to the 1952-1970 period. Considering the working hours from 1952 to 1970 in terms of unpaid salaries, we get the figure of $500,000 per year. We can easily imagine the economic effect this has on an area such as mine. The volume of production went down by about 20 per cent and in order to get the present volume, 50 per cent of the production has to be on a marginal basis. How many other jobs could be created, if we had a good textile products policy?
As for Consolidated Textile, it has no relationship with the previous firm. Nevertheless those two companies would surely not be opposed to the government following an intelligent policy. Until September 1969, that company operated six days a week. Since then, the work week was reduced to five days, and at the end of the year the company closed down for two weeks. In 1970, unless something happens quickly, we will have to recognize that those companies will be forced to operate only four days a week.
It seems to me that tariffs managed to maintain within acceptable limits the imports from most of the industrialized countries. However, those tariffs are in no way related to the imports coming from countries were production costs are low. Quotas are the only device which has been efficient in this regard, and even of that, they are far from perfect. The only quotas in use at the present time are those exporters accept voluntarily as a means of autorestriction.
Consequently, they come too late and are too high, in view of the methods used. It is absolutely impossible for industry to plan its investments and maintain a steady employment level.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
We want to know with regard to that policy, what role Canada will be expected to play. We are not asking for a guaranteed market, but only a decent limit be set for the growth of imports from those countries where production costs are low, through an efficient control of the main imports, at least until some other western countries have revised their severe restrictions.
The government has not seemed very eager to solve those problems rapidly. In June 1969, the Canadian government proved more generous than any other country in the world; we reduced the rate of imports in one sweep,
5192	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. La Salle instead of waiting for five years. We adopted it immediately, more preoccupied by the textile industry than by wheat producers. We did so to control inflation. The textile industry made investments of one billion dollars in the last ten years. That alone explains why it managed to survive. Otherwise, those companies would no longer exist.
Canada should apply to the quota system the same policy as that prevailing in the United States. The embargo system is not good because goods are kept in storage and eventually cleared once the embargo has been raised.
Let me give you an example of what, I think, is really an unfortunate situation: last year, the Canadian government had agreed to buy from Korea 200,000 yards of material. Following a possible mistake, Korea delivered to Canada more than a million yards of the aforesaid material and now the Canadian industries are hampered by this surplus.
I have made these remarks hoping Parliament would consider the difficult circumstances of our textile industries. It is most interesting to watch the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) trying to vindicate himself and offering subsidies for new jobs and new industries in Canada. We should do well, nevertheless, to give a closer look to the problem and to bring about practical and specific reforms to put back on its feet the textile industry, which used to be a very profitable one. It is likely to recover if the present government provides the necessary amendments and remedies.
In brief, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) has sometimes asked for suggestions and there is certainly one worthwhile suggestion and that is to curtail our imports. That, in my opinion, is the best remedy of all.
I deplore the fact that the budget provides that certain amounts which apparently were to be allocated for urban renewal in Quebec have not been earmarked for that purpose, which creates difficulties in that province, whereas in the course of discussions with the federal government there was a possibility of obtaining subsidies of about $94 million.
It seems that, because there has been a change of minister during the year, these subsidies will be reduced to about $50 million. The government members who represent Quebec City and Montreal did not see fit to discuss the matter in the House. But the people of those cities are greatly worried about their representatives who should be urging the minister to reconsider and to allow

DEBATES	March 18- 1970
the continuation in Montreal and Quebec City of urban renewal projects which are needed and which had been approved by the minister then in charge of housing.
Here again, Ottawa will say: It is Quebec which is at fault. For various political reasons, it is Quebec which is to blame.
The province of Quebec is not perfect, that is sure! But I do not think that the Quebec government is so bent on refusing the grants required for the carrying out of provincial projects.
During this debate, the government and more especially members from Quebec should be urged to try to enter into a dialogue with the provinces, since we all want the same thing. We are all striving towards the common good, but we should abstain from political manoeuvring.
Now, the necessary link between the Quebec government and Ottawa has not yet been found. Yet, God knows that promises were made that it would be found quickly, thanks to a majority government and a large representation from Quebec. But, nothing has yet been done in this regard, although that would be so important, both socially and economically.
We are trying together for the benefit of all to achieve unity in the country. I wonder if it would not be better to endeavour first of all to establish harmony which is so necessary. We are facing various problems which have prevented understanding between the ethnical groups and between the federal and provincial governments.
We will keep on talking about equality and independence while refusing Quebec very important projects.
This very afternoon, I was disappointed to see that a little war was fought to decide whether or not Quebec would welcome in the co-operation of the federal government in the choice of names for schools and whether the latter would be allowed to hoist the Canadian flag. This quarrel is going on with much publicity. But I wonder whether this is not an attempt to provoke the members from Quebec. And they have been properly warned against fighting the election at the expense of Ottawa.
Mr. Speaker, I dare hope that in caucus, it will be possible to talk seriously and objectively in order to agree on a name for a school, even if it means losing a grant.
As a matter of fact, I am wondering how it is possible to deal with this subject, when we know that education comes exclusively under
March 18. 1970

provincial jurisdiction. Does the Government intend to draft a bill which would tie down Quebec in connection with education. I do not believe that things have gone that far.
The minister surely did not think very much before saying that Quebec would not get one damn penny from the federal government if it refused to give some kind of publicity. I suggest this government has enough members to do this kind of publicity, to tell the Quebec people about the federal financial contributions to various projects. For my part, I never fail to say, in my riding, what contribution is the federal government making to various projects. It is up to me to do it. I think that all members should say to their constituents that the Quebec government does not give enough publicity to the federal contributions to various projects. I do not believe that it is up to the provincial government to do so. It is the provincial government's duty to carry out these projects and to obtain the largest possible subsidies from the federal government. As for us, it is our duty, as representatives from Quebec here, to support the Quebec government, in the interest of young people who need education, with regard to the carrying out of such projects, which benefit Quebec in particular and Canada in general.
It is therefore to be hoped that these idle discussions become meaningful ones. I also express the hope that federal and provincial representatives may some day hold joint discussions and establish joint goals based on fundamental principles, in the best interests of Canada in general, Quebec in particular, and parliament.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, I took this opportunity to express my views. I think it will be at last possible for Canada to go ahead thanks to the contribution of strong provinces, run by governments that will have their say in discussions leading to shared-cost programs.
It is unthinkable that the government should continue to run Canada without consulting the provinces. Provinces have now a right to be heard. The federal government must hold important discussions with the provinces, and it will be hand in hand that the provincial and federal governments will build up something good to the advantage of the whole Canadian society. Only then will we be able to get closer and closer to the just society which I desire as much as the Prime Minister. All hon. members, I think, are for it.
The Budget-Mr. Kaplan
How are we going to build it if at the start we refuse to the provinces the justice they are entitled to? I am not speaking of Quebec only, but of all the other provinces as well.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the budget tabled next year will propose solutions to some of the problems I have brought up so that our Canada will be more prosperous and a better place in which to live.


Mr. Robert P. Kaplan (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, it seems appropriate, in view of the latitude permitted in the budget debate, to turn away for a time from our usual perspective on our legislative work and look at that work from the point of view of the country. What is the public's perspective of what is happening in Ottawa and of the direction the government is taking? What does the public think is happening in Ottawa and, perhaps more interestingly, how does the public's view of what is happening, which of course is a political reality, compare with the facts? It seems that we have had data with which to work. We do our homework; hon. members spend time with their constituents and gather their views. Lately, we have been bombarded with briefs, opinions and representations. But a dialogue, even though well intentioned on both sides, can rapidly become a confrontation, with opposed parties being polarized and stating maximum positions: absolutely for and absolutely against certain questions.
In these circumstances, every question can become an attack and every answer or explanation a defence. When this happens, analyzing public opinion becomes harder. We must go behind the public attack, so to speak, and try to determine what people are really objecting to, how far they are "with it" and what are the terms of their continued support. Consider, for example, the White Paper on Tax Reform. I have received many letters about it-


David Orlikow: And how many coupons?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: - and heard many discussions. I am convinced that changes are required and am also satisfied that there will be changes. Many wise suggestions for improvement have been made and I, for one, will be seeking opportunities during the work of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs to marshall support for these views. Nevertheless, underlying the criticism or accompanying it, are some hostile themes which represent extremely widespread opinions which ought to have some exposure and
5194	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Kaplan comment. I should like to expose some of these themes now in the fresh air of this chamber and look at them.
To many Canadians the White Paper on Tax Reform contains the final evidence they require to establish that this government is socialistic, communistic or totalitarian. May I read a sentence from a letter I have received that runs in this vein. The writer says, "The purpose of the document on top of the Estate Tax Act is to set up a completely Socialistic state. Socialism cannot survive without totalitarianism and totalitarianism based on socialism is communism."
Not only are people saying that, but some people allege the government is dedicated to the eradication of capital in the private sector; that the government believes it can invest capital more wisely and profitably than the private sector and that there is a movement towards levelling all people, that is, putting them all into the same economic position by ignoring the role of incentives and disregarding the value of the individual's productivity. Ottawa is viewed as being intent on expanding itself, increasing taxes and its share of the gross national product for the purpose of building up a vast bureaucracy which will soon constitute the whole of the labour force. People see the public service as a monster gorging itself on the private sector. These are some of the underlying feelings of people in Canada about what is happening in Ottawa, and these are the things I should like to look at for a moment.
Do the facts in Ottawa justify these suspicions, Mr. Speaker? I submit to you that these underlying suspicions are unjustified and when you look at the facts you will find them different from what is feared. When I looked at the statistics, the problem was settled for me. The fact is that the federal government is not growing. It is declining in size relative to the economy. For example, the federal government has spent on goods and services, that is for the public service and all the work it does including all goods it consumes, produces and distributes, a percentage of the gross national product which has declined steadily since the end of the Korean war. In 1953, that percentage was 9.6 per cent of the gross national product; by 1968 that percentage had declined to 5.3 per cent. In other words, far from taking more from the economy, the federal government now takes less.
You know, Mr. Speaker, the government is constantly complaining about not having control over all its expenditures. The Prime Min-
IMr. Kaplan.]
DEBATES	March 18, 1970
ister (Mr. Trudeau) spoke about this during the question period today. I am referring to expenditures which are based on shared-cost programs shared with the provinces, such as the old winter works program, grants to universities and medicare. These involve funds which the federal government raises in taxes and which are spent by the provinces. It is argued at federal provincial conferences that, ideally, these programs should be reviewed to see which government can control them better and that that government should be given the responsibility for these programs- that is, given the responsibility both to raise the money and to spend it.
When Ottawa complains about having to contribute to these programs over which it has no control, Ottawa is accused of having created them. It is felt these programs have built up the public sector at other levels and contributed in an indirect way to the growth of the government monster. Even though I agree with the principle that it is not efficient to have taxation at one level of government and the spending of the moneys raised at another level, the relationship I referred to a moment ago still applies, even if all the shared-cost programs are considered as coming under federal spending. That is to say, total federal spending, including money which Ottawa raises and hands over to other levels of government to spend, has steadily declined in terms of a percentage of the gross national product, the decline being from 16.8 per cent in 1953 to 13.6 per cent in 1968. These figures come from the independent research of the Canadian Tax Foundation and appear in "The National Finances for 1969-70".
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
There are other ways to measure the size of the government. Consider the size of the public service as a measure. People talk about Parkinson's Law and empire building. They conclude that the federal public service is burgeoning with the object of gradually taking over the whole of the labour force. The facts are the opposite. The number of federal government employees has declined since 1955, both as a percentage of the total Canadian labour force from 3.4 per cent in 1955 to 3 per cent in 1969 and as a percentage of the Canadian population. There is one exception to this rule of steady decline in the size of the public service. During the years of the Conservative government, under the leadership of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), 1958 to 1962, the
March 18, 1970



curve showed an increase. This increase began to decline after the Liberal party was returned to power.
The figures which I have are from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. I am informed that these figures have never been requested before in precisely this form. As I have these figures here, I wonder if I might have the consent of hon. members to include the figures from 1952 to 1969 in the text of my remarks this afternoon?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I must point out to the hon. member that it is not the practice to append lists of figures to a speech.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I would not ask it if these figures could be obtained by anyone by any other means. As these figures have not been produced in this form before, I think it might be useful for hon. members to have them. I wonder if the consent of the House might be given?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Possibly the hon. member could read the figures into the record.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I will come back to them if I have time.


Thomas Miller Bell: We are quite generous on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, provided they are not very lengthy, in spite of the fact the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) would not extend the same courtesy to us. We are still good sports. The hon. member can place these figures on the record.


David Orlikow: I do not want to do anything which would interfere with the speech of the hon. member for Don Mills, (Mr. Kaplan). However, this issue was raised several days ago when the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) wanted to put some figures on the record. Mr. Speaker ruled this could not be done. If we are going to have a policy, we ought to have the policy decided upon by the Speaker after proper consideration and not make decisions because some members are not paying attention.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to press the point. If all members do not consent, there is not much point in arguing.
In any event, I have only the figures up to March 31, 1969 and therefore they do not reflect the implementation of the reduction in staff announced in August, 1969 by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). In the Prime Minister's speech of August 13, he referred to a
The Budget-Mr. Kaplan series of planned staff reduction measures and concluded "taken together, these reductions add up to 25,000 jobs-a 10 per cent decrease from the 1968 authorized size of the public service". When the results of this program are reflected in the statistics I referred to, the curve of decline in the size of the Federal Public Service will be even more steep.
Another measure of the government scale of operations is reflected in what it borrows. Everybody complains about the volume of federal spending and the size of the national debt. Here, this government is turning the tide of past trends. This will be the first year in over ten years in which the national debt is reduced in absolute amount. There has been borrowing this year, there has been debt repaid this year and, on balance, the national debt has been reduced. It has declined for the first time in over ten years. Let us hope this is not the last year in which the national debt declines.
The conclusions that I draw from these facts are that if taxation reflected only federal spending, taxes would be decreasing. Yet we have the constant complaint from the public indicating a feeling that the federal government is moving in the opposite direction. When a situation exists where the facts are precisely opposed to what the public thinks, some explanation is in order. I think two factors are involved in this public misconception.
First, there is the enormous growth of municipal and provincial expenditures which have increased very sharply since 1952, even if the shared-cost programs with which the federal government has burdened them are excluded. The public understanding of the different activities of the different governments is not as clear as it could be. I do not mean to suggest that municipal and provincial programs are indefensible-far from it. What I am insisting, however, is that the federal government is not contributing to this growth and that the government cannot be charged with socialism or empire building of this kind.
There is one area that deserves special attention. The constitutional development of this country has led to much duplication of services. This duplication did not matter at the time when total taxes were lower, but today the taxpayers should be complaining more than they are about this duplication. Why do we have 11 departments of agriculture, health, national resources and trade development complete with foreign services?
5196	COMMONS DEBATES	March 18. 1970
The Budget-Mr. Kaplan Do we want and can we afford the distinction of being the only country in the world with four national pavilions at Expo 70 in Japan? Much of the criticism of the government is misdirected, but perhaps at federal-provincial conferences the government should be doing more and striking a more urgent tone about this duplication. While the spending admittedly is done by different governments, the money all comes from the same pockets, from the same economy.
A second factor which gives rise to the misconception about the growth of the federal government and government spending, is undeniably the fact that the influence of the federal government is becoming more pervasive in today's life. Many Canadians have a very limited concept of what the role of the government should be, I wish to read another sentence from the letter to which I referred earlier. It reads:
You were not given a mandate by the Canadian people to restructure our economic and social life.
In other words, we were not given a mandate to change society. This concept has very respectable origins. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson had the same idea. They thought the business of the government was to provide services to the people: sell stamps and run the post office protect the merchant marine and the coastline; print money; build public works; provide for a system of justice and serve society with the assumption that society was a static and stable community with a clear idea of what it wanted from the government. Serve society, but don't change it.
The White Paper on Tax Reform has brought this dimension of criticism to a head. If the word of the government is accepted, this tax measure is not designed to raise taxes but to redistribute the burden, shift the wealth and to change society. What business, people ask, does a government have to change the very society which chose it? What is the government doing, interfering with contracts and limiting the freedom of commerce?
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
The difficulty about the traditional and limited view of the functions of the government is that it depends on assumptions which were true when first accepted but which are false today. Society in the past was stable.

The economy was in equilibrium. There seemed to be a natural order in human relations. Today, the forces which used to keep order in society have largely disappeared. Women have been emancipated, youth is in revolt, the poor are in revolt, cities are in revolt, the forces of family authority, religion, the class structure, the master-servant relationship are all gone or are becoming steadily weaker. It is clear that order in the past depended upon the suppression of vast segments of society. It was easy to maintain order in a community in which 90 per cent of the people did not seek to improve their situations. Today, segments which were suppressed in the past are insisting upon the recognition of their claims.
What is happening in our cities is an interesting example. People say conditions in the cities have never been worse than they are today. In fact, of course, they have been a great deal worse. Imagine living in 19th Century London, for instance, in a community of more than a million people, crowded together more densely per acre than city dwellers are today, without sewers, without fresh water flowing into their homes, without public transportation, with animals kept in everybody's front and back yards to serve as beasts of burden, without electricity. Imagine the pollution which must have resulted from cooking on fires made with peat, coal and wood. Life in the 19th Century was a great deal worse from this point of view than life in any world metropolis today. Yet, people say conditions have never been worse. The difference is that today no segment of society is prepared to put up with conditions of this sort.
A century or so ago people did not care if their wives and servants were choking in the smoke of the kitchens. The less privileged in society had no means of expressing their views to the government or of bringing about a more equitable social order. The master and servant relationship was strictly imposed. The superiority of the male sex was insisted upon. Domination of the young was taken for granted. Nevertheless, these forces, though they brought stability, did so on the basis of serious injustice. It was law and order without justice, if you like-an attitude which cannot be accepted today.
March 18, 1970

The traditional structures having disappeared, government participation in assuring early recognition of tire claims of underprivileged groups is required if this recognition is not forthcoming, if the liberated forces are not recognized, those same forces will wreck our society. Obviously, the government cannot sit back and allow this to happen. This is one of the reasons government must take upon itself a larger role in the society of the 'seventies.
In the economy, similar changes are taking place. When I studied economics just a few years ago at the University of Toronto, our analyses were based on a concept called equilibrium. We would analyse a condition of equilibrium and then, depending on circumstances, we would review certain movements which caused disequilibrium-increases in cost, decline in demand, increase in the money supply and so on. This concept of equilibrium came to us unchanged from the 19th Century, from the works of Adam Smith in 1867. Today it is recognized that there is no such thing as equilibrium in actual fact. Old economic ideas have to be discarded. Natural forces do not preserve competition, they do not maintain the marketplace, they do not assure power to bargain, they do not provide adequate liquidity either domestically or internationally. Neither will natural forces maintain a strong Canadian presence in the Canadian economy. The need for constant government intervention and participation is so obvious in a modern economy that we have reached a point at which the absence of government presence from a problem area can itself be regarded as an expression of national policy.
When the critics label government presence in the economy as socialism or as a movement towards a state economy, they are missing the point. So far, the policies of the Liberal government have been largely designed to create an artificial state of equilibrium. As Peter F. Drucker of the Harvard Business School has observed, the modem economic equilibrium which we try to create is, at best, something like a bicycle which can only balance while it is moving. This so-called government interference is really an operation designed to preserve free enterprise and protect economic opportunity, not to replace them. This, at any rate, is the position I take and it is the position of the Liberal party as I understand it.
The Budget-Mr. Kaplan So this is another area in which the function of government is misunderstood and labelled socialism.
We can only hope that as the country becomes more involved in the process of government-and it ought to become more involved-the Canadian people will consider government decisions not in the context of what was done in the past, but in the light of the alternatives available, recognizing that the lessons of the past are not entirely relevant. It is a matter of choosing among alternative courses of conduct, those which will assure the maintenance of the values in which Canadians believe.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if I have a few minutes left, I will accept your suggestion and read the table into the record. The table is headed: Federal Government Employees, and Canada Total Employees. The figures given are from March 31, 1952 to December, 1969. I shall read four figures, the first being the year, the second being the absolute number of federal employees, the third being the total number of persons employed in Canada and the fourth being the percentage of federal employees to the total number. For 1952, 131,646 of 5,169,000, being 2.5 per cent. For 1953, 163,192 of 5,235,000, being 3.1 per cent. For 1954-
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This question was raised the other day and I thought it had finally been resolved along the lines that an hon. member could file a table as long as he could identify its origin. This procedure would certainly make a lot more sense than having to read all those figures. The House is the master of its own rules. Your Honour has correctly pointed out that this is not the practice, but the hon. member who thought that he did have an objection is not in the House at the moment. I should like to ask the hon. member a question before his time runs out.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member is right, but the problem has been resolved by the hon. member in his own way.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, may I press you to reconsider and to permit me to file them?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Does the House give unanimous consent?
5198	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Kaplan


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: Table referred to above follows.]
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AND CANADA TOTAL EMPLOYEES as at March 31, 1952-1969
Year	Number of Total Number Percentage Federal Employed in Column 1 of Employees Canada Column 2		
	i	2	
1952	.. 131,646'	5,169,000	2.51953	.. 163,192	5,235,000	3.11954	.. 171,366	5,243,000	3.31955	.. 181,913	5,364,000	3.41956	.. 182,835	5,585,000	3.31957	.. 185,271	5,731,000	3.21958	.. 195,390	5,706,000	3.41959	.. 197,909	5,870,000	3.4I960	195,630	5,965,000	3.31961	.. 202,807	6,055,000	3.31962	.. 205,553	6,225,000	3.31963	.. 198,821	6,375,000	3.11964	.. 201,900	6,609,000	3.11965	.. 203,519	6,862,000	3.01966	.. 212,646	7,152,000	3.01967	.. 225,342	7,379,000	3.11968	.. 235,492	7,537,000	3.11969	.. 232,862	7,780,000	3.0
'Data with respect to prevailing rate, ship's officers and crews, and casual employees were not available in 1952, but have been included for subsequent years.
Prepared by:
Federal Governments Section Governments Division Dominion Bureau of Statistics March 3, 1970


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I recognize your feelings in the matter, Mr. Speaker, and I am very grateful to you for inviting the House to permit me this latitude.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I want the hon. member to file them, but before his time runs out I want to ask him a question. I was interested in his speech, in which at the outset he said changes were necessary and that he was confident there would be changes to the white paper. I want to ask him what changes he contemplates to the white paper, and what his position will be if those changes are not made.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a fair question. I am a member of the finance committee, and as such I feel I have some responsibility to hear the submissions which will be made to us before coming to any final conclusions. Howevever, I have taken the trouble to express my views at great length
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard).]
DEBATES	March 18, 1970
in material that I hav/e been making available to my constituents. It is not a question that I should like to answer on one foot, so to speak, but I do not want to avoid the question. I wonder whether the hon. member would be satisfied if I sent him the material I have circulated on this question?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to familiarize myself with it.


Jack Marshall: vast riches of the north but let us remember all the north of Canada. I doubt very much if there are any great oil deposits in the part of the north I am thinking about, and I doubt if we will ever have any winter games there, but I can tell you that there are Newfoundland Canadians there. At least they thought they were Canadians, but they are still trying to find out about this great Canada of ours they heard or read about after Confederation. Will they ever get the opportunity, after 20 years of disillusionment and promises, to know that they are also part of this great democracy and that they will be able to become involved in this opportunity of empty words?
They never got a chance to utter those magic words "just society" which held such high hopes but turned out to be nothing more than an electioneering gimmick that became distasteful to even utter. What have we accomplished in the province of Newfoundland since Confederation? We top the list in everything that counts. We have the highest cost of living in Canada, the lowest wages, the highest unemployment rate-some 20 per cent-and we are closing in on the first billion dollar debt of the ten provinces. What price glory, Mr. Speaker?
We have one of the great potentials of any province in respect of our God made resources. We have the fish in the sea, vast timberlands and unmatched beauty. What do we develop, or I should say try to develop? We develop shoe factories, rubber factories and candy factories. We have just about obliterated our fishing industry over the years, to the point where I doubt that even the minister of fisheries, who has done such a commendable job, can save it.
We have given away most of our areas through rights to explore for minerals and oil. This denies any clear thinking planner the opportunity to develop our park potential. Why we have not heard about gold and diamonds I will never know. It might be surprising to western members to know that Newfoundland has areas of rich farm land which has been allowed to deteriorate through a lack of care and planning. We have lost an important means of communication in our Newfoundland passenger service, to the inconvenience of many hundreds of our people, through a callous and determined attempt to eventually remove the CNR from Newfoundland. The rail express and freight service is following the same trend in Newfoundland and the CNR is deliberately, at this
The Budget-Mr. Peters moment, gradually, but completely and progressively, downgrading the maintenance of our tracks and services. It is closing down railway stations. We will very soon again hear the tale of woe from the president of the CNR that this service has not paid and Newfoundland will once again, through out and out treachery, pay without a whimper because of those who should be concerned but who will do nothing.
One of the most acute problems in Newfoundland today, apart from all the shortcomings of our province which I have mentioned, is the serious lack of housing. This is a situation which is not only serious but is desperate. Here again, even though the measures taken by the minister responsible are commendable, the situation is not being helped. The $200 million allocated for low cost housing in parts of the Atlantic region, especially in isolated parts of Newfoundland, does not do us one bit of good because where land is available it is not serviced so it cannot qualify under CMHC. Where the land is serviced, the people who need the homes are in the lowest salary brackets or are unemployed and could not qualify for a loan. So, I say to the minister, and I have discussed this with him, we must take another hard look at the situation. I hope he will save some of the $200 million for those people who are living in housing conditions which in some cases can only be termed as unbelievable.
The next 25 years will be critical for the economy of this country. We must, in our planning, consider not only the necessary dollars, factories, skilled workers or natural resources, to run our country but we must consider the people. I plead with this government not to forget these hard facts in the coming years.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, in the past 12 or 13 years I have listened with a great deal of interest to a number of budgets, probably 20 in number. This is the first occasion on which I have asked myself why the government bothered bringing down a budget at all. It is not absolutely necessary. This budget did not do very much. For this reason one might wonder why it was presented at all. The attendance during the debate has been such that many members must be asking themselves the same question. The attendance this afternoon has been as low as 14.


An hon. Member:: Nine.

March 18, 1970
The Budget-Mr. Peters


William Arnold Peters: Maybe it went down to nine.


An hon. Member:: When you were not here.


William Arnold Peters: I have been here or very close by. The interest in the budget is very limited. The budget debate is one of the classic debates in this House, but it would seem to me that this budget debate will not bring forth very much interest because the budget itself did not contain much of interest.
I think part of the difficulty stems from the fact that we have had the white paper and many Canadians are concerned about it. I presume that there are more people concerned about it than there are people who are in favour of the propositions contained in it. Many people had thought the government would have increased personal exemption in respect of income tax. Some people believed this was already in effect. It is surprising how many people make such an assumption from what they read in the newspapers. Most people who make inquiries about the white paper do not make them really on the basis of the white paper proposals but rather on the basis of an impression they have. I would be interested in knowing the motivation of many people who have sent me clippings. I should be interested in knowing whether or not they have really read the proposals contained in the white paper. I do not know whether they are really concerned about the proposals of the white paper or are concerned about what is being said in the newspapers concerning what is contained in the white paper.
This raises another problem. One of my colleagues told me today that two persons who have been members of the press gallery for some time have been appointed executive assistants to the government. The executive assistants whom I have known over the years were good newspapermen. I congratulate the ministers who appointed them. When we realize that the best people are hired for these positions and then look at the press gallery, we sometimes wonder what the public receives in the way of information. While many people have read the white paper, most people depend on what the newspapers say about it. So, it is really the people in the press gallery who are interpreting the white paper and the people are reacting to this interpretation rather than to the facts. There are another 10 persons or so whom the government could hire as executive assistants from among the members of the press gallery and that would be the end of that. If anyone

doubts this, I suggest that they take a look at some of the people who have been hired by the government departments.
I always thought that a newspaperman received a fairly good salary. Perhaps he receives more as an executive assistant. It is certainly a smoother job with no deadlines, and perhaps one can become an expert in this field more easily than in the newspaper field. This raises in my mind the question of how the people are to really know what is happening in Parliament. As an example, I might refer to the question period. The questions presented by members of the press to Members of Parliament are pretty poor questions. The executive secretaries to the ministers already have the answer before the question is asked because of their previous experience. I think this is a reflection on all of us and perhaps we should find another way to obtain questions.
The fact that there was nothing in the budget, and the fact that very little has been said in the newspapers and other media about the budget, does not mean the budget will have no effect on the public. In my opinion it will have a detrimental effect. There is no relief for Canada's poor. A number of people have pointed this out. We have decided in Canada that the poor should become poorer and the people on higher incomes should become more affluent.
I should like to see the government undertake a study to determine how much tax the old age pensioner pays. Anyone who maintains a house will know there are considerable hidden taxes which he must pay. He must buy paint or material to repair a step or a floor, and so on, and he pays a tax on this. Every time he buys something he pays a hidden tax. It is surprising to me that the tax the old age pensioner pays is the same as the tax paid by the very affluent person. Of course, one can only drink and smoke so much and one can only buy so much for his daily needs, and the amount is almost identical in the case of those who have and those who have not. The poor person percentagewise pays a very much higher tax than the more affluent person in the middle class. What protection is there for those in this class? It is interesting that the old age pensioner and those on fixed incomes pay the same tax on clothing as anyone else pays. Perhaps it is not possible to arrange things otherwise.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) is taking a free ride for a two-year period. He
March 18, 1970

announced in the white paper that the personal exemption will be increased to $1,400. This is not to become effective now but rather in 1972. It would seem to me that such a concession would affect many people between the age of 60 and 70. As we know there is an additional exemption for people over age 70. But nothing has been done for many people who depend on the old age pension. There is no indication that anything is to be done for those on veterans pensions. The committee which has been investigating this matter has been faced with the whole matter of the Pension Act and the proposals made by the Woods Commission. The government should be implementing increases in the war veterans' allowance and in war veterans' pensions. The government has indicated it is not capable of controlling the rising cost of living and is attempting to apply the brakes. From my point of view, and from the point of view of many Canadians, this obviously is a myth because the government is not putting on the brakes. The Minister of Finance has stated that he has not been able to apply the brakes on salaries or wages. But he has been able to apply them to the old age pension. The cost of living goes up 4 or 5 per cent and the old age pension goes up 2 per cent.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I mentioned the press a moment ago. It is interesting to note the lack of conclusions reached by some of the columnists. I should like to refer to some of the things they said about the budget. I have here an article written by Anthony Westell in the Toronto Star of March 13. This is what he said about the Minister of Finance and the budget:
But he offers nothing to the thousands of Canadians who pay taxes Into his coffers despite the fact that their earnings are below the poverty line.
Benson can't be blamed for rising prices; there are no new economics as yet to show him how to master the new inflation. He is probably right when he says he will be satisfied to cut the rate of price increase this year to about 3 per cent.
But Benson can and should be blamed for not helping the Canadians on fixed incomes who are the victims of the inflation.
Consider, for example, the effective tax on the 800,000 Canadians who draw basic old age pension and a guaranteed supplement because they lack private means.
Their income rose from $109.20 a month last year to $111.41 this year-the maximum 2 per cent increase permitted by the law-which is $2.21 a month.
Now Benson tells them the purchasing power of their new pension will fall at least 3 per cent or $3.43 a month.
The Budget-Mr. Peters
So the inflation tax on pensioners is around $1.20 a month. Benson does not impose it, but he lets it happen.
All in the public interest of battling prices, he assures us.
It's bad enough that we have to combat rising prices by deliberately wasting economic resources -by putting some men out of work so that others will fear for their jobs and reduce wage demands, and by slowing down the factories to persuade businessmen to cut costs.
This economic squeeze will cost us billions in lost production this year because the economy won't grow as fast as it could.
For every $4.80 in real growth last year, there will be growth of only $3 this year, says Benson, adding that he can't put a total to the sum yet.
Farther on he says:
In fact, it is difficult to escape the impression that in this budget, Benson is really marking time, waiting to see which way the U.S. and Canadian economy will move in the next few months. And that the threat to control credit is mainly a gesture to show that he is still serious about fighting inflation if he has to-a psychological ploy to conceal the fact that there is nothing much in the budget.
Nothing much except the refusal to extend a helping hand to those most in need.
Benson is, of course, proposing to make a massive transfer from middle income to lower income groups in his tax reform next year. But that is 12 lean months away, and it is strange that he should have refused a temporary transfer this year from his surplus.
Perhaps it is not too late. Many Liberals had anticipated at least a pension boost in the budget, and will be bitterly-and politically-disappointed.
They should use their new freedom and muscle as participating backbenchers to persuade Benson to change his mind about the budget, as he is willing to do about tax reform.
So, the author of the article states the problem fairly clearly but comes to no conclusion except to say that perhaps some backbenchers in the Liberal party will take a stand. He does not recommend that they take a stand but says that perhaps they will do so because they have new muscle as backbenchers. If they have it, I fail to see that muscle exercised in the House, although I see a lot of it in the various committee meetings which I attend. It is interesting to note that when the committee recommendations come to the House, those members sit on their hands rather than stand up to be counted on the side for which they previously spoke.
We are living in difficult times. There is no doubt that inflation has been and is a problem. It is also a fact that nothing much has been done to curb it. It may well be true that we are so closely tied to the United States' economy that we cannot do anything about inflation. I think this raises a major problem

March 18, 1970
The Budget-Mr. Peters which should be faced in the budget statement by the Minister of Finance, if he is worth his salt.
I would like to quote again the same writer, this time on another matter on which he is more specific and on which he comes to a conclusion, but again his stand is not too definite. I suggest to him that working as he does for the Toronto Star he should find it very easy to take a stand in between elections- although his article may not appear at election time-because he will find much support from small "1" liberals who read the Toronto Star and share its views. He refers to a rift which has appeared among some Liberal backbenchers concerning the Canadian economy, and speaks about the Canada Development Corporation. This is what he says:
The development corporation was first conceived by former finance minister Walter Gordon as part of his 1963 package of policies to counter the steady take-over of Canadian business and resources by U.S. capital. It was supposed to mobilise Canadian capital as an alternative to the growing foreign investment.
I should like to say that that statement is not correct. The Canada Development Corporation was an idea that was developed at the New Democratic Party convention in 1961. Many of the people who participated in the development of the New Democratic Party later became executive officers of the Liberal party. Some of them are now members of this House, and several of them are members of the cabinet. At that time many members of the elite in the province of Quebec supported the idea of the development of the New Democratic Party and were also interested in the development of the Canada Development Corporation, an idea which was later picked up by others and interpreted in a number of ways. There is still great division among Liberal party members regarding the Canada Development Corporation. The article goes on to say:
As president of the Montreal Stock Exchange in 1963, Eric Kierans played a leading part in destroying Gordon's program. Today he is communications minister and believes it would be a great mistake for the corporation to sell shares to the public or to become owner or controller of any Canadian business.
Let me say that he is not too damn good with one of the businesses we already have in Montreal, and if he does not smarten up he is going to be out of that business as well. The article goes on:
Kierans suggests that the corporation should use government funds to buy secured bonds in Cana-

dian enterprises needing capital. The private owners would put up the risk capital, control the company and take the profits.
But should the government tax Canadians, including corporations, to raise money for the corporation to lend to other Canadians for business purposes, with no degree of control or share in the profits?
In the era of giant corporations, drawing on vast financial and managerial resources and operating across national borders, some Liberal thinkers see the corporation as Canada's best chance to compete with U.S. companies. They would like to see the government provide the framework and the initial finance to mobilize money and talent to give Canada a chance in the big league of world business.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
This would mean direct state intervention in business, and would not be acceptable to more conservative Liberals who still put their faith in free enterprise.
Then, there is a heading, "A Radical Version Appears." I should tell him it predates the last radical version.
The New Democratic Party, meanwhile, has appropriated the corporation idea, and written a radical version into its own program. It would require all financial institutions and corporations to put part of their resources into Canada Development Corporation bonds, and the development corporation would be an agent of government, directing investment, expanding public ownership, aiding regional development, organizing mergers of small business into large, efficient units, and providing scientific, technological and managerial expertise to private industry.
As the Liberal party often responds to pressure from the Left by taking over some of the N.D.P.'s ideas, it is reasonable that some Liberals will associate themselves with this concept of the Canada Development Corporation.
When Gordon first proposed his corporation seven years ago, it was considered dangerously radical and was bitterly attacked by private business interests. Today, the Gordon blueprint looks mild in comparison with some alternatives.
The government will have to go ahead in many fields. This afternoon we heard some criticism of and some support expressed for regional development. There has been considerable criticism of the recent announcement concerning designated areas. I am not too clear what designation will mean for the new areas encompassed by it, but it certainly means one thing to the members who represent those areas.
I was interested to hear their statements on this matter. I was interested to read the minister's statement on his proposals, as reported in the press, and I am interested in the reaction shown by some of the provincial governments concerning this new designation. I will be interested in seeing how it develops. But,
March 18, 1970

Mr. Speaker, having lived in and represented a designated area for a number of years, it seems to me that the mere fact of designation is in itself no answer. Expertise will be required. Capital will be required, and scientific planning to provide initiative for industry. The latter is lacking today. I may be wrong, Mr. Speaker, but to my knowledge the original development program cannot claim responsibility for establishing one new industry. Certainly, it assisted many industries, but it did not initiate any. The strength of the program will be discovered by going back to the original proposals, picking out slow growth areas and creating vibrant municipalities in them.
According to the minister's recent proposals, if a municipality wants to up-grade its industrial potential the federal government will lend the necessary money to the provincial government for the development of the municipality's services, in order to encourage industrial development. This will go down well in those provinces which have already decided on this course of action. But there are a surprising number of areas in Ontario in which the provincial government has gone it alone, and it is surprising that the province has shown great reluctance to co-operate with the federal government in developing other areas. Much expert advice will be required.
There is one particular problem in my area which may soon reach crisis proportions, and the federal government is not being the least bit fair about it. The federal government has not really made any public declaration of whether it is going to close gold mines in Canada this year. I am not sure of the role which gold is playing in the Canadian economy at the present time. Neither are many economists sure of that role. But we know that gold is an export commodity. Last year it made us about $7J million, discounting the subsidy paid on it. Further, we hold gold in our own country. Gold still plays a role because there are certain purchases which must be paid for in gold. But as you know, Mr. Speaker, the gold mining industry has been supported for many years by the provisions of the EGMA, which now support about 30 mines at an annual cost of about $14 million.
In this connection it is interesting to note that mining communities are divided into three categories. First, there is the community in which gold mining may be the sole economic base. If gold mining is closed down, then obviously the community closes down 21774-52
The Budget-Mr. Peters too. In many cases this may mean that 500, 600 or 1,000 families will be left on welfare because there is absolutely no other type of industry available for that community. If the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) were to rise in his place and say that the EGMA. would be discontinued, and that the government had designated this first category of mining community as areas requiring special assistance and was ready to start moving industry into them, then all would be well and good. People in those communities would express considerable support for the transfer from the gold mining industry to secondary industry. But such a transfer simply cannot be made by the manpower program retraining gold miners, because most of these people are over the age of 47 or 48 years.
Many of these people do not speak much English. Their educational standard is very low, and they cannot be retrained. Their educational standard cannot be raised to that of Grade 10. Many of them have not attended Canadian schools. Their familiarity with our written language is very limited. They have been employed in this one type of industry all their lives, and their ability for retraining is limited.
Then, there is another class of community where the impact will be very heavy. It is the area in which gold mining is partly responsible for upholding the economy, and here I speak of places like Timmins and Kirkland Lake where there are other types of industry but not sufficient to support the communities if gold mining is closed down. Here the retraining problem is exactly the same. These people cannot be employed in different types of mining. They are too old to be retrained. I am sure other mining firms would not accept them because they have spent their lives in silica mines, in hard rock mining, and other companies would fear the necessity of providing silica pensions for them in later years.
The last category of community is the most recent on the scene, and it is difficult to forecast the impact on it. Here I speak of mines such as McIntyre, the Ross Mines, and others. I am speaking of mines in northern Quebec and in the upper Kirkland Lake area. They are gold mines, and during their underground development substantial bodies of copper were discovered. They have both a gold operation and a copper operation run in conjunction with each other. I believe that in many cases their gold operation is supporting a very uneconomic copper operation.
March 18. 1970

The Budget-Mr. Hopkins
But if the price of copper continues to rise their copper operations will prosper, and there will be no difficulty. However, I am fearful that in certain cases if EGMA is discontinued their copper operations will also come to a stop. I think that the Minister of Finance should have made a reference to this matter in his budget. The EGMA, which is renewed every three years, is destined to be retired at the end of this year unless reprieved. Numerous task forces have been looking at this whole problem, including one interdepartmental task force, and another task force within the Department of Mines, Energy and Resources. The municipalities, mining communities and mining companies are all afraid that this will mean the end of gold mining in Canada. I think the minister had an obligation to refer to the matter in the budget so that an opportunity could have been afforded to those concerned to act before the deadline arises. The workers in the maritime coal mines, in the Dunlop Company and in other enterprises, have made pleas for assistance in the hope that action can be taken on their behalf by municipalities and Canadian citizens.
e (5:30 p.m.)


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew Norih):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this budget debate because I believe in the age old theory that a nation's possibilities are always far larger than its problems. The day we lose sight of this in this House or country it will be a bad one for this nation and its people. I think it is good that we should rise in this House, complain about our problems and tell the people in this House and the country about those problems. It is also good for us to tell the people of this country that some good things are being done. The story should not be one sided. I think the news media has a great responsibility in balancing both sides of the story.


William Arnold Peters: Hear, hear.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: May I quote a sentence from the writings of Alfred North Whitehead, who said:
The love of humanity as such is mitigated by violent dislike of the next-door neighbour.
Sometimes in this chamber we seem to fight in our debates, occasionally, with members across the floor. Sometimes the people may think that we dislike our neighbours in the House very much. Those impressions are not always true. Let it be said that there is a


reasonably good rapport among hon. members on all sides of this House. In the last four years, many items of legislation have been brought before the House and, on looking back, it is sometimes difficult to say whether one has achieved anything. It ought to be remembered that much is accomplished here in committee meetings, through consultations with ministers, and through discussions with other hon. members of this House.
One of the good things that happened last summer was the announcement by the Department of National Defence that the old H hut, the only H hut still left at CFB, Petawawa, was to be torn down. The hut was the military hospital. If any member of the armed forces was not depressed when he entered the hut he certainly was when he left it. The new hospital is in the process of being built and will be ready soon. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) is to be congratulated for putting this project through.
Another thing I have been fighting for in the House and outside it, throughout my riding and on the news media is the regional development of the Upper Ottawa Valley. My colleague for Lanark and Renfrew (Mr. McBride) teamed with me in the House and sponsored a resolution asking for something to be done. By utilizing such tactics hon. members can hammer away with then-demands for their areas. They illuminate the problems of their constituents. A similar procedure is used by hon. members from all parts of the country, from the Maritimes, the Prairies, and by those representing fishermen and farmers. There is absolutely nothing wrong with such procedures. I say that once you start a fight you should continue it.
On December 15, 1969, in speaking on the resolution sponsored by the hon. member for Lanark and Renfrew, I said in part as reported at page 1986 of Hansard:
I can say in all sincerity that as long as I am a member of this House representing an Ottawa Valley constituency, come what may I shall be fighting the battle for designation and improvement plans for this area.
I want to say on behalf of the people of the Upper Ottawa Valley, and my colleague for Lanark and Renfrew will go along with me, that we appreciate the action taken by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) in including our area in the 22 special areas of this country that have been listed. The designation is very important to us because, as you know sir, we have experienced some tragedy. There have been fires in the area. We have not benefitted
March 18. 1970	COMMONS
in the general industrial expansion of the 1960's. We have unemployment. Recently the forestry industry in our area was attacked, but the attack was more emotional than realistic. We believe that the recreational and forest lands of this country can be put to multiple uses; they can be used for tourism and for industry as well as for other economic purposes, such as recreation. We think we can all live together very well.
This country is governed under the British parliamentary system of government. We can fight as much as we want within the confines of our parties, but not on the floor of the House. Because a man has fought with his party is no reason for him to feel disloyal to his party. So far as I am concerned, I have fought this battle of designation and regional development for four years, but had no intention of leaving the party. I ran on the Liberal ticket; I am a Liberal and I will remain a Liberal.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I am grateful to the Liberal party because it is the only party which has done anything to foster the development of the Upper Ottawa Valley.


James Aloysius McGrath: The hon. member is contradicting himself.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: May I answer that comment, Mr. Speaker. The Tory administration which was in power between 1957 and 1963 was defeated because it did not do very much. If the present government is ever defeated, it will be because it is trying to do too much for the country.


James Aloysius McGrath: Now that, Mr. Speaker, is really illogical.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: One matter must be brought to the attention of the legislators in this House. I am speaking of the serious shortage of medical doctors in the rural areas of Canada. We are reaching a stage today where in many rural areas of Canada there is no longer a practising doctor. People must travel miles to see one. We must give serious attention to putting more money into medical schools. We should take a good look at the high standards demanded by the medical profession. Adequate facilities must be built in our universities to permit more students to enter the medical schools, and to provide medical services for the Canadian people. In my area there is a shortage of doctors.
21774-52^
DEBATES	5207
The Budget-Mr. Hopkins
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
There has been talk about regional development under the old Area Development Agency Program which ended last December. Even with assistance from the federal government under the ADA program 95 per cent of new industries started during those years went into the major urban areas of Canada. Only 5 per cent were in the smaller towns and communities. This present program must be emphasized because Canada cannot afford to have massive urban areas such as New York City or Chicago which are faced with pollution problems, social problems, transportation problems and all the other factors that go with massive urbanization.
There are vast opportunities in Canada. We in this House have the responsibility of diversifying the economy and trying to spread industry throughout the country. We must assist the rural areas to develop. Employment must be provided in the small communities. Assistance should be given to reorganize the farm communities so that the young people may get into the farming business. In this way the great flow of young people could be diverted from the urban communities. This would assist one of the major problems, that of housing.
I wish to deal briefly with the housing problems of the Canadian Armed Forces. On April 1, 1969, a statement was made that there would be a blanket increase of $15 per month in the rent for married quarters on DND property. At the end of this month I understand there is to be another across-the-board increase of $15 a month. I am a great admirer of the present Minister of National Defence. He has done a great deal to assist the armed forces, including maintaining their morale. I hope whoever is holding the pursestrings will reconsider this matter and give some assistance to this minister and to the armed forces.
I wish to put forward what I feel is s constructive recommendation. I would like to see a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence visit military establishments across Canada to see the type of married quarters that are available. I am sure they would realize that across-the-board rental increases are unfair because some dwellings are very good, others are certainly only average to say the least. If we are to be fair to the members of the Canadian armed forces living in these houses, we must assess rent on the quality of the dwelling.
5208	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Hopkins
We like to talk about finances, Mr. Speaker, when it is favourable to us. We hate to talk about finances when the situation is not favourable, but these are the facts of life which we must face. From listening to speeches in this House and on television, I have almost come to believe that it is sinful to pay your bills and have a surplus. Is it wrong for a country to be in a healthy financial situation? We have a national debt! We have bills which cannot avoid being paid! We have made commitments for which we must provide funds! I wish to remind the main critics of this budget that it is better to have a surplus in 1970 than to repeat what happened when Her Majesty's Opposition was in power. There was approximately $990 million in the unemployment insurance fund at that time. During their administration they not only depleted that amount, but additional funds had to be added. I do not consider that to be responsible financing. Canadians are proud people. They like to pay their bills. There is no sense trying to be good boys today and then being in a serious financial state tomorrow. It is a hard fact to face, but responsible people must face it.
When watching a television program a few weeks ago of a massive meeting in Toronto, chaired by John Hull, head of Public Relations Services Limited, the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Kaplan)-who was successful in defeating a very eminent Canadian in the last federal election,-was asked the blanket question, are you or are you not in favour of the white paper? I think that is the most ridiculous question which could be asked of any individual on any platform with regard to a document covering as much ground as does the white paper. There are many parts of the white paper which are good; there are others which in my opinion could stand improvement. But let us get this straight: it is, after all, a white paper, not legislation, and the present government is, to my knowledge, the only government which has had the intestinal fortitude to put out a white paper on financial and taxation matters for discussion by the general public. This is an innovation in Canadian politics. I do not mind all the mail I am getting on the subject. I am getting lots of mail, and I intend to answer it. Let it not be forgotten that the document is intended for discussion by the people; it is not a fait accompli.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I am sorry the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) is not in the House now but he

DEBATES	March 18, 1970
was here today. I do not intend to attack him in his absence from Ottawa in the same way as hon. members opposite attacked my leader when he was absent from the House in the North a short while ago. The Leader of the Opposition has been travelling across the country complaining about the white paper. That is his privilege. He is saying that if some parts of it are implemented he will repeal the legislation should he get into power. Thus, he is building up his image as a responsible financier. I am not saying he is not a responsible financier, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to remind the Canadian public that at Glace Bay, Nova Scotia, there is a monument in the shape of a heavy water plant; it has been built since 1963 when the hon. gentleman was premier of Nova Scotia. To date, $110 million has been sunk into that plant by Nova Scotia and it was supposed to have started production a few years ago. So far, however, it has not produced a single thing. Now, we are told that a further $30 million or $40 million will be required to repair this plant and put it into shape. This will bring the total up to about $140 million. I hope the time is not far distant when this plant will begin to produce, because we are in a serious situation in this country as far as supplies of heavy water are concerned. My own constituency is affected as far as Atomic Energy of Canada is concerned.
My point is this: the Leader of the Opposition is going around the country trying to convince the Canadian people that he is an expert on taxation and other financial matters. Let him at the same time explain, particularly to 760,000 good people in Nova Scotia, why he spent $110 million of their tax money on a project which to date has not produced even one pound of heavy water for this country. Is this evidence of solid financial sense?


An hon. Member:: What about the
Bonaventure?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: We could go into many things. If the hon. member wishes me to quote something I will be happy to do so. This is an item taken from the Charlottetown Guardian of June 28, 1969. It is headed: "Glace Bay Heavy Water Plant requires $30 Million Face Lift". It reads:
A report on the Deuterium of Canada Limited heavy water plant at Glace Bay, N.S. says the plant will need substantial modification before it can be brought into production, Premier G. I. Smith of Nova Scotia stated Friday.
March 18, 1970	COMMONS
The report goes on to deal in detail with the items I have mentioned.
I always like to see prominent members of the opposition coming into my constituency and speaking at annual meetings of opposition parties. I have a rather interesting document here. This quotation is taken from an item which appeared in that eminent paper, the Pembroke Observer of January 29 of this year. The hon. member for Parry Sound-Mus-koka (Mr. Aiken) was the guest speaker at the annual meeting of the Renfrew North Progressive Conservative Association. I will give him credit for this-I understand he told his audience that the present sitting member was not such a bad fellow. But then he went on to say:
Both Len Hopkins (Renfrew North) and Murray McBride (Lanark-Renfrew) spoke on a private members' bill complaining that eastern Ontario had been overlooked, but they might as well have been talking to a stone wall. The government doesn't listen to members on its own side of the House, let alone to opposition.
I wonder what the hon. member thinks today, six weeks later, now that the very area in which he was speaking is receiving special area status.
DEBATES	5209
The Budget-Mr. Hopkins
My colleague in the provincial legislature has also been taking me to task. It is great fun when you are under fire and the other guy is on top. You have to take advantage of the situation when you can, because you know the day will come when you will get the same treatment. The hon. member for the provincial riding of Renfrew North stated at the same meeting:
I suggest to Mr. Hopkins that when the province-decided to have an equalization of opportunity plan we didn't go to the federal government to-ask it to set up plans for us.
What Mr. Hamilton did not say was that, according to the Canadian constitution, the economic development of this country is basically the responsibility of the provinces. I disagree with this constitutional element. Mr. Hamilton should not be putting the blame on the federal government when his own government should have been doing more for the economic development of the province.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being six o'clock this House stands adjourned until tomorrow afternoon at two o'clock.
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Thursday, March 19, 1970