1970-01-28

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North
Centre): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Members of Parliament from Manitoba I should like to express sincere thanks to His Worship Mayor Fogarty of Ottawa for having declared that in Ottawa this is Manitoba Day.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: should also like to congratulate all those who have been fortunate enough to get tickets for tonight's performance of the Royal Winnipeg Ballet at the National Arts Centre, after which we shall enjoy a centennial birthday party, the hosts for which will be Mr. Schrey-er, the premier of the province, and Mr. Maitland Steinkopf, Chairman of the Manitoba Centennial Corporation.
Perhaps in honour of this occasion the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, my hon. friend from Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands and the hon. member for Shefford might like to wear Manitoba pins today.


Mr. Stanfield:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I already have a Manitoba pin.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, if I may add a brief word to what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said, I should like to remind you and all members of the House that throughout this entire year Manitoba will be celebrating its centennial. There is an old saying that all wise men come from the east.


An hon. Member:: Nova Scotia.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Those of us who come from Manitoba will subscribe to that viewpoint, adding that the wiser they are, the faster they come. We cordially invite all hon. members to visit the Keystone province during 1970.


Mr. Speaker:: To follow up the question of privilege which has just been raised, hon.
members might allow me to bring to their attention the presence in the Speaker's gallery of Mr. Speaker Hanuschak and his wife.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure all hon. members will wish Mr. Speaker Hanuschak to convey to his colleagues in the Manitoba legislative assembly the greetings of their parliamentary colleagues in Ottawa.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth reports, in French and in English, of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs-Mr. Clermont.
[Editor's note: The text of the foregoing reports appear in today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I should like to lay on the table of the House, in both official languages, a paper setting out details with respect to the business of the House for the balance of the session.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have no objection whatsoever to the tabling of this document. In fact, the President of the Privy Council has been good enough to let some of us see it in advance. But I should like to enter a caveat against this being done under Standing Order 41(2).
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
It seems to me this is House business and that it would be more appropriate if the President of the Privy Council were to ask the unanimous consent of the House to table

January 28, 1970
Business of the House
the document. I do not have my rule book open before me, but the pertinent Standing Order says that the minister may do this with respect to any statement that deals with any matter coming under the administrative responsibilities of the government. This statement has to do with the business of the House and, whatever territory the government may take in, it is not responsible for the administration of the House. I do not ask for a debate on the point of order or a ruling; I am satisfied to enter a caveat, although there may be other occasions when we may wish to argue the point further. But today it would be much better if the Government House Leader were to ask for unanimous consent, which I am sure he would get, for the tabling of this document.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the point of order Your Honour may recall that in the previous session we raised similar objections in connection with motions of the Minister of Finance and other ministers. Today I am prepared to say that our party will give its unanimous consent for the tabling of the document. However, I leave with Your Honour the caveat that while the Prime Minister and the President of the Privy Council are moving rapidly in the direction of making the House of Commons the administrative responsibility of the government, they have not quite reached that point. I wish to make that quite plain.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, may I point out, as hon. members have indicated, that the document in question concerns the business to be put before the House by the government and decisions to be recommended to the House with regard to times for the adjournment and resumption of the sittings of the House. Surely this quintessentially comes under the administrative responsibility of the government. It is the administrative responsibility of the government to bring forward legislation, and this document indicating at what times we anticipate bringing forward legislation comes under that heading.
I can understand that in some circumstances with regard to other matters concerning the internal operations of the House the objection raised might be made, but I would say quite clearly in response to the caveat that it is the responsibility of the government to bring legislation forward and this is what the document is about. Perhaps hon. members would agree that, for the convenience of the

House, the document might be printed as an appendix to today's Hansard so that it could be readily referred to in future.


Gerald William Baldwin: We agree, subject to the caveat.


Mr. Speaker:: Since it is only a caveat that has been brought before the House today it will not be necessary for me to make a ruling. The President of the Privy Council has sought the unanimous agreement of the House for the purpose of having this document printed as an appendix to today's Hansard. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For text of document referred to above, see appendix "A".]



AGRICULTURE


Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to ask for unanimous consent under Standing Order 43 for a motion to be put to the House. The matter is urgent and immediate as it involves the extremely important recommendations made by the Royal Commission on Farm Machinery in its special report on prices, dated December, 1969. This report took three and a half years to produce and deals with the excessively high prices of farm machinery, a matter of the most crucial importance to farmers today who, particularly in western Canada, are faced with a lack of funds to obtain essential equipment. In order to have the government consider and act on this report without further delay, I ask for consent to move the following motion:
That the special report on prices of tractors and combines in Canada and other countries and the recommendations set out in such report be forthwith referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43 the motion can be put to the House only if there is unanimous consent. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Since there is not unanimous consent I regret that the motion cannot be put at this time.
January 28, 1970



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Muir (Cape Breion-: The Sydneys):
1.	How many employees of the Canadian National Railways in the Telecommunications Branch in the Atlantic Region have been informed that their services are no longer required either at the present time or in the future and what action will be taken by the CNR as far as job protection is concerned?
2.	Did the CNR inform the Minister of Transport of its intended action in this regard, and (a) if so, what action is he taking as far as job protection is concerned (b) if not, for what reason?


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. As a result of technological advances, operational and organizational changes and staffing adjustments dictated by declining patronage, since November 1, 1969, 18 employees located throughout the provinces of Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick have been given notice of lay off. Those affected may avail themselves of every consideration within the context of the existing Labour Agreements such as exercise seniority rights, retraining, early retirement and severance pay.
2.	No. (a) Not applicable; (b) Such actions are within the jurisdiction of management and are governed by the applicable labour agreements.


ELDON POWERIDE CAR
Mrs. Maclnnis: 1.	Was the Eldon Powerlde Car made by Eldon Industries of Canada Limited examined, tested and approved for sale by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and, if so, who were the officials involved in this examination and what criteria was used regarding the hazards associated with the car's sulphuric acid battery?
2.	What other children's toys have been examined and approved for sale by the Department?
3.	What is the basis or criteria in the selection af children's toys to be tested by officials of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. A Powerlde X-2 Rechargeable Electric Car manufactured by Eldon Industries of Canada Ltd. was seen by R. W. James, an official of the Depart-
Questions
ment of Consumer and Corporate Affairs but it was neither tested nor approved for sale.
2.	Numerous children's toys have been seen by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs for purposes of preparing standards or criteria under the Hazardous Products Act but none has been approved for sale.
3.	The Department is endeavouring to establish criteria.


PUBLICATION OF BULLETIN, &quot;LABOUR NEWS HEADLINES&quot;
Mr. Muir (Cape Brefon-The: Sydneys):
1.	What is the reason for the publication by the Department of Labour of the Labour News Headlines?
2.	On what date was the publication of this information bulletin initiated, how many people are involved in the publication of this bulletin and what is the estimated annual cost of same?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: 1.	The main reason for the publication of this bulletin is to assist in keeping the Minister of Labour, the Deputy Minister, other Senior Officers of the Department and Information Staffs abreast of major industrial relations news, editorial opinion, and special features appearing in the daily press and industrial journals. However, as a result of a growing number of requests, the Department recognized there was a valid and widespread interest for such information in areas such as educational institutions and the general business and labour community.
2.	The bulletin, more or less in its present form and for internal Departmental use only commenced daily publication on August 8, 1955. The first edition for expanded distribution outside the Department was issued November 21, 1969.
Six people are involved part-time in its publication and the estimated current total annual cost, including prorated labour costs, is $3,452.19.
765 copies of the bulletin are distributed outside the Department (including circulation to the Senate and the House of Commons) at an estimated additional cost of $332.01 per year. This figure is included in the above total.


U.S. MAGAZINES HANDLED BY CANADA POST OFFICE
Mr. Knowles (Norfolk-: Haldimand):
1.	What was the poundage of United States magazines, printed and published in the United States, handled by the Canada Post Office during the years 1966, 1967 and 1968?

January 28, 1970
Questions
2.	What was the revenue received by the Canada Post Office in return for handling the volume of U.S. magazines referred to in Part 1?
3.	Does the Canada Post Office have any figure on the loss entailed in handling the U.S. magazines referred to in Part 1 and, if so, what is the average annual loss?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General and Minister of Communications):: 1. Information not available.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


EXTENSION OF SHIPPING SEASON, CHURCHILL
Mr. Korchinski: 1.	(a) Has any department of the Canadian Government authorized studies of the feasibility of the extension of the shipping season to the Port of Churchill in the last two years (b) what was the cost of such studies or reports (c) are the reports available to the public?
2.	Have any independent reports been made on the extension of the shipping season to Churchill which have been made available to the government?
3.	What were the opening dates and closing dates of shipping from Churchill in the past ten years?


Gérard Loiselle: 1. (a) Yes; (b) $58,900; (c) Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	During the past ten years the open season has been from July 23 to October 15.


EXPROPRIATION PROCEEDINGS, CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Fortin: 1.	Are expropriation or nationalization proceedings with respect to the Cape Breton Development Corporation completed?
2.	Have the shares or assets of private companies been expropriated or nationalized?
3.	What compensation was paid?
4.	What were the criteria governing compensation?


Mr. Martin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1. No.
2.	The physical assets of the companies mentioned in section 2(d) of the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act were expropriated by the Cape Breton Development Corporation on March 30, 1968.
3.	None to date.
4.	The criteria governing compensation are set out in section 12 of the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act.


CATTLE RUSTLING IN ALBERTA
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	How many cases of cattle rustling were reported by the RCMP in Alberta in (a) the first half of 1969, 1968 and 1967 (b) the total year 1968, 1967 and 1966?
2.	How many charges were laid in connection with the above?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Solicitor General):: 1.	1969, No statistics to date; 1968, 151; 1967, 123; 1966, 97.
2.	1969, No statistics to date; 1968, 59; 1967, 18; 1966, 12.
Note: The nature of this offence is such as to preclude accurate statistics on half yearly basis. Cattle reported stolen are frequently found to be only temporarily missing.


OLD AGE SECURITY TAX AND PAYMENTS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What was the total amount collected in the form of Old Age Security Tax in 1968?
2.	How much was paid out in 1968 on Old Age Pensions of $75.00 per month?
3.	How much was paid out in supplementary payment in 1968?
4.	Is there a balance of the Old Age Pension Fund and, if so, how much?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Statistics are maintained on a fiscal basis. 1. Total Old Age Security Taxes collected in the fiscal year 1968-69, $1,626,100,000.
2.	Basic Old Age Security payment was $76.50 per month in 1968 and $78 per month in 1969. Total payments in the fiscal year 1968-69 were: $1,296,849,281.
3.	Guaranteed Income Supplement payments for the fiscal year 1968-69 totalled: $244,470,268.
4.	The balance in the Old Age Security fund as of October 31, 1969 was: $711.7 millions.


POST OFFICE CLOSURES, PALLISER CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Schumacher: 1.	Since June 25, 1968, in the Constituency of Palliser, how many post offices have been closed to date?
2.	Where were these post offices located?
3.	What alternative service has been provided, in each case?
4.	What is the entire cost, in each case, for providing such alternative service?
January 28, 1970

5.	What was the financial saving to the department, from each post office closed?
6.	How many other post offices in the Constituency of Palliser are under consideration for closure?
7.	Where is each located?
8.	What is the projected cost of providing alternative service in each case?
Questions
9.	What financial saving is expected if the department decides to close these post offices, in each case?
10.	What alternative service will be provided in each case, if these post offices are closed?


Eric William Kierans: 1. Six.
2. Post Office 3. Alternate Service
Bottrel
Redland
Elkton
Hesketh
Ardenode
Cambria
Cochrane R.R. No. 1 Rosebud R.R. No. 1 Didsbury R.R. No. 1 Carbon R.R. No. 1 Strathmore Post Office Rosedale Station, Drumheller and East Coulee Post Offices
4. Cost of Alter-	Former Cost	5. Savings
nate Service	of Operation	
$	$	$Nil	1,000	1,000720	1,098	378707	1,000	293625	1,350	725Nil	1,000	1,000Nil	1,200	1,2006.	Three.7.	Bragg Creek, Nacmine, Beynon.8.	Not yet known.9.	Not yet known.10.	To be determined.


WATER POLLUTION-CHARGES LAID UNDER HARBOURS BOARD ACT
Mr. Harding: 1.	For the years 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969 to date, how many charges were laid against individuals or companies by persons in the department responsible for the enforcement of the National Harbours Board Act and Regulations regarding violations of the Act and Regulations dealing with pollution of waters?
2.	How many of the above charges resulted in (a) convictions (b) dismissal of the charges (c) withdrawal of the charges?


Gérard Loiselle: 1. In so far as
the National Harbours Board is concerned: 1963, 1; 1964, -; 1965, 2; 1966, 1; 1967, -;
1968, -; 2.	; 1969, 1. (a)	(b)	(c)Convictions	Dismissal	Withdrawal1963	-	1	-1964	-	-	-1965	2	-	-1966	1	-	-1967	-	-	-1968	-[DOT]	-	-1969	1	-	-


POLLUTION-CHARGES LAID UNDER DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE ACT
Mr. Harding: 1. For the years 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969 to date, how many charges were laid against individuals or companies by persons in the department responsible for the enforcement of the Department of National Health Act and Regulations regarding violations of the Act and Regulations dealing with pollution?
2.	How many of the above charges resulted in (a) convictions (b) dismissal of the charges (c) withdrawal of the charges?


John Carr Munro: 1. There are no provisions in the Department of National Health and Welfare Act, or Regulations thereunder, dealing with pollution, which create an offence for their violation.
2. See one above.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION ADVERTISING
Mr. Hales: 1.	What was the total cost of the advertisement carried in the newspapers by the Unemployment Insurance Commission beginning "Ottawa pays 20% of your Unemployment Insurance"?
2.	In how many papers did it appear and was it nation-wide?
3.	Is it the intention of the Unemployment Insurance Commission to publish a series of similar ads?
4.	Is the Unemployment Insurance Commission included in the government austerity program?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: 1. The total cost of display in newspaper and
2S24

January 28, 1970
Questions
periodicals of the advertisement beginning "Ottawa pays 20 per cent of your Unemployment Insurance..." is $28,510.
2.	The advertisement received national coverage through 34 daily newspapers and four periodicals.
3.	The advertisement is one of a series of four dealing with various aspects of the operation of the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
4.	The Unemployment Insurance Commission is within the scope of the government austerity program, and this measure of public Information and education has been achieved within the limits of the budget so determined.


CANADA EXECUTIVE SERVICE OVERSEAS
Mr. Diefenbaker: Does Canada Executive Services Overseas receive any grants or assistance from the federal government and, if so, what has been the total amount advanced to date?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Yes. Total amount advanced to the Canadian Executive Service Overseas (CESO) from its inception in 1967 to date, $824,310.62.


PAYMENTS FOR CARRIAGE OF AIRMAIL
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Since the inception of airmail, what has been the amount paid annually to Air Canada (Trans Canada Airlines) by the Post Office Department?
2.	For what volumes of mail was this amount paid?
3.	What other airlines carry mail for the Post Office Department and, what has been the annual payment?
4.	In each year, what was the revenue obtained from sale of airmail stamps and other air carriage rates?
5.	Are tenders invited for carriage of airmail?
6.	In the last five years, what airlines have submitted tenders and in what amounts?


Eric William Kierans: Domestic
International
1. 2.
Year	Cost	Poundage	Cost	Poundage1937-38	$ 41,387	39,398	1938-39	
878,828	436,842	1939-40	
1,766,337	755,684	1940-41	
3,151,348	990,631	1941-42	
2,995,447	1,605,651	1942-43	
3,342,186	2,739,482	1943-44	
3,594,705	3,861,685	$ 455,074	293,6241944-45	
3,868,822	3,704,553	2,885,315	2,324,5341945-46	3,070,915	2,971,661	2,120,1501940-47	
3,619,504	2,361,802	2,088,530	303,5541947-48	
3,900,617	2,714,509	1,090,255	225,4961948-49	
5,029,798	5,975,300	1,122,947	232,4931949-50	
5,400,000	7,307,536	81,178,403	244,4891950-51	
5,450,000	6,164,089	1,207,554	254,6881951-52	
5,802,000	9,102,258	1,587,013	336,2021952-53	
5,844,000	9,500,553	1,856,436	394,2891953-54	
5,877,000	10,685,893	1,936,980	488,6341954-55	
6,200,000	13,760,996	2,187,907	613,9841955-56	
6,330,000	15,000,796	2,100,767	738,6681956-57	
6,590,000	16,920,558	2,386,059	848,5841957-58	
6,721,000	18,215,347	3,020,615	1,099,3591958-59	
6,830,000	19,005,893	3,067,423	1,160,1501959-60	
6,900,000	20,176,389	3,041,925	1,160,2221960-61	
6,980,000	21,160,729	3,254,868	1,277,2121961-62	
7,060,000	22,008,216	3,152,570	1,248,6431962-63	
7,230,000	23,880,213	3,281,136	1,404,8051963-64	
7,420,000	25,874,433	3,653,498	1,515,2671964-65	
7,730,000	29,157,962	4,334,808	1,690,6581965-66	
7,986,374	31,930,780	4,719,344	1,870,0111966-67	
8,229,660	35,705,987	5,129,497	2,030,4861967-68	
8,813,128	39,677,456	5,270,312	2,624,0181968-69	
9,558,431	42,793,447	5,291,233	2,863,915

January 28, 1970

3.	1968-69
Canadian Pacific Air Lines
(Domestic)	SI, 592,044
(International)	 4,695,243
Athabaska Airways Ltd	 2,744
Austin Airways Ltd	 303,506
B.C. Airlines Ltd	 74,403
Courier Flights Ltd	 2,926
Eastern Provincial Airways	 733,873
Georgian Bay Airways Ltd	 8,324
Great Northern Airways Ltd	 42,385
Mel Air Ltd	 13,053
Nordair Ltd	 414,739
North Canada Air Ltd	 51,144
North Coast Air Services	 1,540
Northern Air Services	 3,745
Pacific Western Airlines	 709,212
Quebecair Inc	 105,810
Transair Ltd	 309,626
Trans Provincial Air Carriers	 8,733
Air Gasp6 Inc	 15,000
Atlas Aviation	 36,375
Brochu Industries Ltd	 8,197
Carrot River Airways Ltd	 7,014
Coast Range Airways Ltd	 4,807
Discovery Mines Ltd	 1,277
Fort Vermilion Air Service	 1,809
Gordon Airways Ltd	 9,708
Halls Air Services	 620
Hooker Air Services	 22,503
Island Airlines Ltd	 9,378
Lambair Ltd	 2,136
Lethbridge Air Services	 6,460
Midwest Aviation	 6,875
Montmagny Air Services	 2,958
Northern Wings Ltd	 152,764
Northland Airlines Ltd	 237,333
Northward Aviation Ltd	 44,093
Omineca Air Services	 2,418
Orillia Air Services	 828
Ptarmigan Airways Ltd	 686
Riverton Airways Ltd	 3,994
Roberts Flying Service	 5,577
Starratt Transportation Ltd	 959
St. Felicien Air Services	 30,109
Tyee Airways Ltd	 423
Alert Bay Air Services	 1,069
Trans Mountain Air Services	 3,606
Contact Airways Ltd	 2,355
Northwest Territorial Airways Ltd	 79
4.	1967-68-$26.1 million
1968-69- 26.1	"
This information is not available for fiscal years prior to 1967-68.
5.	No.
6.	Not applicable.


LITERARY FIGURES ON STAMPS
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Is it intended to issue a stamp in 1971 commemorating the 175th anniversary of the birth of Thomas Chandler Haliburton?
2.	What Canadian literary figures have appeared on Canadian stamps and, in what years?


Eric William Kierans: 1. No.
2. Emily Pauline Johnson, 1961; Henri Bourassa, 1968; John McCrae, 1968; Stephen Butler Leacock, 1969.
Questions


ARMED FORCES RETIREMENTS
Mr. Diefenbaker: How many personnel of all ranks have voluntarily and/or on request, retired from the Armed Forces, month by month, since January, 1969 with service of (a) less than 6 months (b) 6-12 months?


Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1969	(a)	(b)January	23	14February	46	16March	46	28April	51	32May	67	75June	60	71July	46	41August	54	43September	36	86October	23	45November	40	59December	38	53


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION SUBSIDIES TO INDUSTRIES
Mr. Rodrigue: 1.	Since Bill C-202 was enacted, how many industries have obtained subsidies from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion?
2.	Which industries and how much was granted to each?


Abram Ernest Epp: 1 and 2. This information is contained in the reports tabled each month in Parliament.


EXPENDITURE ON FOREIGN MAGAZINES
Mr. Rodrigue: For each year 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969, what amount was spent on foreign magazines distributed in Canada by the Canadian postal service?


Eric William Kierans: Information not available.


'HAGUE AGREEMENT RELATING TO REFUGEE SEAMEN
Mr. Haidasz: 1.	When did Canada accede to the November 23, 1956, Hague Agreement relating to refugee seamen?
2.	Did Canada's agreement include any exceptions or reservations to any of the articles of the Agreement?

January 28, 1970
Questions
3.	Since the date of the Agreement, has Canada Invoked any of the articles of the Convention?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is May 30, 1969; entered into force for Canada August 18, 1969. The answer to the second part is no, and the answer to the third part is no.


AEDA PROJECTS IN RIVIERE BLEUE
Mr. Corbin: 1.	Have one or more ARDA projects been carried out in Riviere Bleue, constituency of Temiscouata, P.Q.?
2.	What was the nature of each project?
3.	Who will benefit by each project?
4.	Who applied for each project?
5.	What was the total cost?
6.	What was the federal government's contribution?
7.	On what date did the work begin and when was it completed?


Abram Ernest Epp: 1. No.
2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Not applicable.


REGISTERED NURSES EMPLOYED BY NEWSTART IN P.E.I.
Mr. McGrath: 1.	How many registered nurses are employed by New Start within the Province of Prince Edward Island?
2.	What degrees do the nurses so employed now hold?
3.	What are the years of nursing experience of the nurses now employed?
4.	What, specifically, are the duties of the nurses presently employed?


Abram Ernest Epp: 1. Three.
2.	Registered Nurse (R.N.)
3.	One, seven years; one, nine years; one, four years.
4.	Two engaged in developing, conducting and evaluating an experimental program to assist disadvantaged adults into stable and rewarding employment as institutional attendants.
One engaged in developing, conducting and evaluating an experimental program to train day care attendants, including supervision of two day care Centres.


* IMMIGRATION ACT
Mr. Haidasz: Is it the intention of the government to present to Parliament at this Session, a new Immigration Act or amendments to the existing Act based on the White Paper on Immigration and the recommendations of the Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on Immigration?


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, while the Immigration Act is under review, there are no plans at present to introduce revisions to the present act during this session. The government has already implemented many of the recommendations of the white paper on immigration through revisions to the immigration regulations and administrative procedures.


INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON STATUS OF REFUGEES
Mr. Haidasz: 1.	Has Canada acceded to the 1951 International Convention on the Status of Refugees?
2.	Has the Canadian Government made any decision on the establishment of a refugee eligibility referred to in paragraph 55 of the White Paper on Immigration, October, 1966?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. Yes.
2. Following the accession by Canada to the 1951 Convention, the government has instituted a review of refugee policies and is being assisted in this review by the Canada Manpower and Immigration Council, to whom this matter has been referred.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Korchinski: What amount of flour was exported during the past two years and to what countries?
Return tabled.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 179, 314 and 328 are acceptable to the government.
January 28, 1970


DRUG REGULATIONS-CORRESPONDENCE WITH MANUFACTURERS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 179-Mrs. Maclnnis:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence between the federal Food and Drug Directorate and Canadian drug manufacturers regarding changes in Canada's drug regulations.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 314-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report by Erwick, Curry and Partners Limited undertaken for the National Research Council as mentioned in answer to Question Number 2,452 of the past Session.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 328-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence and other documents exchanged between the Privy Council and the Barber Commission on Farm Machinery concerning the terms of reference and the scope of inquiry of the said Commission.
Motion agreed to.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions Nos. 264, 291 and 303 are acceptable to the government, subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential papers and to the authorization of the government authorities concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations or conditions expressed by the hon. parliamentary secretary is it the pleasure of the House that notices of motion Nos. 264, 291 and 303 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


REGIONAL AIRPORT, VICTORIAVILLE, QUE.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 264-Mr. Fortin:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence, reports, briefs and other documents submitted to the Government of Canada regarding the construction and development of a regional airport in Victoriaville, Quebec.
Motion agreed to.
Motions for Papers BABB CONSTRUCTION WATER SYSTEM CONTRACT, ENGLEE, NFLD.
Motion No. 291-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the contract awarded to Babb Construction Limited of Harbour Grace, Newfoundland by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion regarding the construction of a water system at Englee, Newfoundland.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 303-Mr. Forreslall:
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 Government of Nova Scotia, together with copies of any proposed plans dealing with the establishment of a National Park at or near Ship Harbour, Nova Scotia.
Motion agreed to.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions Nos. 1, 171, 199 and 256?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.


COPPER EXPORTS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 1-Mr. Sallsman:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all export permits granted for copper exports for the period January 1, 1969, to September 30, 1969.
Mr. Knowles {Winnipeg North Centre):
Stand.
Mr. Speaker:: Stand.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY COST STRUCTURE STUDY
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 171-Mr. Saltsman:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study by economist David F. Smith of the Mechanical Transport Branch, Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce on "The Effects of Canada-United States Wage Parity Upon the Cost Structure of the Canadian Automotive Industries".
Stanley Howard Knowles: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.

January 28, 1970
Motions for Papers


DISCONTINUANCE OF PRODUCTION BY KAISER JEEP CANADA LTD.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 199-Mr. Broadbenl:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence between the Government of Canada and Kaiser Jeep Canada Ltd. regarding the discontinuation of its production activities in Canada.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce wishes to inform the hon. member that the correspondence requested includes confidential information on the internal affairs of the parent corporation and the Canadian company's performance under the automotive agreement. Such information is proprietary and its disclosure could have a serious effect not only with this particular parent corporation and its future Canadian operations but with other companies, as well, which have provided similar information in confidence. In view of this, the minister would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Broadbenl:: I agree, Mr. Speaker.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE GRANTS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 256-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do Issue for a copy of a list of the 278 development incentive grants made by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion from January to mid-November 1969, and in each case (a) the name and address of the firm receiving the grant (b) the amount of grant received (c) the total estimated capital cost of the project (d) the nature of the project for which the grant was provided and its location (e) the number of new jobs created as a result of the project?
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, the cases referred to are not grants paid out but offers made. The details requested will be made public in all cases when the project is proceeded with, and before any grant is actually paid. But at the offer stage, confidentiality is essential to the program.


Mr. Burton:: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary has consulted with me on this matter. The information provided leads me to the conclusion that the department's press release of November 19 announcing the number of new jobs created in 1969 is a hoax and a fraud. Therefore I ask that this motion be put to a vote.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Transfer for debate.


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


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire when I may expect notice of motion No. 80 standing in my name, which has been on the Order Paper since October 23, to be called?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I will inquire, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Skoberg:: Mr. Speaker, can the House Leader also say when notice of motion No. 32 under my name as of October 23 will be called?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I shall make that inquiry as well, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my inquiry of the President of the Privy Council relates to a notice of motion for the production of papers which has been passed. I refer to No. 30 passed on December 17, 1969, having to do with the report of Professor Jeremy Williams on the subject of conflict of interest legislation. Can the minister say when this document, already ordered, will be tabled?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Today or tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inquire about Notices of Motion Nos. 295 and 296 placed on the order paper on December 9. It seems to me it should have been possible to deal with these motions before now.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence what the policy of the government is in light of the fact that our allies have reduced substantially Canada's accessibility to military and strategic information, a situation which could be very serious for the future of our defence activities?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Leader of the Opposition is drawing conclusions that are not warranted by the testimony to which he is obviously referring.
January 28, 1970


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Am I to take from the minister's statement that there is no concern about this matter? May I ask the minister whether he or anybody else on behalf of the government has made any representations to our allies with regard to the exchange of military and strategic information, which apparently took place formerly quite freely?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, we have many allies and I believe it would be useful if the allies to which he is referring were identified.


An hon. Member:: Don't you know them?


An hon. Member:: You haven't any left.


An hon. Member:: We had.


An hon. Member:: We are losing them, though.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, am I to take it from the reply of the minister that he is simply evading his responsibility in this regard-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -and that the government of Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, will the minister advise the House whether it is a fact that he has received reports from Canadian officers posted to establishments in the United States to the effect that they are finding restrictions placed upon them with regard to access to information and also participation in discussions as a result of the reduction in Canada's participation both in NATO and SACLANT?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, now we are talking about the United States. I am very happy to have this identification.


An hon. Member:: You are smart.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: My hon. friend is obviously referring to the testimony given the day before yesterday before the committee by Dr. Lindsey. I believe Dr. Lindsey said that in the scientific field some of the information is released on a need-to-know basis. I think it would be a big step to conclude from that that there is some restriction on the exchange of military information.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I will allow the hon. member's supplementary in a moment, but I think I should caution hon. members that this might not be the place to discuss evidence given before a committee when that committee has not yet reported.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Very much so, Mr. Speaker, but will the minister kindly inform us whether there have been reports by Canadian officers from various military bases in the United States which in fact indicate there has been a restriction placed upon them?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I am glad to have this opportunity to deny such an assertion.


An hon. Member:: Why didn't you say that in the first place?



CONTINUED PARTICIPATION IN PANARCTIC OILS LIMITED

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: In the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development may I direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister regarding Panarctic Oils Limited in which the Canadian government has a 45 per cent equity. In view of the fact that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has said, "We do not know whether we will sell or continue to participate," I want to ask the Prime Minister whether the government has made a decision either to continue to participate and to put up its share of the $10 million expansion or has decided to withdraw from the Panarctic Oil consortium?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: This question has been taken up by the government and an announcement will be made in due course.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the government considering the advisability of acquiring a controlling interest in the Panarctic Oil consortium in view of the recent developments in oil exploration in the Northwest Territories?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This question has not been considered in the context in which the hon. member has put it. It was considered at the outset in the setting-up of Panarctic.
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Has the government of Canada expressed its concern to some powers that are sending arms to the belligerent countries in the Middle East and does it intend to ask France and the United States, for instance, to stop supporting the war between Israelis and Arabs?


Mitchell William Sharp: As the House knows, Canada is not supplying arms to either side in this conflict and has urged in the United Nations and elsewhere that this should be the practice of all countries, including France and others who are supplying arms to that area.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Have these countries to whom we have shown our concern given any affirmative answer to the minister?


Mitchell William Sharp: Obviously not, Mr. Speaker. [Translation]


REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING CULTURAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND BELGIUM
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Has Canada received through its ambassador in Brussels, or through any other means, representations from the Belgian government with a view to amending or terminating the cultural agreement between Belgium and Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not think so, Mr. Speaker, but I would have to check. My recollection is, no.


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainie-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a supplementary ques-
January 28, 1970
tion to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Can he inform the House whether this agreement enables Quebec to sign agreements with Belgium for cultural and technical exchanges? If not, does Canada intend to amend this agreement in order to enable Quebec to have exchanges with Belgium?


Mitchell William Sharp: I think the position of the
government in this respect is very well known, that is that Canada is responsible for its foreign relations with other countries. It is quite possible, within that ambit of course, for close relations in cultural and educational matters with other countries, but we must insist that no government in Canada other than the government of Canada can act as if it were a sovereign state.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


INVITATION FROM MAURITANIA TO ATTEND CONFERENCE OF FRENCH-SPEAKING MINISTERS OF EDUCATION
Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
Could the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell us if Canada has been invited by Mauritania to attend the conference of the ministers of education of French-speaking countries? If so, is it the government's intention to accept the invitation and send the same delegation as the one who represented Canada at the Paris conference last December?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is yes, Canada has received an invitation. We have not yet replied to it.


POLICY RESPECTING DELEGATIONS TO FRANCE
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
Could the Secretary of State for External Affairs inform the House whether the way of selecting the Paris delegation is the official and final one or whether it will be modified?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the general

January 28, 1970

principles underlying the participation of Quebec or any other province in Canadian delegations are laid out in the documents that were tabled at the time of the constitutional conference. That remains our policy.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Is he in a position to say whether his department has launched an investigation into allegations of misleading advertising by Imperial Tobacco in connection with the marketing of a new brand of cigarettes in the province of Alberta, and would the minister undertake to advise the House of the results of such inquiry?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I am not at this time able to go beyond what I said the other day.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A supplementary question. Can the minister say whether the interests of those who are claiming significant winnings as a result of the Imperial Tobacco Company's promotion program will be taken into consideration?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York South.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker,
I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister on a matter which may not have been brought to his attention and which he may want to take into consideration. It arises out of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that a Mr. Jerry Myric Mihm, his wife and children should be deported from Canada in accordance with an order of the Immigration Department. Would the Prime Minister consider and discuss with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration the possibility of letting this family remain in Canada despite the decision of the Supreme Court in view of the fact that deportation under present circumstances would cause great hardship to the family?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the matter has not been brought

Inquiries of the Ministry to my attention. I thank the hon. member for doing so. I will ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration to advise me on the subject.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour following upon other questions that have been asked in the House. Is the minister now ready to make public the findings of the Smith Commission report relating to the harbour of Montreal?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, 1 anticipate making the report public by next Wednesday. The report was authorized by the then Minister of Labour under a section of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, and it is not necessary to table it in the House. It will be made public to the parties concerned, and I think in view of the unusual interest in the report I will however table it not later than next Wednesday.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Labour. In view of the suggestion made yesterday by Mr. Beau-det, the port manager, that the pilferage was so mysterious that it might have something to do with the signs of the zodiac, I would like to ask the minister if he is waiting for a favourable astrological sign to release the Smith report?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister prompted by a report that the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville is to be appointed co-chairman of the Joint Committee on the Constitution, together with an unnamed French-Canadian Senator. Without in any way disparaging the qualifications of the hon. member, 1 would ask the Prime Minister to assure the House that at least at this early point in the committee's history that the government will keep its hands off the committee and allow it to come to its own decisions.
January 28, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister): advice on the matter. Will Your Honour allow Quite gladly, Mr. Speaker. I was surprised to me now to rephrase my question to the Prime see the story in the Globe and Mail indicating Minister? When may members of the House that the hon. member's appointment would be expect a meaningful statement on govern-confirmed shortly by the Prime Minister, ment plans regarding conservation regulations Surely a paper that knows so much about and land use policies in the Northwest Ter-Parliament should know the Prime Minister ritories, the Yukon Territory, the Arctic does not confirm such appointments.	Islands and the waters lying between?


Gerald William Baldwin: It knows the Prime Minister.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and also for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, but since they are unfortunately not with us today and it concerns both their departments, as well as that of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I will address my question to the Prime Minister. In view of recent matters that were before the House, and also in view of renewed concern over possible pollution in the Arctic following the discovery of oil by Imperial Oil Limited near the mouth of the Mackenzie River, when can the House expect a meaningful statement on government plans regarding conservation regulations and land use policies in the Northwest Territories, the Yukon Territory and the Arctic Islands?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, is the question related to the land or to the Arctic area in general? I missed the preamble to the question.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Your Honour, I realize the Prime Minister has many things on his mind, and perhaps with your permission I might repeat the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the question might be made just a bit shorter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I would be very glad to accept your suggestion. I said-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I am quite prepared to wait, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's time will expire pretty soon.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I am sorry that because of the disturbance I cannot hear Your Honour's


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I ask this question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member has asked it twice. Perhaps he could get a reply now.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It came out a little clearer that time, Mr. Speaker. Concerning the addendum to the question, that of course will be dealt with by the government when it discusses the legislation which was announced in the Speech from the Throne concerning anti-pollution measures in the Arctic. The other aspects of the question come under the policies of the Canadian government with regard to pollution in waters under the Canada Water Act. There are also measures being contemplated in other areas concerning, for instance, gas and oil pollution.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the contents of the Prime Minister's reply as far as it went, but I would ask him this question. In view of the fact that legislation from several departments obviously is coming forward, as announced by the Secretary of State for External Affairs the other evening, and in view of the fact that some of these matters are pretty urgent and of great public concern, could the Prime Minister tell us when his ministers will be able to make a statement dealing with those matters which do not need legislation at the present time?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



POLLUTION


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. Given the fact that housewives through the daily use of detergents are forced to contribute heavily and unwillingly to water pollution in Canada, is the government considering asking the National Research Council to initiate an emergency research program to develop a non-phosphate, non-pollutive detergent?

January 28, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I would think should be here to explain and answer ques-that this question, important though it is, tions. This is why I ask the question today, ought normally to be placed on the Order Paper. If it is a matter of great urgency it [Translation] might be debated at the time of adjournment.	TRADE


Mrs. Maclnnis:: Ten o'clock.



APPEARANCE OF HOCKEY CANADA BEFORE COMMITTEE

Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the withdrawal of Canada from the international ice hockey tournament and its implications for the future of our national game, would the minister use his good offices to arrange for Hockey Canada to appear soon before the appropriate standing committee of the House?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to give consideration to that suggestion.


Mark Willson Rose: As a supplementary and related question, does the minister intend in the near future to make a statement on motions regarding the government's sports policy, elaborating on the statement he made on this subject outside the House on February 27?


John Carr Munro: No, Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to make a statement in the House.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Under the new pasture development plan for Indian reservations, are these pastures for Indian cattle only and, if not, will the Indians receive all the moneys from the development of these pastures?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that this question should be placed on the Order Paper.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I raise this question today because the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development released a press statement today that should have been made in the House. He



REASON FOR LOSS OF ORDER BY DAVIE SHIPBUILDING COMPANY

Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Rural Development.
The president of Davie Shipbuilding has stated that construction of 24 ships for Greece at Lauzon would not be carried out, because of administrative delays on the part of authorities in Ottawa.
Can the minister inform us whether he agrees with the assertion of administrative delays?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will, I am sure, appreciate that the question, in its present form is out of order.
The Minister of Economic Regional Expansion on a point of order.
Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion)1: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to mention that there is no Minister of Rural Development in the federal government.



COMBINES


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is an old one given renewed urgency by last week's announcement by Dominion Stores Limited of its withdrawal from the Calgary and Edmonton markets in accord, as its press release said, "with our over-all long-term plans for expansion and growth." Since this withdrawal involves the concurrent expansion of the already impressive market penetration of Canada Safeway Limited in those cities, can the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member should ask the question. He is making an argument. He should not make a speech but ask the question.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In view of all that, can the minister assure the House that the Combines Investigation
January 28, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry Branch will give top priority to a review of the retail grocery industry in the prairies and particularly in Alberta?


An hon. Member:: "It's all because of the meat."


Stanley Ronald Basford: Because the hon. member for Calgary South is always on the job-


Gerald William Baldwin: Too bad you were not.


Stanley Ronald Basford: -I and the director under the Combines Investigation Branch are aware of the situation and he will deal with it under the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and has to do with the question I posed to his Parliamentary Secretary last Wednesday, as found on page 2647 of Hansard. Is the minister prepared to answer the question now?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Would the hon. member repeat the question, please?


Jack Marshall: Can the minister indicate and confirm that the agreement on the first phase of a five-year regional development plan for Newfoundland will be signed in April and would he be prepared to table the contents so that the people of Newfoundland can be made aware of the benefits of this plan?


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member is referring to the signing of a document in April, I doubt that the question is in order at this time. It should be placed on the Order Paper.


Jack Marshall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, Your Honour allowed the question last Wednesday.


Mr. Speaker:: If I made a mistake, it was last Wednesday.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saini-Hyacinlhe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour.

Would he tell the House whether the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice has authorized him to offer a judgeship to Mr. Claude Wagner?


Mr. Speaker:: I cannot allow this question. [English]



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. In view of the objections raised by the Professional Institute of the Public Service to the terminology used by the minister in referring to scientific and professional men who were being laid off as deadwood, would the minister take steps to remove this stigma from these men who are now trying to find new jobs?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: I think the best way to remove this stigma is to stop using the term, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that the Defence Research Board plays a leading role in establishing research priorities of the government involving millions of dollars, will the minister assure the House that he will investigate the conflict of interest position of Mr. J. B. Houlding who is simultaneously president of RCA Victor and a member of the Defence Research Board?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I believe it would be useful to indicate to the House that the terms of reference of the Defence Research Board designate representatives from industry, universities and other research interests in Canada as possible members of the board. The case in point is a temporary assignment. I can reassure my hon. friend by telling him that the Defence Research Board has no specific responsibility for directing purchasing for the government.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask
January 28, 1970

the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he has any recent report from the observer team or the Canadian representative on the observer team regarding conditions in Nigeria and what was formerly Biafra, particularly with regard to the flow of relief and whether it is satisfactory and also conditions generally?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian observers have reported to me about conditions. The report is very similar to the one made by the representatives of the Secretary General of the United Nations. I have been urging the release of this report but apparently there is some difficulty that has arisen because it is not unanimous. One country in particular, not Canada, has filed a minority report and some difficulty has arisen as to when it can be released. The observers themselves are continuing their survey.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Has the minister any information from the Canadian observers or the Canadian Red Cross on whether the Nigerian government has granted clearance for planes carrying relief supplies to land at Uli or any of the former Biafran airports?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there has been any approval given yet to the use of Uli airport. 1 gather that other airports in the area are being used and, indeed, I saw a report the other day that there was some doubt as to whether one of them was in proper condition. So attempts are being made to use them, but with regard to Uli my understanding is that so far the Nigerian government is not using it.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonl):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In light of the current difficulties with regard to the observers' report, will the minister give an undertaking to the House that relevant information of particular interest to the committee at present meeting on the question of relief procedures will be made available to that committee, and that every measure will be taken to assure the publication of even the minority report in light of the great interest in this country and in others that full exposure be given to the situation in that part of Nigeria?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I thought I made it clear that I have seen a copy of the report made by a majority of the observers. However it is subject to an embargo as the meminquiries of the Ministry bers of the team themselves have to release the report. It is not a question of the Canadian government holding up the publication of the report. I am not sure what the rules of the team are, whether they have to be unanimous, but apparently there is some difficulty. We have urged the publication of the report but we do not order our observers about. They report what they see when they are ready to report.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the increasing number of generally older people who are being discharged from hospitals to nursing homes for further care and who find themselves without funds and not covered by hospitalization services for which they have paid for many years, has the minister discussed this problem with his provincial counterparts or has he some plan to cover the cost of such care for these people?


Mr. Speaker:: The question might be replied to by the minister by way of a statement on motions. He might indicate to the hon. member who asked the question whether this is his intention.


John Carr Munro: I would be pleased to consider making a statement on motions concerning this matter, Mr. Speaker.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Labour. It arises from a good many complaints I and many other hon. members, I am sure, have received concerning the payment of benefits to unemployed people. There seems to be a very great delay in the payment of these benefits. Has the minister any plan in mind to streamline the present operation?


Mr. Speaker:: I think also in this case that this is the kind of general information which should normally be given by a statement on motions unless the minister has a very short answer to the question asked by the hon. member.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The hon. member is such a considerate
January 28, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry member that I should like to answer his question. I was informed this morning that 97.8 per cent of all claims processed by the Unemployment Insurance Commission are processed on time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The majority of the complaints are usually due to faulty information supplied by the unemployed people when filling out the forms.


Alfred Dryden Hales: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister for his statement on this matter. I think the minister might discuss this problem with his colleague, the Postmaster General.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This seems to be a debate between the minister and the hon. member.



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In keeping with the undertaking the minister gave the House before the end of the last session that he would take steps to call the Standing Committee on Regional Development together in January, is the minister now prepared to do that and have the committee meet so it can deal with some of the serious problems facing his department?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I hope we shall soon be able to appoint the committee.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: 1 have a question for the Minister of Justice. When does the minister anticipate the remainder of the breathalyzer section of the Criminal Code dealing with the approved container will be proclaimed?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: When we have found a container that can be approved.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: My
question is directed to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister seen and does he approve of the advertisements which have been appearing recently on behalf of the Unemployment Insurance Commission warning about alleged fraud in the collection of unemployment insurance claims?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I have seen the advertisements, Mr. Speaker, and I approve of them. I do not think anybody should apologize for the fact that we feel the unemployment insurance fund belongs to the workers of this country and their employers who contribute. We should not have sympathy for anybody who sets out to defraud that fund. It is our obligation to protect the fund. All that we have said is if you intend to intentionally defraud the fund, be prepared for your day in court. We do not intend to apologize for this philosophy.


David Orlikow: Has the minister received representations to the effect that the advertisements are drafted in such a way that many people who have legitimate and proper claims are afraid to make their claims?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the only-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Donald MacInnis: I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the statement he just made that the unemployment insurance fund belongs to the workers of this country, I ask him to consider that Devco, a Crown Corporation, has forcibly retired persons in Cape Breton and compelled them to use their own UIC benefits while they are unemployed.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The hon. gentleman has raised this point about seven times. It is a very uncharitable, inaccurate and unfair misrepresentation of the facts. I think it should be clarified once and for all, Mr. Speaker. Under the regulations-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the minister that this is a debate between the minister and the hon. member as to the interpretation of the facts of the situation. I do not think there should be a debate on that point.
January 28, 1970


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the question will appear without an answer and this is very unfair to the Unemployment Insurance Commission. I would like to set the record straight.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister cannot do this on a point of order. I suggest that whether he is right or wrong this is not a point of order. It is a question of debate.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege. The minister has indicated that I have misrepresented the facts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald MacInnis: The minister also indicated in previous answers that he has hundreds of examples of this type of abuse of the UIC fund. My question of privilege arises from the fact that I asked for one or two of these hundreds of examples, not only verbally but also in the form of a letter to the minister over a month ago to which I have not received a reply.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Will the hon. minister kindly resume his seat. I have to suggest to the minister who has a point of order, and to the hon. member who has a question of privilege, that my interpretation is that this is a debate over the interpretation of the facts of the situation. That is not tantamount to either a question of privilege or a point of order. I suggest that the minister might get together with the hon. member later in the day and they might resolve the difficulty by private discussion.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, in order to help-


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


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Because he is one of my favourite members I am only trying to help him. If the hon. member will put a question on the Order Paper asking if other similar programs are in existence, I will-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister has to respect the observation made by the Chair that this is not a point of order but a question of debate.

Inquiries of the Ministry BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE



SUPPLEMENTARY PENSIONS BENEFITS BILL

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question is for either of the presidents across the way.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: There is only one.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is
too bad there is not a television camera to record the rising of His Excellency the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: However, I am referring to the President of the Treasury Board or the President of the Privy Council.


An hon. Member:: They are just honorary presidents.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In
view of the fact that the list of business tabled today includes the very welcome supplementary pensions benefits bill which is listed for first reading before the Easter recess, and in view of the fact the President of the Treasury Board announced on December 19 that this legislation would be effective in April, may I ask whether efforts will be made to put this bill through all stages before Easter?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



POLLUTION


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: I direct my question to the Minister of Supply and Services. In view of the report by the general services administrator of the United States, does the Canadian government plan a conversion of government cars to natural gas fuel which trials have shown to be successful in eliminating pollution?



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES ACT


John Stratford Burton: My question is for the Minister of Regional Economic
2938	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry Expansion. In view of the serious economic situation in the province of Saskatchewan, is the government considering or has it decided to extend the boundaries under the Regional Development Incentives Act?


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Speaker.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. In view of the unemployment situation affecting the grain handlers at Thunder Bay-the figure has risen to as high as 300 in recent weeks-would the hon. gentleman urge his colleague, the Minister without Portfolio responsible for the movement of grain, to accelerate delivery to the terminals and thereby provide badly needed economic relief to grain handlers and prairie wheat growers?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Minister without Portfolio is an adept and talented minister. As a matter of fact, in anticipation of this problem he and the Minister of Labour met representatives of labour at the Lakehead three weeks ago and reached a satisfactory solution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: In light of the meeting I had with the same representative last evening, I wonder whether the minister would review the situation.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Assiniboia.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the hon. member that in light of my answer he should hold another meeting with that particular gentleman.


Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is this: In view of reports that grain sales have been lost because of threatened management-labour difficulties on the west coast, can the minister advise the House what steps are being taken to deal with the situation and prevent further disruption and loss of sales?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: In view of the fact that there is a possibility of a strike on the west coast at Vancouver, perhaps the question

DEBATES	January 28, 1970
should be addressed to the Minister of Industry, because the employers are just as responsible as the labour movement and no settlement has yet been reached.



CAPITAL PUNISHMENT


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
In view of the fact that the number of murders has increased in Canada in 1969, compared to 1967, and in view of the fact that the Minister of Justice of Quebec has asked for the re-establishment of the death penalty, can the minister tell us whether he has had talks on this subject with the Quebec Minister of Justice?


Mr. Speaker:: I think this question was put to the minister a few days ago.



FISHERIES


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry with regard to the government's policy on the licensing of salmon fishermen on the Pacific coast. Since most of the information we have received on this subject has emanated from press releases made outside the House and has been somewhat fragmentary in character, would the minister consider making a full statement in the House on motions setting forth the government's policy and the regulations pertaining thereto?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, because a number of briefs have been submitted on this subject and a number of meetings are being held, I think it might be better to refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Will the minister assure the House that this matter will be submitted to the committee within the next few days, because for a long time hon. members have been asking that it be referred to the committee?
January 28, 1970


John (Jack) Davis: If there is not an early opportunity to discuss this question on the estimates, I shall be glad to refer it to the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to bring to the notice of hon. members that the question period expired a few minutes ago. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition might be allowed one further question.



PENSIONS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have noted there is nothing in the list of legislation set down for the remainder of the session which will provide any relief for those in receipt of old age security benefits. I therefore ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare, particularly bearing in mind the rising cost of living, whether this is an oversight or whether we are to assume that no measure designed to bring such relief will be introduced during this session of Parliament?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition may know, we intend to present a white paper setting out policy in this area. In the meantime, the provinces have been informed in a series of meetings on welfare that the federal government will be amenable to sharing, under the Canada Assistance Plan, the cost of any supplementation they consider necessary. This would apply to any supplementary payments they care to make under the federal programs.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is it the feeling of the government of Canada that an offer of this sort is likely to lead to justice for the older people of Canada, particularly in view of the difficulty some provinces are experiencing in carrying out even their present programs, let alone taking on increased commitments?


John Carr Munro: It was the view of the provinces at the time of the introduction of the Canada Assistance Plan that this would assist present programs. At the time the hon. gentleman was Premier of Nova Scotia this legislation was regarded as being very just, very much needed, and as serving the purpose.

Company of Young Canadians Act [Translation]



MANITOBA CENTENNIAL


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member for Saint-Boniface (Mr. Guay) is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Saint-Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take the opportunity of Manitoba Centennial Day being commemorated in Ottawa today, to present you, as well as the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Official Opposition, with a case containing a one-dollar coin fresh from the mint as a remembrance of Manitoba's Centennial.
I have the pleasure of offering it to you, Mr. Speaker. Somebody will hand it to you in a moment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I think the procedure will be shorter if I thank the hon. member on behalf of myself, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State) moved: that Bill C-176, to amend the Company of Young Canadians Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.
He said:

Mr. Speaker, I do not have to remind the House of the incidents which led before the Christmas recess to the inquiry held by the Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts into the Company of Young Canadians.
Neither do I need to remind the House of the contents of that committee report which led to the appointment of a financial controller for the Company of Young Canadians.
After first reading of the bill, the government committed itself to a motion for second reading of the bill by the end of January. We are now dealing with such a motion.
January 28, 1970

Company of Young Canadians Act
The House is no doubt aware that, at its request, we have determined the exact duration of the financial controller's mandate. In so doing, we were tacitly committing ourselves to completing the legislative process of amending the act by March 31, so that the controller could be replaced by the new structures provided by the amendments that the House will be considering today.
Before commenting upon and explaining briefly those amendments and those new structures, and this I am sure will be done in a much more detailed manner in the committee, I would like to reflect for a moment with the hon. members on the philosophy which inspired government action in this field. I would, as I say, like to reflect on what, in spite of certain pressures, led us to maintain the Company of Young Canadians and on what, on the other hand, justifies our making significant changes to its legal framework.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)

The first point I want to make is that no one can understand the nature of the CYC unless one fully understands the nature of our society.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Nobody can understand it.


Gérard Pelletier: We live in a society of conflict. I do not necessarily mean conflict in the normal, physical sense of the word. I mean confrontation, upheaval, poverty and change; I mean the conflicts of a society with an unequal distribution of wealth, an unequal distribution of power and an unequal distribution of participation. A society in which individuals cannot participate inevitably breeds conflicts. It is a society that robs man of his dignity; it is a society that breeds disillusionment and indignity, generates frustration and, in effect, tends to dehumanize people.
In its initial stages, political action must be remedial. The purpose of many government initiatives is to remedy existing flaws. We must, however, strive to achieve the development of a society that is not only remedial but constructive. We must attempt to achieve a society of equality, a society in which all people may participate, not in token fashion but rather in active ways in attacking both the problems of today and of tomorrow. Either we achieve this goal or we will develop an oligarchic society in which a group of technocrats dictate the means of achieving their goals and assume their goals to be the goals of society at large.

We live in an age that is full of contradictions. This is an age in which expertise has become the passport to success. People, it is often said, know more and more about less and less. In many ways this is a necessity. In a period of time when knowledge is doubling every 10 years, how can one expect to keep abreast of all factors? I am amazed sometimes to hear how the social sciences have subdivided themselves and then re-subdivided themselves into smaller and smaller groups dealing with smaller but more complex problems.
We cannot deny the necessity for expertise and the necessity for sophisticated knowledge. However, at the same time, more and more of our problems are being seen as multi-disciplines and sub-disciplines. This is a moment in time when not the expert, but rather the generalist, the multi-disciplinarian must come to the fore. We must recognize that very often the sum of the trees does not equal the forest. Without expertise, we cannot exist. However, we cannot make the mistake of allowing expertise to dictate solutions. Expertise must remain the handmaiden of policymakers and not the controller of policy-makers. Expertise can never be allowed to become an excuse for the blind acceptance of solutions.
We are fortunate to live at a time when the technology exists to free man from the day-to-day drudgery of mundane chores. Machines can release man to develop his potential in an atmosphere free of want. Unfortunately, the machine can also be allowed to suppress man, to dictate man's existence and in other ways totally dehumanize him. We must learn to harness our creations to free, rather than to enslave.
I plead today for a re-evaluation of our decision structure, based upon my basic belief in the integrity and intelligence of man. We must allow all members of our society to participate equally in the decision-making structure of our country. We must not fall into the trap of believing that our privileged information gives us a privileged right to make decisions. We must, rather, educate and inform the members of our society in order to assure their participation in the evolution of our society.
It is unacceptable for people in a democratic society to abrogate their responsibilities because of a supposed lack of information. It is our responsibility to assure that the necessary information is available. Too many atrocities have been perpetrated on mankind
January 28, 1970	COMMONS
because supposed expert opinion was unavailable to the people. Too many heartless solutions have been imposed in the name of technocracy.
What I have said thus far is neither new nor original. I can suggest that it has not been said often enough. I can suggest that it is one of the most important results of the critical analysis to which society has been subjected during the sixties. The generations gathered in this chamber have sometimes been overly impressed by efficiency. Throughout our life we have watched with envy, with pride and respect, the development of efficient machines designed to accomplish tasks, duties and produce results.
This world has developed efficient machines of destruction and, fortunately, efficient machines of production. It is not surprising that we have been overwhelmed by means of production and infatuated with efficiency. We are the product of the last stages of the industrial revolution. But now, as we approach the post-industrial society, the time has come for us to rigorously re-evaluate the utilization of technology.
The time has come for us to heed the call of youth who have been screaming the basic questions of why efficiency; why growth; why this allocation of resources? While we must organize our wealth in order to assure the maximum benefit for all mankind, we must recognize that the benefits to mankind cannot be measured in material terms alone. We must recognize man's need to strive for fulfilment in many different ways.
Our youth are active participants in our society, and although we wish to encourage their participation they are in many ways independent enough, aloof enough, to undertake a critical analysis that is impossible for our generation. I do not wish to set up youth as a sort of independent alter ego screaming in the darkness. Rather, I wish to argue for a legitimate voice for youth in our structures just as I would argue, and have argued, for a legitimate voice for all people in our society. Youth in particular have a point of view; youth in particular have an analysis. The fact is that what we do today determines the society in which they must live tomorrow. The mistakes we make today, they must undo tomorrow. Surely, this is reason enough to grant them full and equal participation in our society. The worst possible thing that could happen, in my opinion, would be a return to the dull fifties, the period of navel contemplations by youth.
DEBATES	2941
Company of Young Canadians Act
To the lawmakers of the time, there were no problems with youth; youth knew its place and youth was no bother. Perhaps one of the reasons we are confronted with some of the problems of today is precisely because youth shunned its responsibility in the fifties of analyzing and challenging society.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
These remarks are not designed to suggest that all that youth recommends or all that youth undertakes is destined to be good as long as we do not interfere. We know that this generation of youth is subject to many of the same problems as our generation. We know of the danger of manipulation by small groups. We know we must maintain safeguards within the structures used by youth in order to protect the great bulk of youth from manipulative minorities. But these small contemptuous minorities, who by their machinations have destroyed many of the positive projects of youth, cannot be allowed to destroy all the mechanisms designed for the participation of this group.

The Company of Young Canadians, established in 1966, was founded on youth idealism. Its purpose was to channel that idealism toward constructive programs. The creation of the Company of Young Canadians perhaps showed a certain artlessness. It was thought that youth would be spared the scheming from which so many groups have suffered in the past. The experience has shown that we were wrong to believe this. But experience has also clearly shown that the Company of Young Canadians, through its programs, can greatly contribute to the development of our society, can encourage and prompt youth to play an active part in the rehabilitation of that society. We can analyze and dissect every aspect of such experiences as that of the Company of Young Canadians in order to discover exactly why it somewhat fizzled out.
The Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, did everything it could and it is to be commended for its analysis of the problem.
I wish to point out that the committee strongly re-affirms the need and the importance of organizations such as the Company of Young Canadians which is an experience in itself, as are, in one way or another, most youth activities.
As it was mentioned in the House in 1966, during the debate on the legislation establishing the Company of Young Canadians, the
2942	COMMONS
Company of Young Canadians Act experience was almost inevitably bound to result in many failures, but it was hoped that with the anticipated successes, they would be lessons.
I should like to think that is exactly what happened. We have learned that the CYC projects, its role as a thorn in the flesh of the powers that be, were necessary. It was also necessary that the Company should help the people and provide them with the bare minimum to enable them to participate in the life of our society. Past mistakes must not make us forget those facts. We also know, now, that it is necessary to spell out to the CYC the responsibilities to be assumed and the authority to be wielded. We also know that idealism and the duty to be accountable are not actually incompatible.
Mr. Speaker, the amendments provided in this bill are the minimum changes necessary to enable the Company of Young Canadians to remain in operation. Contrary to what has been suggested, these amendments are aimed at establishing an organization which will still enjoy wide autonomy. Once the proposed amendments are passed, the Company of Young Canadians will be comparable to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the Canada Council, and the Corporation of the National Museums of Canada. In each of these cases, although the government appoints the members of the board of directors and the executive director, one must admit that these bodies are largely independent from public authorities. They have been structured this way in order that they may continue to perform their difficult task, aloof from the vicissitudes of politics, and that they may initiate, when needed, projects that may be of a controversial nature. The Company of Young Canadians will always be controversial.
The Company of Young Canadians will keep on working in the midst of marginal groups on the fringe of our society, and it will keep on threatening and troubling the powers that be. This is not what we are seeking, but we must recognize beforehand that it is almost unavoidable. This bill aims at giving the Company of Young Canadians the independence required to undertake some tricky projects when it deems.
It seems to me logical, Mr. Speaker, to remind the hon. members that as representatives of the people, it is our duty to see to it that the use of the taxpayers' money can be controlled. By introducing this bill, the government is assuming its responsibilities, while granting the company its legal autonomy.

DEBATES	January 28, 1970
I would like to point out that the government intends to appoint a board which will be representative of youth and not a group whose duty would be to supervise the Company and to keep youth in its place, as some people say. The average age of the persons appointed by the government within the last Council was quite a bit under thirty and there is no reason to think that it will go up substantially.
Before concluding, I would like to mention another aspect of the problem which is raised periodically. Some people wonder why the government should grant its financial support to those who are contesting some of its decisions and who are challenging it. The government has to inform the public and to listen the views which are submitted to it, and even to facilitate in a financial way the submitting of views which could be different from its own. Everybody knows that big companies, in order to make themselves known and to protect their interests, hire people or agencies specialized in public relations whose services are highly developed technically and are equally very costly. Some, of them, as we know, will not hesitate to convey their views to members of the House. One can stand aloof from pressure groups that seek thus to make the influence they may have felt openly. One can wonder whether the costs incurred by firms to get themselves a good public relations branch are really legitimate expenses. Personally, I think they are in so far as these operations are conducted openly and the objectives of the companies concerned are all clearly identifiable.
In fact, the government helps those companies financially by allowing them to deduct such costs from their fiscal charges and that at the rate of several million dollars a year.
Is it not logical that we should help population groups which lack the means to have recourse to sophisticated representation techniques? Is it not logical that we should help groups whoses expenses are not deductible for income tax purposes? We do it in several cases and at a relatively low cost, one case being the Consumer Advisory Council and another the Company of Young Canadians.
e (3:30 p.m.)
The Company is a sort of investment by the government and Canada's youth in the process of participation. It is an investment of the greatest of our resources: our human capital.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would repeat what I said earlier. I pointed out that we live in a society at grips with many conflicts, suffering from alienation, discrimination and
January 28, 1970

other forms of enslavement. The Company of Young Canadians represents a major factor in the government's policy on participation. On the one hand, it will provide youth with a means-not the only one, of course-of taking part in the evolution of our society. On the other, the CYC is meant to help badly informed and ill-prepared groups to join in the life of our society and, for that purpose, to master the techniques of participation. Unfortunately, participation often implies a degree of specialization which some of our people do not have. The CYC can help those who are not technicians acquire the necessary knowledge for putting their views across.
After all, we are living under a democratic system in which all citizens over a certain age are allowed to vote. Unfortunately, some votes count more than others. Most young people are not entitled to vote and thus cannot make their voices heard. The great majority of those who live in slums, on reserves and in other substandard environments of our society are also unable to make their influence felt, or to wield any significant influence.
The establishment of the Company of Young Canadians is a step toward the development of a more just society. I have one last recommendation to express, Mr. Speaker: that we proceed as soon as possible with discussion of the bill, that of course it be referred, to the Committee according to the work of the House, but with minimum delay, in order that we may meet the deadline of the end of the term of office of the Financial Controller and that we may return to a normal system of administration for the Company of Young Canadians as soon as possible.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, would the Secretary of State allow a question?


Gérard Pelletier: Certainly.


Georges-J. Valade: In his statement, the Secretary of State said that the government itself would appoint the officers representing the students within the new organization and that the directors appointed by the government would be in majority on the council. How does the minister intend to proceed with those appointments so that that Company will not be influenced by the government in a partisan way or otherwise? Could the minister give me some information in this connection?


Gérard Pelletier: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out an inaccuracy. I think the hon. member for Sainte-Marie made a 21611-47}
Company of Young Canadians Act lapsus by referring to students, since it is not stipulated anywhere, and it is not the government's intention, that the Council of the Company will be restricted to the student class which is a minority, and a privileged one at that, among our youth.
As to the process of appointing these representatives, I would say to the hon. member for Sainte-Marie that the government will follow the same pattern that it applies for instance in the case of the directors of the C.B.C., or the members of the Board of the Canadian Radio-Television Commission, whose integrity or objectivity has never to my knowledge been questioned by anybody-not even by the hon. member for Sainte-Marie.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the minister with a great deal of interest as we began the second reading debate on Bill C-176. I share with him the desire that this bill proceed with dispatch so that the committee may study it in detail before it comes back to the House for third reading and the comptroller who has been appointed by act of this House may be relieved of his duties.
As I listened to the opening remarks of the minister I wondered whether he was talking about a bill to amend the Company of Young Canadians Act or a bill to amend his philosophy of life. He has given rise to enough provocation, perhaps in a philosophical way, for me to debate with him several statements about his philosophy of life.
The original intention on this side of the House was to have only one speaker take part in this debate. I am not sure whether this intention can now be maintained in view of the many statements the minister has made about his philosophy of life. I do not know how that matter has any relevance in this debate, but it certainly stimulated a little thought in my mind.
I agree that many of his philosophical statements are not necessarily new or original. In addition, I do not think they are pertinent to a bill to amend the charter of the Company of Young Canadians. I repeat that while it was our original intention to have one speaker give our point of view so that we could move quickly through the debate today, I am not sure that we will now be able to follow this procedure. I have seldom seen or heard-I say this with all respect to the minister and; intend no personal slight-a more intellectual
January 28, 1970

Company of Young Canadians Act gymnastic exercise than when the minister talked about participation of youth and involvement of youth. The clauses of the bill to amend the charter of the Company of Young Canadians, in effect-except for the whim and/or discretion of the cabinet, which we do not know about

eliminate the participation of youth unless the cabinet decides to appoint youth to the council, or as chairman, vicechairman of the council or executive director.
The effect of the amendments in the bill is that no longer will the volunteers, youth on the streets, directly participate in the deliberations of the Company of Young Canadians. I do not understand how the minister could stand up this afternoon and for the first 10 or 15 minutes give his personal philosophy of life and relate that to the Company of Young Canadians and, the participation of youth. The core of the debate is related to clauses which would remove their direct participation. As I have said, this is an exercise in intellectual gymnastics such as we have seldom seen in this House.
So far as life and conflict is concerned, I am sure the minister would agree-if not, we could debate the issue for many minutes but I do not intend to do so unless the minister so desires-that when we talk about life and conflicts in society we realize that of course there are conflicts in society. Is not life a conflict? I say to the minister, in a philosophical way, that the only time one does not have conflict is when one is dead-it is as simple as that.
The minister should not have wasted time, and we should not be wasting time on this philosophical preamble to a bill to amend the Company of Young Canadians Act. The relevant portion of that philosophical preamble concerning participation and involvement is not borne out by the bill we are debating today.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member answer a question?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Gladly.


Gérard Pelletier: I understand the hon. member's initial remarks to mean that I have stirred up some thought in his mind. He seems to resent it. I am ready to withdraw anything that has stirred up some thought in his mind if he finds it uncomfortable.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I think the minister is not asking a question but is making a statement. I am most comfortable with stimulating thoughts of either the minister or myself; I

am comfortable with thoughts from all sources. But we are debating a bill to amend the Company of Young Canadians Act. There are in this bill about eight germane clauses which completely contradict the minister's philosophy of life and involvement and participation of youth. I do not see any point continuing the debate along this line, although I agree with his philosophy that there are conflicts in life and society. I make the equally obvious statement that all life is a conflict, and the only time you do not have conflict is when you are dead. So why waste time discussing it?
I should like to briefly review a little of the history that has brought us to this debate. The minister spoke of the dull fifties. I do not accept that statement, either. That was the time of the first real mass confrontation. That was when desegregation began. It was also a time when some members of his party were even then active in politics. I think the concept of the Company of Young Canadians and its creation is well known. It was created by the then leader of the government, the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson. I do not imagine any piece of legislation passed through this House with higher hopes and greater expectations than the Company of Young Canadians Act.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
In his philosophical preamble in June, 1966, Mr. Pearson talked about the participation of youth. But Mr. Pearson allowed youth to participate. He introduced what was called the volunteer member. We can say in retrospect, having seen the Company operate for three years, that obviously it should not have had all that freedom. But, conversely, under the legislation sponsored by the minister in Bill C-176 there should not be the complete domination of the Company which the government seeks to impose.
Our high hopes and great expectations were evidenced by the unanimous vote of the House, which in itself is a rare thing. I will not dwell too long on this aspect of the matter, but the minister did not even refer to those high hopes and expectations. He said we were well aware that we would debate this sub jet today, but for the purposes of the record we should state frankly that although at first there were high hopes and expectations with regard to the Company, they were matched by the sad results, pathetic performance and misguided messages which came from many individuals who were working in the CYC.
January 28, 1970	COMMONS
I say this with the caveat and the qualification that it was uniformly assessed-I think the minister would probably agree with the evidence given to the committee although I am not sure about that-but it has been pretty well admitted that however laudable were the Company's concept, ideas and objectives, they were not enough to produce practical results and to resolve some of the problems which, as the minister said, were evident in our society. These problems are evident today and will be evident tomorrow whether or not there is a Company of Young Canadians, and whether the present government or another government is in office, because life is a conflict.
You try to resolve the problems and blunt some of the sharp edges, you try to help those who cannot help themselves and you give voice to the voiceless; but these are just euphemisms which we utter so easily, sad as it may seem. I say in a realistic way that we in our short existence will not achieve a Utopia wherein everything is planned, everyone is happy and we are all in lotus land. We can only reach lotus land when we are somewhere else, either up above or down below.
Be that as it may, I suggest that although the results were poor, the performance unfortunate and the messages misguided, the fault does not lie with those who were so intimately and sincerely involved, as the minister well knows through being better acquainted with some of the CYC members than I am. It is not the fault of the individuals and volunteers who were with the Company through the stormy times from interim to permanent council. Those individuals may have contributed to it in part, but it was not the fault of the youth who were participating or involved in this grand design and this exciting adventure, as Mr. Pearson called it in the debate on the CYC which took place in the House on June 10, 1966, as recorded at page 6257 of Hansard.
I suggest that in large part, if not overwhelmingly, the fault lay in the lack of direction, the lack of interest and the absence of leadership at the top. These are the factors that got the Company into the difficulties in which it finds itself today. I believe those who were charged with directing this exciting experiment should accept the responsibility for the failure of the Company of Young Canadians, which was so obviously ignored in the minister's presentation today. The sad truth is that it did not take place overnight.
I point out, with all due respect to the minister, that this was not one incident, Mr. DEBATES	2945
Company of Young Canadians Act Saulnier of Montreal might have been the catalyst responsible for the ultimate investigation of the Company. The minister said before the committee and in one of his press releases that even before Mr. Saulnier made his statements about the CYC, the minister had evidence that gave him reason for concern about the direction of the Company. But let me point out that long before the minister had any responsibility for the Company- although the minister was elected in 1965, he was not responsible for the company when it was first established-those in charge were aware that things were not going right, that neither direction nor course were set for the Company, and that the Company would founder unless something was done about it.
I will not review the evidence which was presented to the committee. However, it was clear from the press statement given by the vice-chairman of the provisional council while the committee was reviewing this matter, and from the statements made to a columnist of a Toronto newspaper, that the vice-chairman was aware of certain problems which the company was facing, of certain personalities who were dominating, and of certain movements that were starting to take over. Yet nothing was done about it.
The fact is that after the Company was set up, a provisional council directed it for over three years from July 11, 1966, when the act was unanimously passed in this House, until October 4, 1969. This was a temporary body which directed the Company.
In retrospect, many people have tried to say that it did not matter that there was an interim board of directors which was officially called the provisional council. I do not know of another body created by parliament that has operated for three years with temporary directors.
We in the last few years have experienced problems in the CBC and in the National Film Board. With regard to these two bodies, I suggest that part of the reason for their problems was the existence of a vacuum up at the top before a president of the CBC was appointed and perhaps before a new commissioner of the National Film Board was appointed. When there is a vacuum, and no leadership or direction at the top, the legislative creatures whom we create in the House of Commons often go astray. I am afraid that is what happened here. Now we hear protestations and rationalizations in retrospect; we hear excuses for the emptiness which did not seem to matter when nobody was directing the affairs of the Company.
January 28, 1970

Company of Young Canadians Act
Some of the evidence indicates that this lack of direction at the top was a factor in the troubles which beset the Company. Some of this evidence does not come from Members of Parliament on the government side or on the opposition side; it comes from those who were on the provisional council of the Company and from one of the executive directors who for a year was responsible for its affairs.
It does not do anything constructive to again go into that evidence in detail. However, the facts must be stated for the record, especially when the minister makes statements of a philosophical nature and does not say what is the real purpose of debating this matter today. The reason is to be found in the omissions, errors and perhaps misjudgments of the past.
It is clear from the evidence given to the committee evidence that the Company operated under a provisional council for over three years and spent $7.2 million on 38 on-going projects. The minister spoke about the involvement of youth, and we on this side are all for it. But we also have to be realistic. Because the Company's activities have been publicized in the newspapers over the past two or three years, many people forget how many volunteers took part in its activities. The figure is in some dispute, but I suggest about 350 volunteers in the three-year period were involved in a continuing way in the affairs of the Company.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
To my mind this is a reflection on the construction of the Company and the course it took. Only 350 to 400 volunteers were involved. I agree with the minister that many projects throughout Canada need youth involvement at the community level. This Company which has occupied so much of the time of Parliament and to which so much time and space have been devoted by newspapers and television networks, attracted only 350 to 400 volunteers since its inception and has cost $7.2 million. I know the figure of $9.2 million has been suggested, but regardless of the amount involved I suggest that those at the top must accept responsibility for the failure to chart a course for the Company.
Without going into detail, I shall just read some of the shortcomings of the Company as outlined by the parliamentary committee which investigated the Company's affairs about three weeks before Christmas. That committee's report was tabled on December 5, 1969, and now forms part of the records of the House. It illustrates more graphically than
(Mr. Nowlan.]
any words of mine how this exciting adventure got off on the wrong track and ran onto the shoals where it unfortunately remains today. I quote the paragraph headed "Shortcomings of CYC" in the committee's report:
Notwithstanding the fact that the Company of Young Canadians has some obvious accomplishments and successes to its credit, your committee is gravely disturbed by many aspects of the legislation, organization and operations of the Company.
More specifically, the areas of concern include the following:
i.	There is a lack of administrative procedures resulting in almost chaotic conditions.
ii.	Financial procedures, to say the least, are questionable and unconventional.
iii.	Evidence has been adduced of an infiltration into the Company, particularly in one region of the country, by individuals who have used the Company as a base for acts of subversion, violence and illegality, which the administrators of the Company were apparently powerless to control. It would also appear that public funds may have been surreptitiously diverted to support these purposes.
iv.	It is apparent that from time to time and from place to place various volunteers, in the course of their duties, participated in overt acts of a partisan political nature, contrary to the objectives and the best interests of the Company.
v.	Your committee has evidence that the executive director of the Company is seriously hampered in the performance of his duties. This situation results from the following factors, among others:
(a)	The Company has no policies on the qualifications required of volunteers nor any definition of their exact role and functions;
(b)	There is no policy on the recruitment of volunteers;
(c)	There are no policies on the training of volunteers;
(d)	There are no evaluation procedures with respect to the performance of volunteers or staff;
(e)	There is no adequate procedure to deal with the grievances of volunteers or staff;
(f)	There are no adequate policies for the suspension and dismissal of staff and the suspension or cancellation of volunteer contracts.
vi.	The Company has no policies for the research, selection, evaluation, modification and/or termination of programs or projects.
Rarely, if ever, has a parliamentary committee filed a report on a creature of Parliament detailing such errors and omissions as I have just read; and this not after two months of operations of the Company, six months, a year or two years-this indictment comes after three years of operation of the Company. What hope or solace can we in the opposition take when this type of indictment is made against the Company? The government has had authority over the Company for three years. The Governor in Council had some powers, although admittedly not many, and there was a minister to report to Parliament on behalf of the Company.
January 28, 1970

Publicity has been given to the affairs of the Company in Toronto and Montreal. Recently, all those engaged in the Company's Cape Breton project resigned en masse, even though they knew the general guidelines which this bill would set. For these and many other reasons, members of the Conservative Party who served on the Broadcasting Committee, having listened to all the evidence of the witnesses-and some of it was conflicting-in effect filed a minority report.
Under the rules of the House they could not file a minority report as such, but they issued a press release on December 5, the day on which the committee's report was filed, stating that they did not support the committee's report and that they felt the reality of the situation dictated that the CYC should no longer be considered a credible agency to try to undertake social work with youth at the community level. I wish to read into the record a portion of that press release, beginning with the third paragraph as follows:
The fundamental reason for the present difficulties of the Company was the continued failure of the Pearson and Trudeau governments to follow the direction of Parliament, as expressed in the legislation. It is basic to these difficulties that the Company of Young Canadians was run by a provisional council from its inception on July 11, 1966, to October 4, 1969, when the permanent council was appointed. This more than three year period of stewardship was the incubator for many of the Company's present problems. The Liberal government cannot escape its responsibility for a failure to provide sufficient interest and support to the Company throughout its life. A quick perusal of the shortcomings, as set out in the report, reveals as sad an indictment of mismanagement and lack of control in a federal agency, rarely seen, if ever admitted.
Accordingly, for a variety of reasons, the Company of Young Canadians-in many cases through no fault of its own-is no longer credible for social action at the community level.
Since it has become clear that legislative changes are necessary, we feel that the Company of Young Canadians should be phased out, and the federal government should appoint an independent body to review the experience of the past three years, consult with those involved, and other agencies, so that the original concept of social action with youth and government to give a voice to the voiceless, can be carried out by a new organization, without the liability of the old. Further, we understand that the Secretary of State presently has a 12-man task force within his department studying the entire question of youth and its involvement with government. Obviously, such a study should be integrated with, or at least co-ordinated with, a study of the Company of Young Canadians.
It is naive, or idealistic, or perhaps a combination of both, to think that a parliamentary committee which only sat, intensively, for three weeks,

Company of Young Canadians Act can right the wrongs, and recommend policy changes, which others more intimately involved have ignored, or failed to do for over 3 years.
It is obvious that the Company has developed a bad reputation despite the good intentions of most of its sincere and dedicated volunteers. Such a reputation will not be corrected by legislative changes, and the fear would be that a trusteeship, labouring with the present problems of the Company, might very well pollute and irrevocably pervert the original concept and objectives behind the act.
We say it is time to be realistic, not just idealistic, and call a spade a spade. In view of the past history and present reputation we doubt if the most objective trustee can successfully impose a different structure, even radically revised, on the original frame of the Company. That frame has already been bruised and battered and any such grafting attempt, we fear, would create such a mutation that it could very well adversely affect the future role of youth in any social action at the community level.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
We believe that if the government carries out the suggestions of the committee, then the Company of Young Canadians is dead de facto, if not de jure, and so it is thus reasonable to start afresh from square one.
In admitting this reality, there is no breach of faith with youth.
I am coming back to the point the Company is dead, anyway. If there is any doubt that the Company is dead, evidence can be found in the debate.
On the contrary, we believe a fresh start, building on the experience of the past, can develop a viable and constructive outlet for youth in social action at the community level, which will far exceed the present legacy of $7.2 millions spent on 38 ongoing projects which involved not more than 400 volunteers in its troubled and turbulent three year history.
Our primary belief is that volunteer service for youth is still as valid an aim as it was when we supported the concept behind the Company of Young Canadians. Surely, however, we have all learned that good intentions are not sufficient to prevent the abuses that arose in the company's operations. We endorse a new start after proper study.
This statement was endorsed unanimously, Mr. Speaker, by all members of the committee including those of my party. If there is any doubt about the statement, after reflection and having considered it in light of Bill C-176 which we are now debating, the doubt is removed. At least we are admitting the reality of the CYC as envisaged by Mr. Pearson and as spoken of by many members opposite. However, the concept of the voluntary member, which was so important to the whole purpose of the Company, is completely removed by this bill which I say makes the Company dead in reality, if not in law.
Company of Young Canadians Act


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: With all due respect to the minister, when we get rid of his philosophical perambulations and get down to the bill- which the minister did not do-we realize he is carrying on a charade and creating camouflage when he talks about the involvement of youth and participatory democracy. It is a camouflage, Mr. Speaker, and to appreciate this you have only to look at the main sections of the bill, starting with clause 1 which reduces the council from 15 to a group of not less than seven and not more than nine, all appointed by the cabinet. This provision is quite different from 15 members of council, ten of whom were volunteer members, appointed and governed by the CYC.
Clause 3 provides, not that the council shall appoint one of its members to be chairman but that cabinet shall appoint the chairman. The next provision is that cabinet shall appoint the vice-chairman, and in clause 4, instead of the council recommending the executive director to the cabinet it is laid down that cabinet shall appoint the executive director. Consideration of the bill shows that the members of the council replacing the volunteer-member council are appointed by the cabinet; the chairman, vice-chairman, and executive director are appointed by cabinet.
I suggest that the problems of the Company in the last three or four years will not be cured by substituting for the Company of Young Canadians a company of cabinet Canadians. The minister may have the best intentions, but when drawing up legislation good intentions are not sufficient.
It is as wrong to have cabinet domination of the council as it was for it to have total freedom or to have a majority of volunteer members in control. Because of the problems the company encountered, I suggest that the cabinet has over-reacted and has gone from total freedom to total dependence. I do not believe that the formula proposed by the government for the Company of Young Canadians is correct. There should not be total independence by which the volunteer members may dominate the council, but it is equally wrong that it should be completely dominated by cabinet, making the council subservient to the cabinet.
It should not be just another arm of government or another regional desk; it should be, rather, a youth desk. Because the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) is the minister reponsible, it is only fair that it should be his youth desk. The minister made a speech about 
January 28, 1970
cultural concepts and said he is reviewing the whole work of youth. If this bill makes the minister responsible, and through him the cabinet, for complete control of the CYC, it should be his appendage. He knows the state of general unrest amongst the youth of the nation, and he has written editorials to justify youth having a voice in the universities of the land. There are two sides to that question; some say that no board of governors of a university should talk to the people who are protesting.
Extremism in any form is bad. It is as bad to have cabinet domination of the council as it was to have the volunteers in control. Because this is such a fundamental change in the character of the CYC, I say that the Company is dead in fact, if not in law. There is no role for the volunteer in the deliberations of the council, unless the minister puts a volunteer there; there is nothing in the act about this.
The youth who were supposed to be participating are voiceless in the new council. But they were not before this provision was written in the bill. They will not even be represented on the council unless the minister appoints one or two of them. They are powerless, because there is no structure for them. In view of all the talk of participatory democracy, and the realities and philosophy of today, this is a paradox. The minister would have this House believe that the bill is moving against that pressure, trying to hold back the hand of time because there is no place at the top for youth. This seems to be as a result of the misdeeds and misfortunes of a few of the volunteers, which have condemned all youth and prevented them from participating at the top.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I suppose in a philosophical way the minister intends the youth to participate in the streets but not at the council table, to hopefully contribute to the community but not in the committee room-to be seen but not heard. This will be as bad as the situation which existed because of total freedom. It is even worse, in my humble opinion. This minister and the government preach the just society but their actions make a mockery of the phrase. This is an area in which participatory democracy would have been easy to legislate, even in an advisory way, so that youth could have contributed toward some of the deliberations and perhaps even had a vote on decisions reached by the provisional council.

January 28. 1970

I have said before, and I repeat, that we should not rush this legislation. It is being somewhat rushed. The committee report was dated December 5 and today is January 28. In this time we are supposed to have found solutions to all the problems the committee had when it investigated the Company of Young Canadians. We should have had a respite from the CYC. We should have reviewed the experience of the CYC with experts so that we could build a constructive and credible agency in which youth could participate socially at the community level.
I am coming to the end of the thoughts that we on this side have expressed about this whole story. Obviously it will be a continuing story. I predict that before this 28th Parliament ends we will again be debating the CYC. The CYC will be back on the parliamentary platter because we have not taken the time to really study it and to do what has been suggested. There should be an independent study. We should use our experience and take steps which are more credible.
These are not only the views of the Conservative party. I wish to quote one eminent Canadian who is also disturbed at some of the things contained in the committee report and the way this matter seems to be heading. There is an article about Duncan Edmunds in the Ottawa Citizen of December 6, 1969. For the record, Mr. Edmunds was a very active and enthusiastic supporter of the CYC in its early stages, a former executive assistant to Senator Martin. Since we are today celebrating Manitoba's centennial, I should mention that he was a candidate for the leadership of the Liberal party in Manitoba.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: There is no Liberal party in Manitoba now.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: There was at that time. I quote from this press clipping:
-"the proper thing to do is what the Tories suggest: Stop it (the CYC), use the lessons learned and find other ways and means" of harnessing youthful energies for social action.
The article further states:
Although Mr. Edmunds said his objection to the CYC had "never been its radicalism but its total and utter incompetence," in his correspondence with Prime Minister Pearson-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Company of Young Canadians Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is there unanimous consent that the hon. member continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I will be only another minute or two, Mr. Speaker. I thank the House for its indulgence. I have spoken longer than 1 intended, but I suppose this is not unusual.
This article continues:
-on its "root problems" in 1967, he wrote that it was because CYC "has become the captive of a small ideological group of young people, strongly committed to radical social change through the use of volunteers and very sophisticated modem community development techniques."
He thought there should be a new image, a new creature, a more broadly-based Crown agency encompassing a wider area of interest. I read that article into the record to show that the CYC has cut across party lines. It cut across party lines in its inception, because we all voted for it.
I do not wish to trespass any further on the good grace of the House. I hope I have not taken too long, Mr. Speaker. Our party intended to have one speaker. Because of the interesting philosophical comments of the minister, there may be others who want to enter the debate and perhaps challenge some of his philosophical dogma.
As far as my party is concerned, we want to see this bill move into committee. We may very well move amendments in committee even though we do not think the Company should be kept alive. We think it has lost its credibility. In an attempt to keep faith with youth and to provide some influence, assuming the bill passes this House, we may try to correct some of the faults of the bill. But we do not want the Company to have complete independence again. We believe that youth still has a part to play in social action at the community level. We are completely against the thought that youth is to be merely an echo chamber of the cabinet and council.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, in contrast to the previous speaker, I enjoyed the minister's philosophical comments. I find that frequently I can agree with the words of the minister and the government. What does distress me is not what they say, but what they do.
In speaking for our party I say that for a government that over the years, and even today, has boasted constantly about being concerned with social injustice, and one which presumably prides itself on encourage-
2950
January 28, 1970

Company of Young Canadians Act ing the rights of people to dissent, I believe this bill marks an explicit betrayal of our youth, the poor, the voiceless, and of the original ideas that led to the establishment of the Company of Young Canadians under former Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson.
I think it would be difficult to find a more stark example of legislative overkill. Clearly, the government is saying not only to the CYC but to all Canadians that the menace of a few irresponsible militants is greater and far more dangerous than the menace of continued social injustice directed at the deprived people in our slums, public housing projects and Indian reservations.
1 agree with the previous speaker that the CYC has been bungled by the government, but this is no reason to believe the whole idea was wrong. The government's reaction to the heat directed at it by powerful groups and individuals has been to throw the baby out with the bath water and to turn the Company overnight from a relatively independent agency attracting purposeful young people dedicated to social change, to a typical Crown corporation under the direct thumb of the minister.


Mr. Osier:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Mark Willson Rose: I would appreciate answering any questions at the conclusion of my remarks. I believe the Company now runs the real risk of developing into a benign, youthful service organization that goes about doing "good works" such as handing out cups of coffee at drop-in centres.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
In my opinion, this bill cuts the guts right out of the CYC. We in this party doubt that young men and women willing to fight hard and unselfishly, to challenge the existing power structure, will be prepared to serve any longer. These are the young men and women who are needed to accomplish the purposes of this legislation as originally enacted. I use the words "fight" and "power" intentionally. To me it is axiomatic that some of the dispossessed and alienated find themselves in their present unhappy circumstances because they are powerless to change those circumstances. It follows that if one group- tenants, for example-are to achieve more power, another group-landlords, for instance-will possess less power. Tenants will have to fight for this additional power because the laws of our country are stacked in favour of landlords.
I was interested to read recently that although most of us decry the need for militancy on the campuses, the fact is that militancy works-that change in university structure and organization has been brought about far more successfully by militant rather than by moderate methods. This is a fact. I am not commenting on these activities one way or another. The point is, these methods work. The lesson has not gone unnoticed.
In tenants groups and other circumstances the CYC has played a useful role in advising people of their rights, helping them to define their problems and assisting them to organize and work toward solutions. But the accomplishment of something meaningful in bringing about social change is precisely what lands the CYC into hot water and ultimately into the newspapers. This is what gets the organization into trouble.
It is my belief that an administration directed from the top, the type of set-up called for in this legislation, is likely to be oversensitive, even gun-shy, with regard to publicity of the kind likely to be directed toward the CYC, its staff and its volunteers if one of their projects threatens the status quo. I believe an administration such as is contemplated by this bill will often be tempted to cancel projects before they can accomplish the socially desirable changes which they are intended to bring about, and do so merely because some powerful person or group has seen fit to criticize those activities vocally and fiercely. It is for this reason that I and my hon. friends intend to vote against Bill C-176. We believe the freedom to act of the CYC will be removed or circumscribed by some proposed amendments, and that the organization will survive in name only as a useless relic or as a reminder of vanquished hopes.
It might be useful to review what this bill seeks to accomplish and to sum up what we find objectionable in it. In calling for the Company to become an agency like any number of Crown corporations, the government is destroying one of the unique conditions under which the Company was created. By seeking to make the CYC a Crown agency, the government is virtually destroying its independence of government policy, its freedom to question the establishment that sits opposite us, the municipal establishment, the establishment in the labour unions or even in the universities.
The government has gone far beyond the recommendations of the Committee on Broadcasting. It has retreated completely from the

January 28, 1970	COMMONS
idea that there should be any kind of volunteer representation on the executive council. The committee report did not advise that there should be no volunteer representation on the council; on the contrary, it implied that there should be. But today, as we know, the government intends to appoint all the board members, plus the chairman and the vice-chairman. Apparently democracy cannot even be entrusted to the board to the extent of allowing government appointees to elect their own chairman and vice-chairman. So much for democracy within the council itself!
I am aware that the meetings of the permanently elected council, a body which was in existence for three or four months, were anything but tranquil. But I am also aware that the Company was managed-perhaps mismanaged would be the better word-in the first three years of its existence by a similarly appointed board, and that it was in constant hot water during that time. So if there is any thought that merely by providing for an appointed board, without volunteer representation, we can solve the problems of the CYC, all I can say is that we tried it once and we did not like it.
The previous speaker made much of the fact that some highly-placed men in the government were occupying places on the board in this early period. Therefore, nobody can allow the government to escape its responsibility for the chaotic conditions which resulted from the policies of that board, or its shortcomings whether of commission or omission. It may be, of course, that the new board will be composed of sensitive, creative and even courageous men and women-people with sufficient sense of security to enable them to back to the hilt useful projects to their completion even in the face of local hostility. It may be our fears will prove to have been unjustified. That is certainly to be hoped, because there are enough social evils around to occupy not 200 but 2,000 volunteers for years.
We cannot but support attempts to strengthen the administrative framework of the organization. We are not questioning proposals to amend the act where such action will lead to an increased sense of responsibility on the part of the staff and volunteers. Nor do we object to proposals to tighten financial accountability. For example, we do not think it is a bad thing to provide that the Auditor General should audit the books. We recognize, too, that there have been some extremely wasteful projects in the past, along with some very poorly thought-out decisions by the volunteers and the council. It is regrettable 21611-481
DEBATES	2951
Company of Young Canadians Act that some of the volunteers were not content with being independent of the government but also wanted to be independent of their own council. This attitude cannot be accepted. It has caused numerous misunderstandings; it has led to wasteful extravagance and consequent bad publicity against which the Company will have to labour mightily to live down.
* (4:30 p.m.)
But we also know that despite all the uproar, there have been some very good projects throughout the years-and we want these to continue and expand. Where you have volunteers who are accepted by the community and enjoy the confidence of the community in which they work, we do not want them yanked out at the whim of some bureaucrat just because a power group has been made uncomfortable as a result of the volunteer work. Such was the case, according to a recent report in the Toronto Star, with respect to the Cape Breton project.
I assure hon. members that when the committee meets to consider this bill I shall make it my business to find out what decisions about projects and people have been made since the trusteeship was imposed in December under the comptroller and the executive director. We shall also be interested to know the whys and wherefores behind these decisions, because such decisions and the rationale behind them may provide an indication, a sneak-preview if you like, of the tone and thrust we may expect in future under the legislation we are contemplating today.
In addition, I intend to fight for the appearance of volunteers before our committee, because by overlooking this matter earlier we were guilty of a glaring oversight in our deliberations. I will also ask our committee to visit some of the projects, which we did not do although the government's terms of reference permitted it. We did not do so, largely because of the time limit imposed on us. I believe that as a result of neglecting to hear volunteers and visit projects, the committee shaped a report far more extreme than desirable. The resulting legislation has been equally far more extreme than would have been the case had we heard from the volunteers and visited the projects. We as parliamentarians and decision-makers, ought to have been more familiar with the project, and personnel, both good and bad, then in existence before making our pronouncement last December.
I visited the CYC project in Vancouver recently and am proud to say I was impressed
2952	COMMONS
Company of Young Canadians Act by the eager young people who staffed it. They were obviously interested in their work and believed in its value. They believe in what they are doing and are worried in case their work has no future. Some of the things they are doing may interest hon. members. One volunteer is working as a sort of welfare ombudsman; another is developing a day care centre; another is helping union members with their research into conditions causing labour unrest and is assisting them to make effective decisions in their union affairs. Other volunteers are helping ratepayer groups in a particular school area to provide a park for neighborhood children; others are working on anti-pollution projects, on summer student employment programs, and in the slums of Vancouver they are attempting to arouse the interest of the community in fighting, among other things, a freeway that might intrude into the community.
Apart from the things I have already mentioned, there is one other area of concern that I should mention. In the original legislation I believe that members of the Company of Young Canadians were to be asked to serve abroad. This provision has been struck from the new bill. It seems to me that in light of the recent report of former Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson, entitled "Partners in Development", members of the Company of Young Canadians could well perform work in developing countries, especially those who use either of our two official languages. Canada could do much to develop the well-being of people in nations less fortunate than ours. Not only is there a field in the developing countries in which our young people could make a contribution; I also think that our own country would benefit from the experience gained by our young people in serving overseas.


An hon. Member:: Some Company members went to Cuba.


Mark Willson Rose: I shall ignore that interjection because it betrays the kind of bias that has led to the extreme nature of various clauses of the bill. No one in this or any other party countenances within the CYC any seditious or subversive activity. But when CYC workers begin to move out of the realm of service work and into the kind of work that might be controversial, I do not think they can avoid coming into conflict with political prejudices and political establishments.


An hon. Member:: Especially the Liberal dinosaurs.

DEBATES	January 28, 1970


Mark Willson Rose: In his opening remarks today the minister said that he believes in the integrity of human beings. Nevertheless, it seems that the various clauses of the bill do not reflect the minister's confidence. I believe we are trying to create a non-political, quiet little organization which will be involved in local social service and which will not involve itself greatly in vital community development and social activity. Perhaps we are just trying to acquire social workers on the cheap.
If we are to abrogate our volunteers freedom of movement, take away their initiative and dampen their creativity, there will be little reason for their remaining volunteers. I suggest that instead of working for $200 a month, they might prefer to quit, or alternatively organize their own union and demand salaries that are paid to professional social workers.
A good deal has been said about extravagance and mismanagement, and we have heard repeatedly that CYC projects have been ill-thought out and costly. Probably we shall never be able to measure the good and the hope that has been generated by successful CYC projects. Putting the matter in its proper perspective, this organization has cost our country approximately 10 cents per capita per year.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I agree with the previous speaker who commented that the regressive move by the government as outlined in this legislation is flying in the face of the concept of shared decision-making that is currently developing, not only in the labour movement but in universities. I think it would be unfortunate if the CYC organization were structured, not to reflect the enlightened words of the minister in his preamble but degenerate instead into a kind of lame duck replica of what was probably envisioned as the most altruistic and progressive piece of legislation that ever came out of this Parliament.


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, following the statements which we have just heard in this house, we can say that some good intentions have been expressed.
But from that to believe, however, that the statements of the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) will soothe everyone and answer all the charges made against the Company of Young Canadians, which could again disappear with the adoption and the reference to committee of Bill C-176, I would say that
January 28, 1970

there is quite a difference. The charges made against the CYC proved justified. On this subject, I will quote a statement by Mr. Lucien Saulnier who asked for a royal inquiry which should have been granted in order to determine exactly all that was done within the Company. When he made that request, Mr. Saulnier staled, and I quote:
We now know that in Canada, individuals and groups are working actively to implement a plan which will carry the destruction of freedom, of our form of democratic Government and, in this plan, the people's will, as expressed in the ballot box, is excluded. These individuals and groups are inspired and financed, in many cases, by foreign political powers related to an "International" that does not share our notion of man's fundamental liberties.
Besides, he added further on:
Moreover, the Company of Young Canadians has, in its ranks, in Montreal, more than one member previously convicted, in Montreal, for terrorist activities.
We also find on the premises officially occupied by the Company of Young Canadians and paid for by the Canadian taxpayers, newspapers and pamphlets showing how to fabricate molotov cocktails, paint bombs, flasks and vials devised to disrupt police work in the maintenance of public order.
If as serious a man as Mr. Saulnier can say such things, they must be true. He said that there should have been a royal inquiry instead of merely entrusting the investigation to a committee of the House of Commons, with a Liberal majority. And so, those who could have come as witnesses were unable to do so because the suggestion made by some of the members of the committee are always turned down when put to the vote. Those who could have spoken the truth were therefore unable to appear as witnesses, and Canadians did not find out how those millions had been spent.
Besides, I have here the statement of Patrice Walsh of the Canadian Intelligence Service who offered to appear as a witness, according to a letter dated November 15, 1969 addressed to the member for Matane (Mr. De Bane), and vice-chairman of the Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts. I shall quote only the most important parts of that letter:
We pointed out in our November and December 1967 issue that we feel Mr. Allen Clark's observation is quite right, page 4, adding however: "Mr. Clarke speaks the truth. The whole present concept of the Company of Young Canadians is founded on the power, without responsibility, to spend millions of dollars taken out of federal taxes, without being answerable either to parliament or the taxpayer." Our organization is now 20 years old. As taxpayers, we have the right to demand the immediate dissolution of the Company of Young Canadians. We
Company of Young Canadians Act are also ready to give testimony before your committee in Ottawa, with a view to giving more details on the subversive activities of the members of terrorist movements in Quebec, who in fact control the Company of Young Canadians in Quebec. Trusting that I shall have an early reply to this offer, I remain, yours sincerely,
Patrice Walsh.
Everyone knows that Pat Walsh never appeared before the committee because he was denied the right to inform the Canadian people about the confusion the Company of Young Canadians had created in some areas of the country.
Mr. Speaker, while many want to question ideas of the past which, however, have produced men of value who today govern our country, young people read the works of Karl Marx, Communist writings which can be found almost everywhere, and they are the ones we want to shield from that harmful influence.
The Canadian Intelligence Service has issued a study called: "The evolving of the ideologic purpose". I would like to quote, in this respect, a statement made by Mr. Ron Gostick, pointing at the danger of confusing words, of enrolling young people who, through sheer ignorance, might want to involve themselves in disastrous mistakes.
I shall also explain how eager the young people can be to revolutionize everything. We shall then realize the danger of misinterpreting the words and the deeds of a body such as that of the Company of Young Canadians who do not have to answer to anybody, except to a committee with a liberal majority where everything has been ruled beforehand.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Here is Mr. Ron Gostick's statement, and I quote:
It has been established, for instance, that Sam Carr and Fred Rose, M.P., both trained in the principles of Moscow, not only pointed out Canadians to be recruited for the espionage network, but were also active with others in promoting courses or workshops where the motives of espionage were gradually developed, thus expanding the structures in view of a more intensive recruiting and, in some cases, recruited themselves some members for the espionage network proper.
The inquiry divulged the names of a number of Canadians, employed in various government agencies or departments who, while they were completely unaware of the existence of a spy network, and were not involved in any way in such illicit actions, were submitted to the same methods of "training" in order to be of use at some later date.
Mr. Speaker, if it is possible to mislead adults, governments officials, as this leaflet
2954	COMMONS
Company of Young Canadians Act indicates I say this is even more true of young inexperienced, people who become the prey of communism.
This is why we, the guardians of Canadian democracy, must warn the young people against the danger threatening them.
And I shall go on with the quotation:
For these reasons, we study closely the matter of the motive and the methods carefully chosen to instill the proper moral and mental conception into the minds of future Canadian adherents before telling them what they are going to do.
In almost every instance, as has already been said, the agents come from "cells" or study groups made up with secret members or supporters of the Communist party (the progressive labor party).
Those statements have been backed up with evidence, which then sent a few people to jail. It is therefpree quite a hazard to put millions of dollars at the disposal of young enthusiastic Canadians without giving them sound guidelines.
A young member of the Company of Young Canadians, whose name is Pierre Cleroux, made a significant statement in his youthful enthusiasm and his desire to do something, to build a country. That is where the danger lies. In fact, Canadian ideology does not let anyone see this freedom and this security. So, there is danger that the young will be tempted by a socialistic ideology, leading to communism. That is why there is some similarity between the statement made by this youth in his enthusiasm and the words that I quoted a little while ago. The article reads as follows:
In the organization, Pierre considers himself as an animator as well as a helper and a secretary. "It all depends on the situation and the guys I have to face, he said. I fully co-operate in the preparatory work, but I never accept a leading position. Above all, I consider myself as a subordinate. In figures, I may be doing 60 per cent administration and 40 per cent animation.
No matter how praiseworthy are his intentions, if this youth is told lies, he may believe them. In Canada, we have groups of boy-scouts, snow schools and youth camps. With all those elements, it could certainly be possible to create better oriented movements.
I know that the minister will continue to think and say that everything must continue as before, because with a majority in parliament he can organize whatever he pleases.
I have here a letter dated January 5 and addressed to the regional coordinator of the United Steelworkers of America in which the Secretary of State gave the following reply:
-a bill to amend the Company of Young Canadians Act was tabled in the House and will be dis-

DEBATES	January 28, 1970
cussed very soon. It is certain that the CYC will be maintained and the failings uncovered at the inquiry will be rectified.
We see from this statement that the maintaining of the Company of Young Canadians was automatically assured, and today's discussions will bring no change as the majority government does as it pleases in parliament.
I should also like to point out that in Canada, a country that has produced men of real ability, it would be, in my opinion, most logical to revert instead to our former institutions. That is why we, of the Ralliement creditiste, ask that the Company of Young Canadians be dissolved. We demand the dissolution of this Company which has already spent too much of the taxpayers' money, when there are already, in Canada organizations, such as the Canadian Boy Scouts Association, which has rendered great services and which all Canadians are proud of. In fact, this Association has tought to young Canadians a truly extraordinary discipline.
It seems to me that the Boy Scouts of Canada could advantageously replace the Company of Young Canadians, and the money that was allocated to this group should be granted to the Boy Scouts, so that they may continue to serve Canada well.
I could also mention other groups such as Girl Guides, youth camps organized by some parishes, and folk-lore groups, which should rally the youth, help them to enjoy themselves. Young people, who probably are bored in Canada, need guidance. With certain grants, those groups would do a hundred times more than the Company of Young Canadians. Had we helped them, Mr. Lucien Saulnier would never have had to demand an inquiry on the Company of Young Canadians.
There is also in Canada a number of majorette groups composed of young girls who would like to get some training but who cannot for lack of funds.
By the way, in my riding, the young cadets of Thetford Mines have asked for subsidies so as to represent Canada in Osaka, Japan. The answer was negative and this group of 50 young Canadians, who could have gone there to make Canada better known, will have to stay in Thetford Mines. The president of this group has had to go and beg for $10,000 from Quebec to get a grant to pay for the transportation and the training of these young people who will do us proud at Osaka.
Since Canada did not assume its responsibilities, since it prefers to waste millions of dollars in grants to the Company of Young
January 28, 1970

Division
++YEAS
Canadians, this means that the federal government has surrendered. The parents will have to pay the bill. We have learned in committee that automobiles had even been purchased by the CYC. Nobody knows what happened to them. While money is being wasted, the young who want to contribute to the building of this country, according to sound ideas, are unable to do so for lack of money.
Mr. Speaker, again I say that we, of the Ralliement creditiste, ask for the dissolution of the Company of Young Canadians.
The groups I have mentioned urge the young people to perform one good deed each day and I believe that those should be subsidized rather than the Company in question, who is responsible neither to Parliament nor to anybody.
The Secretary of State said that the Company will remain in existence despite all the charges made against it; however, we shall vote against the bill because we demand the dissolution of that organization. Moreover, we are convinced that the scouts, girl guides, cadets and other young people in this country would make better use of public funds while serving the community.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.



RAILWAY ACT


Eric William Kierans: that Bill C-ll, to amend the Railway Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Eric William Kierans: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: May we call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the House to call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At 5.40 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
January 28, 1970



APPENDIX &quot;A&quot;


[Stage Direction]
It is proposed to conclude the current part of the session, which commenced on Monday, January 12, 1970, on Wednesday, March 25, the Wednesday before Good Friday. Counting Wednesday, January 28, there remain 41 sitting days in this period, of which six are to be devoted to opposition allotted days. While the exact date for the budget speech has not been finally determined, it is anticipated that the six-day budget debate will also occur during this period. There remain, therefore, 29 days for dealing with government bills between now and Easter.
It is proposed that the House should reconvene after Easter on Monday, April 6 and adjourn for the summer on Friday, June 26. There are 57 sitting days during that period, of which 13 are devoted to opposition allotted days, leaving 44 days in that final semester for government business.
It is anticipated that the Main Estimates for 1970-71 will be available for tabling in the House during the second week in February and they will be referred to the Standing Committees immediately thereafter. The Final Supplementary Estimates for 1969-70 will be tabled on March 5 and referred to committee immediately. It is proposed that the last opposition day in this part of the session, and the final day for supply purposes, be Tuesday, March 24.
At the moment, there are 15 government bills on the Order Paper awaiting second reading and 4 at the Report Stage. They are as follows:
At Report Stage: Small Businesses Loans Act Amendments; Canada Student Loans Act Amendments; Railway Act Amendment; Expropriation Bill.
At Second Reading: Motor Vehicle Safety Bill; Quebec Savings Bank Act; Dominion Coal Board Dissolution; Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act Amendments; Cape Breton Development Corporation Act Amendments; National Parks Act Amendments; Company of Young Canadians Act Amendments; Nuclear Liability Bill; Quarantine Bill; Canada-Sweden Income Tax Agreement Act Amendments; Standards Council of
Canada Bill; Criminal Records Bill; Investment Companies Bill; Canada Shipping Act (Part V) Amendments; Yukon Placer Mining Act Amendments;
In addition the following Government Bills are under consideration in committee: Trust. Companies Act Amendments; Loan Companies Act Amendments; Foreign Insurance Companies Act Amendments; Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act Amendments; Canada Water Bill; Deep Sea Fisheries Act Repeal; Coastal Fisheries Protection Act Amendments; Salt Fish Bill; Criminal Code Amendments (Hate Literature); International Development Research Centre of Canada Bill; Canada Corporation Act Amendments.
The following government bill is presently before the Senate: Radiation Emitting Devices Bill.
It is anticipated that the following government bills will be given first reading before the Easter recess:	Supplemental Pensions
Benefits Bill; National Energy Board Act Amendments; Supreme Court Act Amendments; Northern Inland Waters Bill; Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act 1964 Amendments; Shipping Conferences Bill; Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act Amendments; Parole Act Amendments; Canada Grain Act Revision; Bills of Exchange Act Amendments; Consumer Textile Articles Bill; Farm Products Marketing Boards Bill; Law Reform Commission Bill; Canada Cooperative Associations Bill; Basic S. I. Units Bill; Weights and Measures Act Revision; Agricultural Products Cooperative Marketing Act Amendments; Tax Review Board Bill; Federal Superior Courts Bill; Arctic Seas Pollution Prevention Bill.
In addition, the following government motion will require consideration before the Easter recess: Joint Parliamentary Committee on Price Stability.
It is also anticipated that the following government bills will be given first reading between Easter and the summer adjournment: Uniform Packaging and Labelling Bill; Statistics Act Amendments; Excise Act Amendments; Yukon Act and Northwest Territories Act Amendments; Canada Labour (Standards) Code Amendments; Canada Elections Act Amendments; Representation Com-
[Stage Direction]
January 28, 1970
missioner Act Amendment; Canada Shipping Act Amendments; Immigration Appeal Board Act Amendments; Security Review Board Bill; Combines Investigation Act Revision; Criminal Code Amendments; Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act Revision; Public Servants Retirement Bill; Agricultural Adjustment Bill; Pilotage Bill; Canada-Finland Income Tax Agreement Bill; Canada-Jamaica Income Tax Agreement Bill; Cigarette Advertising Bill; Financial Administration Act Amendments; Air Canada Act Amendments; Yukon Minerals Bill; Canada Development Corporation Bill.
To this list would have to be added any bills resulting from the budget.
In view of the fact that the Standing Committees will be embarking upon detailed examination of the Main Estimates in the week commencing the 16th of February, it would be desirable if the committee discussion of bills now before the committees could be substantially concluded by that week, and that committee discussion be well advanced on those now awaiting second reading. Such a timetable would then leave the committees free to concentrate on estimates and on the additional bills that will be introduced in the latter part of the session.
The estimate of time available for government business is, of course, subject to any interruption by unforeseen circumstances, by adjournment motions under S.O. 26, and by other decisions of the House. In turn, the legislative program will also be subject to changes imposed by circumstances not at the moment foreseen.
In summary, then, from January 28th until the summer adjournment, there are now, or there will be, 74 items of government business before the House while there will only be 73 days remaining for government business in that period. Clearly, the House will want to devote more time to some of these bills at the expense of others and it is apparent that careful planning of the time of the House will be necessary, so that all parts of the program may be dealt with.
The reference to 73 days is, of course, a reference to the time in the chamber itself and does not include the additional time available for consideration of bills at the committee stage. The committee stage offers an opportunity for more extensive detailed discussion of bills over a number of days, and in some cases, weeks.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday# January 29, 1970