1970-02-05

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is my duty to inform the House of developments that have occurred in the last 24 hours in the various ports of British Columbia. As hon. members may recall, agreement between management and the negotiation teams of the ILWU was reached on two previous occasions, only to have both agreements rejected by the general membership when submitted to them for ratification.
After the second rejection the unions agreed to extend the old contract for a period of 90 days. It was further decided that a new negotiating team would be formed and that negotiations would resume during this period. Sunday night this newly-formed negotiating team did arrive at a new settlement, which was presented yesterday to the membership for ratification.
The contract was rejected by a margin of 53 votes out of a total of 2,726 members voting. Hon. members will note that the percentage of votes against ratification has fallen steadily, from 70 per cent on the first agreement to 58 per cent on the second to 51 per cent on the third.
To further complicate the issue, three of the six ports voted for ratification. It is significant that in all three rejections the ports of Vancouver and New Westminster have been consistently opposed to any settlement.
Shortly before entering the House, I was informed that work is progressing at all ports other than New Westminster and Vancouver. However, it is significant that bulk cargo is being processed by the longshoremen in Vancouver.
Whilst I have consistently stated my respect for the rights of management and labour under the laws of this country to engage in free collective bargaining, including the right
to strike or lockout, I have never hesitated in stating publicly that periodically the overriding importance of the public interest must be recognized as paramount.
The ports of British Columbia are not the property of the BCMEA or the ILWU. In the final analysis, they belong to all Canadians and they are of particular significance to British Columbia and western Canada in general. This fact, Mr. Speaker, should become more apparent by the hour to both the BCMEA and the longshoremen.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
In view of the closeness of the vote and in view of the fact that work is proceeding almost normally, there is still an opportunity for both parties to show their concern for the public interest. If over the weekend they cannot resolve their differences or do not intend to, or should work come to a complete stoppage, then I shall not hesitate to recommend appropriate measures to my colleagues.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the minister's statement which I received just prior to entering the House. Although it is short, it deals with some matters that I submit we ought to look into closely. We must agree that of foremost importance to this country is the upholding of the public interest.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Howard Russell MacEwan: In this regard we hope that as a result of the work of task forces such as the Woods task force the minister and his department will be able to bring forward quickly amendments to the present labour legislation. He pointed out that the ports of British Columbia are important to western Canadians because wheat and grain are transported through them. The ports are a channel which must be kept open, and the government has the responsibility to do this.
Seme hon. Members: Hear, hear.


Howard Russell MacEwan: It has been suggested that some of our markets for wheat and other grain have been lost, and we have had much debate in this chamber on the subject. I trust that, if necessary, appropriate legislation to deal with this problem will be speedily forthcoming. I note that recently the minister set

February 5, 1970
Labour Relations
up a mediation service, which is something that we on this side ol the House might support. I believe he appointed five mediators who will deal with various industries in this country and important matters that -arise before contracts terminate. I believe we can support this action and I hope it will work. In any event, we hope that up-to-date legislation will be forthcoming soon so that the interests of the public on the west coast and in other parts of Canada will be upheld.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, in common with other hon. members and people throughout the country, I regret that a settlement has not been reached. I and my colleagues in this House do not take second place to anybody in our concern for the public interest. However, I suggest that before people become hysterical it should be remembered that part of the public interest in a democracy is the right of workers to organize, to collective bargaining, and to refuse work if the conditions of work are not to their liking. I suggest that this is as much part of the public interest in a democracy as any other consideration.


Mr. Woolliams:: Tell that to the farmers of western Canada.


David Lewis: Therefore I am glad, Mr. Speaker, that the minister has not taken any steps to interfere now. I express the hope with him that the parties will meet this weekend and arrive at a settlement. Indeed, settlement must be very close when the agreement was rejected by a margin of only 53 votes.
It has been my view for some years, and I stated it in the House in 1966, that the federal and provincial departments of labour ought to employ personnel who could become involved in these disputes before they reach the breaking-point. I am glad that the minister himself has done this in many instances.
I conclude by expressing the hope that the employees, the members of the union concerned, will find some way of reaching a settlement without putting the country and Parliament to additional difficulty.



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion:
That this House refer to the Standing Committee of the House on Procedure and Organization the
[Mr. MacEwan.)
question of providing for members ways and means of meeting the serious situation brought about as the result of the extent to which the government in general and the Prime Minister in particular-


Mr. Trudeau:: You can't be serious!


Gerald William Baldwin: -have obtained abnormal increases in power and authority while downgrading the role and decreasing the effectiveness of the House and to recommend ways and means of coping with this alarming situation including such changes in the Standing Orders as may be required.
As this motion speaks for itself, Mr. Speaker, the only comment I would make in urging hon. members to accept it is that it is becoming very clear that the whole structure of responsible parliamentary government is being threatened. A solution must be found- Your Honour has referred to some of these problems-that will provide ways by which private members may have a chance of bringing to a vote their resolutions and public bills and ways by which hon. members opposite may be able to express by their actions in the House the views they voice outside. Despite our understanding last session, no attempt has been made to call the committee and the only proposal is a very limited one with regard to television. If it will be persuasive, I am prepared to recommend that we have no debate on this motion and that the question be put to the House forthwith.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to proceed with this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 PRICES AND INCOMES COMMISSION NATIONAL PRICE RESTRAINT CONFERENCE-AUTHORITY AND ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION

Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for York South, to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the National Price Restraint Conference called by the Prices and Incomes Com-
February 5, 1970

mission scheduled for Monday and Tuesday of next week and whether and to what extent the Commission will be acting on government authority when it makes recommendations of policy at this conference, the establishing of this commission by Order in Council, making it extremely important and vitally urgent that there be a full and comprehensive debate in Parliament in order to determine the relationship between the policies of the commission and those of the government prior to the National Price Restraint Conference.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion proposed by the hon. member suggests the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing three questions:	the
National Price Restraint Conference, the authority of the Prices and Incomes Commission and the establishment of the Commission itself by Order in Council.
In order that the House can be adjourned to discuss these matters, the Chair must be satisfied that the question raised is one which is in the nature of an emergency rather than one which has been of continuing concern to Parliament. Hon. members will recognize, I am sure, that the subject proposed for discussion at this time under Standing Order 26 is not by any means a new one. The point whether the commission will be acting on government authority when it makes recommendations was raised in question No. 331 placed on the Order Paper on October 30, 1969. The question was answered on December 8 last. During the last few months there have been daily oral questions directed to the ministry about aspects raised in the hon. member's proposed motion. The fact that a conference would be held has been common knowledge for some time and the actual announcement that it would be held next Monday and Tuesday was made more than two weeks ago.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
The whole matter in all its aspects having been before the House on so many occasions, I find it difficult to agree that we should now have an emergency debate. While the Chair fully recognizes the importance of the question, I do not think I am at liberty to agree that an adjournment at this time for the purpose suggested by the hon. member for Waterloo would be warranted.
21611-65J
Inquiries of the Ministry



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: In the absence of the Minister of Transport I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. What steps are being taken to prevent major pollution in Chedabucto Bay, Nova Scotia, as a result of the grounding of the Liberian tanker, the Arrow, in that body of water?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have a report on this event. As to the steps which are being taken I can say that the Minister of Transport and the officials in his department are looking at the problem. Inspectors of the department are on the scene now, and I am also informed that there is a Fisheries Department vessel in the area as well as another tanker which is on the way to take the oil off.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is a foreign tanker such as this Liberian vessel subject to any control or supervision after it enters Canadian territorial waters?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am sorry-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is a foreign tanker entering Canadian territorial waters such as Chedabucto Bay subject to any controls imposed by the government of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not know whether the hon. gentleman is referring to legal controls or regulations-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Regulations.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If he is, I shall have to refer the question to the Minister of Transport who will be in the House-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I request the Prime Minister to interest himself in this matter since there are, I am informed, some 8,600 tons of water on this vessel-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -of oil on this vessel. Oh, it may be a joke to some hon. members opposite, but 8,000 tons of oil could seriously contaminate the water in this area unless energetic measures are taken.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: May I ask the Prime Minister this question:

February 5, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry who is legally responsible-the owners of the vessel or the charterers?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will recognize, I am sure, that the question as asked is not in order. He is asking the Prime Minister to express a legal opinion.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister or some other appropriate minister whether consideration is being given to setting fire to this ship and its oil as suggested by certain concerned biologists and oceanographers at Dalhousie University?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I repeat that the minister is very concerned about this problem and that he is working on it now.


Mr. J. M. Forresiall (Darimouih-Halifax East):: Can the right hon. gentleman tell us whether the information he has in front of him indicates a worsening in the amount of leakage as reported in the press earlier today?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I have no confirmation of that report.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: May I ask whether regulations concerning liability for pollution damage have been laid down by the government as outlined recently at the Brussels conference?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This whole question, as the House knows, was brought up at the meeting in Brussels some months ago by the Minister of Transport. Until this date there has been no international agreement as to the way in which these matters should be settled, but Canada's position was made clear at the conference.


Randolph Harding: In view of the minister's statement that Canada was willing to go it alone if no agreement could be reached, are these regulations in the process of preparation by the government?


J. Michael Forrestall: Perhaps I might direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker. Can he shed any light on the question just asked as to liability in the event of oil spillage for removing the cargo from the ship?


Mr. Speaker:: I have some reservations about the acceptability of the question. If the hon. member is asking the Minister of Justice to express his view as to liability, I do not think the question is in order.


J. Michael Forrestall: Then may I ask the Minister of Justice whether or not this matter is under consideration by his department?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Yes, sir.



IMMIGRATION


David Lewis: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration arising out of a matter of which I have given him notice. The question concerns three young United States deserters who were admitted to Canada legally but who were deported to the United States by officers of the department or by RCMP officers without either hearing or authority. Can the minister inform the House whether he has instituted an inquiry into this incident and whether he has received any report concerning it?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: I thank the hon. member for giving me notice by letter today of his interest in this matter. Following receipt of the letter I asked for a report from the field. Before I came into the House today 1 again asked, but the report has not yet come forth. As soon as it does come forth I will be happy to report to the hon. member and the House.


David Lewis: A short supplementary question. This matter is of such importance that I am constrained to ask the minister whether he will undertake, when he receives the report, to report not only to the hon. member but to the House?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

['Order, please. That is a very interesting proposition. Perhaps the Chair should not be asked to rule on the validity of the procedural aspects of the point of order.']
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Can he tell the House whether the government agrees with the President of the United States who said assistance will have to be given to Israel should the arms situation favour the Arab world?
February 5, 1970



Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the recent diatribe in Red China in favour of North Viet Nam continuing the war at all costs, will the government, through its officials in Stockholm, intercede with Red China to modify its inflammatory attitude and thus assist in a peaceful settlement in this troubled area?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I hope this means that the official opposition is supporting our efforts to try to bring about diplomatic relations with Peking so as to make such representations possible.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Lest the minister run away with any idea that I support his position, may I say that I strongly oppose recognition. I ask the minister whether he has caught up with Mao's representatives in order to present on bended knee Canada's desire to recognize that country?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have some doubt about the form of the question asked. Perhaps I might forget the form and give the minister an opportunity to reply to the substance of the question asked.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear from the question that the opposition is divided on the matter.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: May I suggest to the right hon. gentleman that he catch up with public opinion and with his own party.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether the answer he has given is in accordance with the lead taken by the Prime Minister the other day in indicating that on occasion he answers questions jocu-lary and means the House to understand them as serious.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I recognize that when a minister of the government is asked a question he is not obliged to answer. However, I suggest to the minister and to the Prime Minister that a minister is not entitled to answer a different
Inquiries of the Ministry question. If a minister is not prepared to answer the question put to him, he needs only to indicate that he will not answer it, instead of making remarks or a speech on a different matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is a very interesting proposition. Perhaps the Chair should not be asked to rule on the validity of the procedural aspects of the point of order.



SCIENCE SERVICES


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister when we can expect a statement dealing with priorities, etc., as laid down in a good science policy for Canada?



MANPOWER


Louis-Roland Comeau: As the Prime Minister does not care to answer, I will direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration that is more serious and is brought about by the fact that the unemployment rate is rising rapidly. In Newfoundland I understand it is now up to 20 per cent. Is it the intention of his department to step up its programs by making more effective use of scientists in order to accentuate more effective manpower policies?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question of the hon. member is, of course, a very good one. It appears to me that he has invited the minister to make a statement of a very general nature which should perhaps be made on motions. The minister might like to reply to the question along those lines.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the question is so general that I can answer the hon. member very briefly by saying yes.


Louis-Roland Comeau: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member for South Western Nova rising on a point of order?


Louis-Roland Comeau: Yes. The minister can say yes all he wants but the fact is that the President of the Canadian Association of Physicists has

February 5, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry said he was very disappointed that he was not able to get co-operation from this department.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I submit that is not a point of order but rather a point of debate.



SUMMER EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM FOR STUDENTS

J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister is giving consideration to making a statement that will specifically indicate to the House what his department is doing about summer employment for university students?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, to clear up any misunderstanding about the former answer, I answered yes to the question itself, not to the request that I make a statement. In reply to my hon. friend from Dart-mouth-Halifax East, I will be making a further statement in respect of the plans for summer employment in the near future.


Mr. John M. Lundrigan (Gander-Twillin-gafe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. When may we expect a statement on motions in respect of summer employment for students?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I made a statement just a few days ago in respect of the results of the program last summer. The results have been very encouraging. I hope to continue these plans for next summer and when there are additional elements to the program I will announce them to the House. I have no definite timetable at the moment for a statement to the House on this subject.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the report of the department on last year's summer employment of students indicates that a very substantial percentage of students worked only about half of the summer and therefore their efforts to obtain enough money to go back to school were very seriously affected, I wonder whether the minister would look into that aspect of the problem?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes. I think my hon. friend has put his finger on a point which emerged from the survey. If there is an improvement to be made it is in the length of employment for a certain percentage of the students. We hope to promote this aspect of the employment situation next summer.
[Mr. Comeau.l


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether he has any estimate as to the number of students who will be seeking employment this summer?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to give an exact figure, but I think about 500,000 would be the estimate we are working on at the moment.



HOUSING


Mr. Barney Danson (York North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for housing. Will the minister offer Ontario the same five-year agreement in respect of NHA funds that Ontario's Minister of Trade and Development publicly declared has been given to Quebec?


Mr. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, the premise is inaccurate. The master agreements with the province of Quebec are for one year, not five years. There have been two agreements, one for 1968-69 and one for 1969-70. These covered only certain specific programs, not all NHA projects, and still required individual project approval by CMHC. Ontario chose to operate on a somewhat less formal exchange of letters although the other arrangement was available to Ontario as it is to all provinces. I am rather surprised at the inaccuracy because I conveyed this information to the Chairman of the Ontario Housing Corporation just a few days before Mr. Randall made his statement to the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolielle):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Is the minister responsible for housing in a position to tell us whether it is true that the province of Quebec has turned down the $25 million offered by Ottawa for urban renewal in Montreal?


Robert Knight Andras: No such information has
been conveyed to me, Mr. Speaker.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Lome Nysirom (Yorkfon-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
February 5, 1970

of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the fact that Saskatchewan is facing a deepening financial crisis, is the minister now prepared to consider the inclusion of the entire province as a special designated area under the Regional Development Incentives Act?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would not think that the question is in order. We have had similar questions in the past and I have suggested to hon. members that if questions are asked along similar lines about the different parts of Canada we would perhaps spend an inordinate proportion of the question period on such questions and answers.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this question has been asked a number of times and there is a real emergency at this time. I think the minister wants to answer the question.


James Aloysius McGrath: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on the point of order?


James Aloysius McGrath: Yes. In order to facilitate Your Honour on this matter, perhaps it would expedite things if the minister would designate the whole country.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Could he tell the House whether he intends to adopt measures to reduce interest rates, which are one of the main causes of the rise in the cost of living, in order to halt the recession which is increasing daily?


Mr. Speaker:: The Prime Minister might reply to the hon. member's question by a general statement on motions.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Can he tell us whether a formula has been found for agreement about the memberinquiries of the Ministry ship of the Canadian delegation to the coming conferences in Mauritania and Niger?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there will be any difficulty about the conference in Mauritania. The principles that were followed in the past for attendance at educational ministers' conferences are well established and will be followed. There is some disagreement about the constitutional conference at Niamey. There the discussions are continuing. I have hopes a solution acceptable to all will be found.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Will the Canadian delegation have two cochairmen, as was the case for the Niamey conference?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the important issue here is the signing of the international agreement. I think hon. members will agree that international agreements can be signed only by sovereign countries.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether he has had any assurances from the Longshoremen's Union that they will keep the ports open in western Canada in view of the fact that British Columbia and the prairies could be seriously affected?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Is the hon. member referring specifically to wheat?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, particularly to grain.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The hon. member knows that, to the union's credit, in the 39 days they were on active strike they moved the grain, and there has been as of this morning absolutely no change in that plan. However, should the union strike on Monday I have no assurance whether or not they will move some commodities and not others. I think I made clear in my statement that the public interest is becoming paramount. I am not unaware of the importance of grain in the over-all scheme of things in western Canada.

February 5, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, is the minister or the government giving consideration, in view of what he has just said, to any legislation in this regard?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, important as grain is, I have had very strong representations from certain premiers telling me just how important potash is and others telling me how important lumber is and so on. Therefore it would be very hard and unfair to single out one particular commodity. I did do this for 39 days. I think the obvious and logical solution is to bring the strike to an end so that all commodities will be treated with equality in the future.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour. Do we have the minister's assurance that if there is a tie-up over the weekend whatever action is necessary will be taken to see that these ports remain open and serve the country?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I think the hon. gentleman can refer to no better authority in Hansard tomorrow than the gentleman who spoke on behalf of his party about what should be considered as a very sound philosophy for a democratic country.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In his discussions with the farm machinery manufacturing companies was the question of a possible moratorium on debts outstanding to those companies considered in light of the difficult financial position of the farmers of western Canada?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the discussions I had with the heads of the farm machinery companies earlier this week centred around the findings and recommendations of the Royal Commission on Farm Machinery. That particular point was not dealt with in the report.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, in light of the recent findings of the Barber commission on farm machinery, would the minister now consider the point I have raised and discuss it at the time of future meetings with the farm machinery manufacturing companies?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I suppose we could discuss it and it would be very easy to give an under-

taking that we would consider it, but I think the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who is responsible in certain other areas respecting a number of federal acts, would be the appropriate minister to consult in connection with the question of a moratorium on debts or anything of that nature.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question may I ask the minister to advise us if he and the government have rejected out of hand the proposal made by the National Farmers Union and Mr. Goldenberg in respect of amendments to the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I have not, Mr. Speaker, but I gave the hon. member an adequate reply to that question some time ago. Although it may be one with which he does not agree, that does not mean it is wrong.



FURTHER REPORT BY BARBER COMMISSION

Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Agriculture tell us whether we can expect a further report from the Barber commission on farm machinery prices and whether he is able to confirm that the report will indicate that the farmers of this country have been overcharged on combines as well as tractors by North American manufacturers ?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: In reply to the first part of the question, the commission has indicated to me there will be a further report dealing with costs and arrangements in respect of services, repair parts and that sort of thing. This will be available to us within a very few days. I cannot answer the other part of the question because that would require anticipating what would be in the report and I certainly do not know what will be in the report.



IMPLEMENTATION OF BARBER COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS

Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellingion-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that the machinery companies have indicated they will not reduce prices in Canada, what steps is the government taking to carry out the recommendations of the Barber commission report in case this situation develops?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Both the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and I have already indicated certain
February 5, 1970

other action we are taking currently while the discussions with the farm machinery companies are going on.


William Marvin Howe: Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago when I directed a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs he indicated his officials were meeting with officials of the United States and Great Britain in connection with the fact that machinery dealers in Great Britain were told they might lose their franchises if they sold machinery to Canadian farmers. What position has been taken by the officials of these countries with regard to this matter?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: The intention was to inform the officials of these countries of the nature of the situation. That having been done, the matter is being followed up by officials of other countries to see what they can do to alleviate the situation in Canada.



INDUSTRY


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the international nature of the Massey-Fer-guson Company and in view of the Barber commission findings on the allocation of markets, is the minister conducting an investigation into the operations of the Massey-Fergu-son Company in light of the extensive lay-offs affecting 2,400 workers in Canada in order to find out whether this work has been transferred to other countries?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know of such an inquiry but I was assured this morning that it is unlikely there will be further lay-offs in the foreseeable future.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS AGENDA FOR NEXT CONFERENCE

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to announce the agenda for the forthcoming federal-provincial conference.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not recollect whether there was agreement between the provinces and the federal government to announce the agenda 21611-66
Inquiries of the Ministry at any specific date. It is an in camera conference. This has been agreed to. I think I would have to wait until the conference begins to seek agreement from the premiers on whether or not we should release the subject matter of the discussions.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. My recollection may be at fault but I understood from a previous answer that the Prime Minister would inquire of the provincial premiers whether or not the agenda would be released. My supplementary question is whether the government of Canada proposes to make any arrangements for observers from the opposition parties to attend the conference.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the first part of the question Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's recollection is correct. But I recall that at the time I referred to correspondence I was having with the premiers concerning the whole question of whether the conference would be in camera and the question of the agenda itself. Now that the decision has been taken to have the conference in camera I cannot recall whether there has been agreement on the part of all parties to release the agenda. The federal government certainly has no objection to that. I will inquire whether there is any objection on the part of anyone and if not I will gladly tell the hon. member in the House what the agenda is. It is a very simple one. What was the second part of the question?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Whether any arrangements were being made for observers.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The answer, Mr. Speaker, is no. The decision has been taken to have the conference in camera. It will involve only governmental representatives of the provinces and the federal government.



HOUSING


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing. The other day the minister referred to his hope that loans under section 40 of the Housing Act would be made available for rehabilitation of homes of persons on low incomes. In view of the fact that these loans carry high interest rates and are therefore inaccessible to people of low income, has the government given consideration to interest-free loans or direct grants for these purposes

February 5, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry and would the minister make a statement on this some time in the future?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, as with many other things we are giving careful consideration to this matter, but I do not think I can undertake to make a statement in the foreseeable future.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Roy-al: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs of which I have given him notice because of the seriousness of the situation. Will the minister advise the present status of the so-called four-power formula for settlement of the Middle East conflict?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for having given me notice of this question. Perhaps I might be permitted to say that there are three things that might be helpful at the present time in the current dangerous situation in the Middle East. The first is a strict observance of the ceasefire arrangements on all sides. The second is that the countries supplying arms should refrain from another sterile and dangerous round of arms supplies and, third, I would hope there would be another attempt by the four powers to help Ambassador Jarring resume his efforts for a peace.


Mr. Fairweather:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does Canada support the proposal current now in Britain that Europe's middle powers should step into the Middle East crisis with an effective guarantee of the territorial integrity of the countries in the Middle East, provided that such powers acted under the United Nations and in support of Ambassador Jarring's mission?


Mitchell William Sharp: Well, Mr. Speaker, the resolution of the Security Council that Ambassador Jarring is trying to promote does provide for secure and recognized boundaries. The question of how they can be best guaranteed is a matter for negotiation, I think.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinlhe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.

Since representatives of the Canadian Association of Chemical Producers and of the International Garment Workers Union have said that the continuing increase of knitwear imports threatens both employment and production in Canada, what measures is he considering to deal with the situation and to protect the jobs of Canadian workers?


Jean-Luc Pepin: 

LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the recent brief to the minister from ACTRA concerning the lack of employment protection accorded Canadian artists and writers by our immigration laws, is the minister considering proposing amendments to our laws to provide greater security for Canadian creative people?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the brief to which my hon. friend refers was prepared by ACTRA at my request following a meeting we had to outline the nature of the problem, and there is a problem. At present there are discussions going on between Canada and the United States in an effort to solve the matter in that way. If these discussions fail I believe we will have to consider some alternatives.


Mark Willson Rose: A supplementary question. In view of these discussions and their possible failure, will the minister confer with his colleague the Secretary of State so that the implications of this problem may be examined in great detail?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is making a suggestion or representation which we assume has been noted by the minister.
February 5, 1970



POST OFFICE


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainle-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications.
Could he inform the House on the actual mail delivery situation in Montreal due to the revolving strike of people employed in this service and what action his department intends to take to ensure adequate service to the population should a general strike occur?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Posimasier General and Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I was informed that all truck drivers had reported for work this morning as usual. Of course, the Post Office and Communications Department is taking all necessary steps to ensure a normal service to Montrealers.


Georges-J. Valade: Can the minister state whether his department has taken action to see to it that employees fired by these firms are reinstated, especially by the Department of Manpower and Immigration?


Eric William Kierans: Reinstated where?



MONTREAL-JOBS FOR DISPLACED EMPLOYEES

Georges-J. Valade: I wish to put my question again to the minister, who seemed prepared to answer it but apparently did not understand it well.
Can he tell us what action he is taking with his colleagues to assure other jobs to those workers who will be displaced in the mail delivery service?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, I met with officials of the C.N.T.U. Friday night, and I have advised them that they should contact my colleagues the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) or the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen). In addition, the Montreal postmaster has discussed with the new contractors the possibility of hiring the drivers who are doing the work at the present time.


Georges-J. Valade: Can the Minister of Manpower and Immigration tell us if the officials of the C.N.T.U. have contacted him, and what action his department intends to take to assure jobs to laid off workers?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would have to check with the regional directorate in Montreal to determine whether that contact has been made, and I will report tomorrow to my hon. friend.



RURAL CLOSURES-CONSULTATION WITH MUNICIPAL COUNCILS

Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Postmaster General. In view of the number of rural post offices being closed, does the Post Office Department consult with municipal councils before post offices are closed in their areas?


Eric William Kierans: We make a survey, Mr. Speaker, in each area.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS CONSTITUTIONALITY OF QUEBEC BILL 62

Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question to the Prime Minister.
Can he inform the House whether he has received any requests urging him to give his opinion as to whether Bill 62 recently passed by the Quebec National Assembly is constitutional or not?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I did not receive any such requests, Mr. Speaker.
[English]	.



POLLUTION


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is the government giving any consideration to allocating X millions of dollars to pollution abatement programs in federally responsible properties?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I did not catch the question. Would the hon. member mind repeating it?


John Leroy Skoberg: Is the government giving any consideration to allocating X millions of
February 5, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry dollars to begin pollution abatement programs in federally responsible properties across the country?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question is a little general. Perhaps he might want to put it on the Order Paper.


John Leroy Skoberg: If I may rephrase it, Mr. Speaker, has the government given any directives to federal agencies across the country as to a federal pollution abatement program?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, general directives have been given and this program is under immediate surveillance. I notice that in the United States the President has announced a program exactly on these lines and has stipulated an exact amount, but here we have not stipulated an exact amount.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs but he has gone, no doubt to attend to important business.



FISHERIES


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries who is now coming into the House. Could the Parliamentary Secretary indicate the position of the Department of Fisheries with respect to the request they have received from the seal fishermen on the east coast of Newfoundland asking for a compromise in the early and late dates of the opening of the seal fishery?


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe any decision has been made and I do not know whether it will be changed at all.


John Howard Lundrigan: Would the Parliamentary Secretary or the minister indicate to the House tomorrow the decision they have taken on this request which was received today from the seal fishermen of the east coast?


Eugene Whelan: I will ask the minister to consider this, Mr. Speaker.



FINANCE


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance this question could be directed to the minister who is acting for him today. It is matter of extreme importance to farmers who have borrowed money to buy machinery under the farm loan and farm improvement plans, under which the interest rate is 5 per cent. Would the minister communicate with the chartered banks and point out the injustice that is being done today by those banks in that as soon as a farmer finds himself unable to pay any portion of the principal, even when the interest is paid to date, the interest rate is increased from the level of 5 per cent to 10 per cent or 11 per cent?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Presideni of ihe Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I will bring that question to the attention of the Minister of Finance.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Andre Forlin (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications? Could he tell the House whether he is planning at present to promote the setting-up of an appeals committee within his department in order to give the municipalities deprived of a post office following a unilateral decision by the minister the opportunity to put forward their arguments and thus to give the population a voice within the department?


Eric William Kierans: No, Mr. Speaker.



LIFTING OF FREEZE ON LETTER CARRIER DELIVERY

Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have been neglecting the Postmaster General for some time, so I should like to ask him a question today, too. Would he please tell me and the House when he is going to lift the freeze on the extension of letter carrier delivery services across Canada in communities which are entitled to have them?
February 5, 1970
COMMONS DEBATES	3241
Cape Breton Development Corporation Act Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General panies; on Wednesday, order No. 49, Bill S-5, and Minister of Communications): Mr. Speak- with regard to the Oil and Gas Production er, over recent weeks I have been getting and Conservation Act.
lonesome for the hon. member for Hillsbo- Thursday of next week will be an opposi-rough, and I was going to ask the hon. Leader tion day under the auspices of the New Dem-of the Opposition to bring him back. Today ocratic Party, I understand, hon. members are making up for his absence.
I think that question should more properly * 13:10 p-m->
be addressed to my colleague the President of	GOVERNMENT ORDERS
the Treasury Board.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hillsborough is trying to make up for the deficiencies of the Secretary of State for External Affairs in working out some of the problems in the Middle East.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the cash shortage affecting grain farmers and the fact that seeding will begin in the prairies in about two months, is the minister planning soon to introduce a program of wheat acreage reduction incentives?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Minister without Portfolio responsible for the Wheat Board, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt, has made comments on this both in the House and outside the House in the last few days.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to set out the business of the House for the coming week, if I may.
The business for today will be as announced previously, order No. 25, Bill C-138, with regard to the Cape Breton Development Corporation; order No. 7, Bill C-5, with respect to Criminal Records and the third item, order No. 29, Bill C-152, with respect to the National Parks Act.
Tomorrow, the first item will be order No. 46, Bill C-161, with respect to the Dominion Coal Board, followed by order No. 40, Bill C-158, with respect to Nuclear Liability.
On Monday, we will take order No. 23, the report stage of Bill C-136, the Expropriation Act, to be followed on Tuesday by order No. 61, Bill C-179, respecting investment com-



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ACT


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion) moved: that Bill C-138, to amend the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Development.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this small bill is very simple. It is to bring the powers of the Cape Breton Development Corporation into line with those that Parliament has given to my department.
The corporation was established in 1967 with the power to make grants and loans to enterprises that can contribute substantially to the industrial development of Cape Breton.
In setting up my department, Parliament created the same powers to assist industrial development in other areas that are designated, in consultation with the provinces, as special areas. But there is an additional power. Besides giving grants or making loans direct from government, the departmental legislation also gives authority to guarantee loans from normal commercial sources.
This may be an important means of improving the availability of credit to enterprises in the special areas. A government guarantee may enable an enterprise in a special area to borrow at a reasonable rate of interest in circumstances where it would not otherwise be able to find a bank or investment company willing to lend.
It would be possible, of course, for my department to provide guarantees to enterprises in Cape Breton, by making it a special area. But that would be rather a complicated duplication. The Cape Breton Development Corporation already possesses all of the other powers that my department has to assist industrial development in special areas. It is therefore, better that in Cape Breton the corporation should have all of the powers
February 5, 1970
3242	COMMONS
Cape Breton Development Corporation Act that can be used to assist industrial development, rather than divide the responsibility between the corporation and the department.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, this Bill would grant the Corporation the right to guarantee loans up to $100 million. The Corporation will have this means of action to fall back on when a guarantee appears to be the right way to help any industry wishing to settle or expand in Cape Breton.
I must point out that we are dealing with only one aspect of the work done by the Cape Breton Development Corporation. This amendment does not in any way change the function of the Corporation with regard to coal-mining operations on the island. The amendment to the present act deals only with the Corporation's activities for the development of industries other than coal mining.
For this reason, the bill is brief, simple and, in my view, not controversial. It is important, however, because it will round out the powers of the Corporation which will then have all the means required to promote industrial development.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, may I say to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) how fortunate he is, and possibly how fortunate the people of Cape Breton are, that Mr. R. B. Cameron has made himself available to take over as chairman of Devco. It is hoped that Mr. Cameron, whose ability has been so well demonstrated by developing the Sydney steel operation into what it is today, will be able to do the same thing with the Devco Corporation.
The minister explained that this is a simple bill in that it adds to the powers of Devco and their ability to aid in the financing. He referred also to the fact that since Devco already have these powers there will be no need for his department to divide these powers in this area.
I want to start out, Mr. Speaker, by asking that every member present in the House relay to each and every one of his colleagues what I am saying to the minister. The president of Devco has accused the members of Parliament of passing legislation which violates existing agreements and contracts, despite the fact that following the passage of this legislation the minister himself indicated in this House that all existing contracts and agreements would be honoured. And Mr. Ord, the


president of Devco, in addition to breaking the minister's word and placing the blame on Parliament where it does not belong, has written a letter which the president of Dosco co-signed guaranteeing no change in working conditions as a result of the take-over.
I have made many complaints here, Mr. Speaker. I though I might catch the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) before he left the House to indicate to him that my complaint about the Unemployment Insurance Commission fund is not a complaint about the operation of the unemployment insurance office. I have made that quite clear but, unfortunately, the minister has twisted this around to say it is quite all right for an employer to subsidize the unemployment fund of any employee working for him. I ask hon. members to consider this: Who is subsidizing whom when you consider that an employee with a family allowance of $3,000 a year is forced to retire, can collect $2,756 from the Unemployment Insurance Commission and receive from Devco, the Crown corporation, the difference between that amount and $3,000. Why, Mr. Speaker, some men are receiving less than $10 a month from Devco, whereas they were promised they would receive $3,000. I am sure that no UIC manager in any district would agree that the way UIC funds are being used in this regard is proper.


Jean Marchand: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to stop the hon. member talking about Devco, but we are now talking about a very limited amendment which would give authority to raise guaranteed loans from $20 million to $100 million. That is all this bill does. The House will have an opportunity to discuss Devco, and problems relating to Devco, when the Devco estimates are before the House. Personally, I intend to answer only questions which are related to the amendment. I ask, Mr. Speaker, should this debate be related to the activities of Devco?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
point is well taken. I was about to ask the hon. member to restrict his remarks to the biff.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I could speak all day on that point of order or a question of privilege because, in his opening remarks, the minister said that the purpose of this amendment was to increase the powers of Devco. My submission is this: Mr. Ord and Mr. Blackmore should not he given further powers but should be immediately dismissed for their lying approach to this matter. I will
February 5, 1970	COMMONS
again refer to what the attitude has been. Our miners in Cape Breton have been told, "If you have a complaint, sue us." That is the government's challenge. This is what I say to Messrs. Ord and Blackmore and I will be only too happy to repeat it to members of the press who hold a microphone up to my face or who have a notebook ready to take down notes. Messrs. Ord and Blackmore approached this matter with lies because the miners of Cape Breton were told with respect to what was done, "This is the law of the land." That is not so.
I had checked with the principal law officers of the Crown-these remarks are recorded in Hansard-and what was done was not according to the law of the land. What else did these men say? They said that 77 per cent of the men had accepted this program voluntarily. That is not so, and no one knows this better than the minister. I was in his office, along with the executive of the UMW and the executives of 26 locals, and the minister was told in front of those union executives that the suggestion that 77 per cent of the people involved had accepted the program voluntarily was a lot of nonsense. No doubt the minister can recall that. Therefore, Messrs. Ord and Blackmore were inaccurate when they said that 77 per cent of the men had accepted the program voluntarily. The program was perpetrated on many of the miners who have been forced to accept it under duress.
I maintain that what was done violated legislation that was passed in the House of Commons, and I ask hon. members on the government side to remember that we are accused of voting against labour. I ask any hon. member, including the minister, to stand up and show me where there is anything in Bill C-135 that could be construed by Messrs. Ord and Blackmore as supporting the contract violation. It seems to me that Messrs. Ord and Blackmore brought in a bylaw that violated existing contracts and agreements.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether the hon. member is still speaking on the point of order?


Donald MacInnis: That shows you, does it not, that the minister does not know where he is, what he is doing or what he is here for. And this has been the situation since the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act was passed. Parliament passed the bill, and then the corporation passed the bylaw which it said was the law of the land. I submit that was not correct, because it was not the law of the land.
DEBATES	3243
Cape Breton Development Corporation Act
Let us look at what the approach was at the meetings of the committee on regional development. Is it any wonder that the former chairman packed up and left? He had been adding a good deal to the confusion himself. The chairman of Devco said on November 26, 1968, as recorded in the minutes of the committee which the minister can examine, that the immediate background of Devco comes from the Donald report on coal that was made in May, 1969. Two days later, the same chairman said before the same committee, "Well, the fact is that the Devco approach is based on the Cape Breton Development Act; it is not based on the Donald report." So, here we have the chairman completely contradicting his own approach to the matter within two days.
Then, there is a record of the minister's answers. How did the minister accept this? I say that the delegation made up of the executive of members of the UMW-


An hon. Member:: What is the UMW?


Mr. Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: That is a good one. The Liberals do not know what is going on; they do not know what the UMW is.


Donald MacInnis: I will excuse that. After all, the government only spent $20 million in the Port Hawkesbury area and on Devco. When I first asked the present Prime Minister a question about Devco, he wanted to know who Devco was. This was after the government had spent $20 million on the idea. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) tried to jump in and bluff an answer, but he was not the right minister. Then, the Prime Minister turned to the Solicitor General, (Mr. Mcllraith) only to find out that he was the wrong minister. So, there we had three ministers, not one of them knowing who had authorized the spending of $20 million, and all the time the minister responsible was sitting alongside the Prime Minister with a smirk on his face. When a Liberal member asks, "what is the UMW", that is quite all right with me. Let them ask all the questions of that type they want, because it only proves to the miners and unions of Cape Breton that the Liberal party does not give a damn about the situation it has allowed to develop.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald MacInnis: Again I say, although you may accuse us of voting against labour you, yourself, stand convicted by the actions of the president of Devco.
February 5, 1970
3244	COMMONS
Cape Breton Development Corporation Act [DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: May I ask a question? How old is he?


Donald MacInnis: I think he is about your age.


Mr. Smerchanski:: And how old are you?


Donald MacInnis: I have tried to indicate to the minister where the corporation has gone wrong, and what has been going on down there. I have referred to the approach Messrs. Blackmore and Ord have taken to the matter and, yes, that they have been lying to the public of Cape Breton. Why do I say that? How can I back that up? I can do that very simply. I am sure the minister can hear me. I am going to use him to support my charge that Mr. Blackmore has lied in this instance. I have made complaints in this House. I have asked the government to investigate the hiring policy of Devco as there are now men coming from outside Canada to work for this company.
Mr. Blackmore has interpreted the mining regulations of Nova Scotia to mean that it is necessary to have a man with a college degree to be a mine manager. He is entirely wrong. The best of our managers are those who came up through the ranks. Mr. Black-more says we need professional men because it is sophisticated equipment that is going to be used in the coal mines. Let me put on record that there has never been a mine manager who has used sophisticated equipment or any other kind of equipment. No matter what equipment is to be used, it will be the miner who will use it. If he needs instructions or a demonstration, this will be provided by the supplier of that equipment. There has never been a manager in the Cape Breton coal mines who knew the equipment better than the man who was handling it. The approach of Mr. Blackmore is an underhanded method of putting in a bunch of outsiders as managers or senior officials of this corporation, thereby displacing qualified Cape Bre-toners. That statement applies not only to Nova Scotians but to all Canadians because these people I have referred to came from outside Canada.
I complimented the government on the fact they made a choice of a chairman and did not have to go outside of Nova Scotia. This was the choice they should have made originally. This mess was developed by the former chairman, Mr. Fullerton, who I understand finally turned his back on it. Hon. members know who informed me that the government asked him to resign. I could not swal-


low that, despite the fact I received the information from a Liberal member of Parliament. I said I could not accept that fact because if he was asked to resign, then why would he be placed in charge of the National Capital Commission in the city of Ottawa where he could get himself all fouled up the same as he did in Cape Breton? Members of Parliament from the Ottawa area would be well advised to examine very closely what side of the argument they take, because I was severely criticized for taking the side of the argument they seem to be inclined to adopt.
Hon. members should take a close look at Mr. Fullerton because he turned out to be the wrong choice. He is the gentleman who told the committee that the immediate background of Devco came from the Donald report, and two days later said it was not based on the Donald report. This gentleman also made a statement that the minister came very close to repeating the other day. I refer to the statement the minister made following the representations by my colleague, the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir), on behalf of the CBRT team which had made complaints and the government was being asked to make certain investigations in respect of their claims.
The minister at that time said this was a group of superannuated employees who did not have any representation in the union. He practically said the union was not doing anything on their behalf. How wrong can be he? The CBRT is a bigger union than UMW District 26 is. The minister sloughed them off as some superannuated employees, not realizing that the objections were coming directly from people involved and working for Devco. The minister's statement came very close to the statement made by the chairman of the Cape Breton Development Corporation, this same Mr. Fullerton, who said:
In terms of ability to apply pressure, however, the pensioners tend to be a dispersed force.
In other words, Mr. Fullerton, at that time the chairman of Devco practically said, forget about the pensioners; they are a dispersed force. This is very close to the answer the minister gave to the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys when he referred to the CBRT as a bunch of superannuated employees, an insignificant lot.
The minister is aware that many protests have been made. I have protested on many occasions. What gripes me most is the use of the unemployment insurance fund and the arrangement that is talked about. I wish to
February 5, 1970	COMMONS
emphasize that is not a proper use of the unemployment insurance fund. I am sure any regional manager in the unemployment insurance offices would tell the miners that it is not a proper use of the fund. The minister keeps twisting it. The minister can say what he wants about the pressure I am trying to bring to bear on the Commissioner of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, but I want to make it quite clear that the UIC did not have a choice in this case.
These men are unemployed and therefore they are receiving their benefits. The legislation provided that a married man with dependants could collect $3,000 and a single man $2,400, yet $2,750 of this amount can be collected from the UIC. The miner who was forced to retire is eligible to collect, and the government says this is quite all right. How ridiculous can they get in their approach?
Devco have now notified the retired miners, those voluntarily retired as well as those forcibly retired, that they should make application for seasonal benefits. What is a retired miner to gain from that? It only means that he ties himself to the UIC office. If he is not collecting UIC benefits, then Devco is fully responsible for the $3,000 or $2,400, whatever the case may be. Devco is now instructing these men to collect the seasonal benefits. Devco is telling these miners that they should keep trotting back and forth to make themselves available at the UIC office.
I said to the head of Devco and, I now say to the minister, that this should not be called a pension. It is not a pension. It is a preretirement leave plan which is no longer available once the man qualifies for old age security. He then falls back on the original $75 which used to be the Devco gratuity. The minister is still worried about his point of order.


Jean Marchand: Let me hear a little bit about the amendment.


Donald MacInnis: 
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak for long. I say to the minister I can well appreciate his desire to limit the scope of the debate to the couple of amendments which are proposed in this bill and which he suggested are not controversial. I remind him, however, with respect, that this is the second reading stage of a bill and that the general principles of this bill have to do whh what Devco is sup-


posed to have accomplished for the people of Cape Breton. It is therefore perfectly legitimate to tell the minister, as I do immediately, that from my knowledge of the situation in Cape Breton Island Devco has failed to accomplish anything worth while for the people of Cape Breton. The minister is faced with a population there which is becoming increasingly resentful and which has the same feeling of hopelessness the people of this island have had for many decades.
It is not enough for the minister to say he is giving us two simple amendments and then ask us to please let him have them so that he can go on to do what? To continue to do the totally ineffective and inadequate job which has been done in the past under two years of existence of this corporation. When this question was debated in this House both on second reading and in committee in 1967, if you will permit me to quote a sentence from Hansard during the second reading debate, I said:
But it is totally wrong in principle, and does not deal with the problems ol Cape Breton Island, to give the corporation the authority to throw miners out of work before alternative jobs are available. This is precisely what this bill does.
At the same time, as recorded at page 1662 of Hansard for June 19, 1967, I said:
-I emphasize, underline and repeat this because it seems to me to go to the core of the problem. In my respectful submission the core of the problem is that no coal miner on Cape Breton Island should lose one day's work as a result of the reorganization by the corporation of the coal industry. Not a single coal miner should be laid off by the corporation until the other arm has created jobs to which those miners may go. Not until then should the closing down of mines or the reduction of coal production take place.
I said to the minister that whether the reduction in the standard of living of the miners is produced by an actual closing down of the mine or whether it is produced by a compulsory pre-retirement plan, the result is the same. The result in the case of the miners of Cape Breton who are affected is that their annual income is reduced from $5,000 or $6,000 a year as miners to a maximum of $3,000 a year under the compulsory preretirement plan. In other words, the income and standard of living of those affected has been reduced by about 50 per cent by the pre-retirement plan. To me, as I stated in 1967, this would seem to be contrary to the principle of the bill and a betrayal of the welfare of the people of Cape Breton Island.
I say to the minister without any reservation, and knowing as I do that his own
February 5, 1970	COMMONS
experience in the labour market should make him sympathetic to this situation, that it is significant that when the board of Devco presented a so-called plan under section 17 of the act it dealt with the problem of producing alternative jobs in very general terms so that one does not know exactly what is proposed. The only precise plan that was produced was the early retirement plan for miners. There was nothing precise or definite in respect of the other operations of the corporation to provide alternative jobs. However, there were very definite and precise plans in respect of the compulsory pre-retirement plan.
I am not sure I agree with every other criticism uttered, but I have been concerned about the use of unemployment insurance benefits for the purpose for which Devco is using them. The unemployment insurance fund does not belong to any one group of employees. It belongs to all employees and employers who have contributed to it. I see no reason in the world why Devco should be able to dip its hands into the unemployment insurance fund to meet its program on compulsory pre-retirement. I agree with the hon. member who preceded me that this kind of dipping into the fund is unjustifiable and is unfair to the fund and the people who have contributed to it. From the discussion in 1967 and 1966, from reading the various reports produced in an attempt to see what it is were are trying to do, the only point of importance would seem to be that the miners were not to be hurt, neither they nor their families, by the progressive reduction in the coal mining production of Devco. Devco has not laid off people in the normal way but has reduced the income of the miners affected by 50 per cent. It has forced them to reduce their standard of living by 50 per cent. How can the minister and the board of Devco justify this? Why is it possible for them to do it? In the second annual report dated December 31, 1968 there is a very pregnant sentence which begings at the top of page 8. This report was tabled about a year ago. The sentence reads as follows:
While the Act does not demand it, Devco has undertaken to lay off men permanently without offering them either the Pre-retirement Leave Plan or reasonable alternative employment opportunities.
Two years and some months ago my objection to the bill was precisely that it did not state that the miners should not be laid off or have their income reduced without alternative employment. I moved an amendment at that time, supported by the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir) and
DEBATES	3251
Cape Breton Development Corporation Act others, to the effect that the act should contain a specific statement prohibiting Devco from reducing employment partially or wholly until such time as alternative work is provided by the corporation. That was denied by the then minister who guided the bill through parliament. So, there is nothing in the act which would make this a requirement. Therefore, the corporation is able to say the act does not demand it but that out of the goodness of its heart it will force some people to reduce their income by 50 per cent until there is alternative employment.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I, therefore, say to the minister that this bill is of little value. It does not contain important amendments to the act. What it proposes will be of little value to the people of Cape Breton, of as little value as many of the other things that are now in the hands of his department, and the result of which is that none of us is able to see so far the real development of industry in the disadvantaged areas or a real step toward eliminating or reducing the regional disparities which affect and afflict this country.
I think these are statements of fact, Mr. Speaker. And if one speaks a little bitterly about it it is because one warned the government that the way it is going about these things is not going to produce results. I remember pleading with the minister, and I plead with this minister now-I think the minister at the time is now the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin)- that he is not going to be able to do good for the people on Cape Breton Island if he relies entirely, outside the coal mines, on private enterprise to provide him with job opportunities for the people of Cape Breton.
Just look at what he is doing. Look at what the treasury of Canada, the taxpayers of this country, are asked to do to attract a private company, maybe in Houston, to come to Cape Breton Island. First, this corporation can lend the company money with or without security and at such rate of interest as the corporation considers appropriate, or without interest. Secondly, the corporation may make grants to this private company that deigns to come to Cape Breton Island, or it may buy some of its shares. Finally, the minister adds the proposal that, in addition to loans without interest if considered necessary, in addition to grants, in addition to investment by the purchase of shares and securities of the company, he is now going to guarantee the repayment by the
3252	COMMONS
Cape Breton Development Corporation Act private company of loans which it may make elsewhere, loans from the banks. The corporation may guarantee the repayment of those loans to the banks and the interest on the loans.
What is the private company going to do, Mr. Speaker? What risk is it going to take? For what reason should it be there? For an attempt to make a profit? What are the people of Cape Breton Island going to get out of it when all the risks, all the capital, all the loans, all the grants are guaranteed by the federal treasury? And the minister says this is a non-controversial bill. So far as I am concerned, it is a very controversial bill because it will again leave the miners of Cape Breton Island, and all the people dependent on their income, in the same hopeless state they have been in for decades, from my personal experience and from the experience of those who have themselves suffered amidst the people of Cape Breton Island.
Obviously, if this is the way the government is going to go about it, to provide Devco with the right to guarantee loans up to $100 million instead of $20 million within the framework they support, that is the right thing to do. My colleagues and I do not propose to vote against the bill because at least it will give Devco a little more leeway with regard to private industry. But I repeat what I have said-


Jean Marchand: I rise just for the purpose of indicating what is the objective of the bill. It does not raise the $20 million to $100 million, it adds $100 million to it.


David Lewis: That is right. I thank the minister. The $20 million was for another purpose. The $100 million is for the guaranteed repayments for which the bill provides. The minister is quite right, which makes my case if you like, Mr. Speaker, that much stronger. Anyone who knows Cape Breton Island, and I am sure the minister knows it as well as I do, and the people of Cape Breton, anyone who has watched the people of the island for the last 30 or 40 years, as those of us who have been there and particularly the people who have lived there, have done, know you have a community that has gone downhill almost irreversibly for three or four decades when coal was gradually being displaced by other energy sources. And all that time we assumed that if we paid subventions and held out carrots to private enterprise, this situation would be improved. However, during that period all
[Mr. Lewis.1
DEBATES	February 5, 1970
that has happened has been that the situation has become increasingly worse. How much longer do we permit this to continue?
I fully sympathize with the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Macln-nis) for his vehemence and the depth of his feeling, and I am sure the depth of his sincere feeling about it. I might not use some of the words he uses, and sometimes I sit here and envy him that he does have the courage that I have not got to tell people that when they are misleading people they are not merely misleading, they are lying. There is some value in that. My particular upbringing makes it difficult for me to do it that way. But it is true, Mr. Speaker, that all that Devco has accomplished until now has been to reduce the standard of living of a number of the miners on Cape Breton Island.
Is that what we set it up for? Perhaps the minister hopes that in a year or two years from now something more may come. I hope he is right. I believe he is not. I believe that the whole structure of Devco and the approach to the situation in Cape Breton is a false one, just as I believe the whole approach to get rid of regional disparities is a false one. Just as I am depressed, disappointed and chagrined by the failure of his department in other areas of Canada, so am I disappointed and distressed at its failure in Cape Breton to date.
Maybe if we all live 100 years we may see some results from the hesitant and useless steps that are being taken, but I say to the minister that the only way to deal with a situation such as that in Cape Breton is not to be straitjacketed by ideological objection to public investment in enterprise but to go in there with the help of the Canadian people, with Canadian taxes.
I notice in the report of Devco that they undertook to build an apartment complex, and in a typical elitest approach, managerial approach which is not concerned with ordinary working people-I have not got the report before me now and I am going to state from my memory what I am certain is correct-the report said they had to set up this apartment complex in order that managers and other executives attracted to Cape Breton Island might have a decent place in which to live. To the devil with these managers and executives! Where is there a decent place in which the ordinary people of Cape Breton may live?
All that this board of Devco is able to tell us is that it is building this apartment com-
February 5, 1970

plex in order to attract-I am paraphrasing- the managerial and executive personnel that industrial development in Cape Breton may require. What this points out, Mr. Speaker, is that you have got to have on the island the building up of a total infrastructure. Not only are apartments needed for managerial and executive types-they are entitled to live in decent places, I am not denying them that right, but so are ordinary people entitled to live in decent apartments and decent homes. You require schools not only to house the children of the managers and the executives but schools to house the children of the ordinary people. You require roads. You require all sorts of things to make it possible for industry to develop, and you require the courage and the desire and the readiness to innovate. You require funds from the public investment in order to make sure that the industry is there and that profitability will not be the reason, the only criterion for its remaining there.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
If the minister is going to spend $120 million now and more tens of millions later to attempt to attract private industry, I wonder why it is not possible for him to add what I pleaded with the then minister in 1967 to add to the provisions, enabling Devco itself to undertake the establishment of appropriate industry so that the process might be speeded up, so that new jobs might be created more quickly than is now the case, so that the minister and his department do not have to go cap in hand, begging for private enterprise to come in, offering them all sorts of concessions such as grants, loans without interest, guarantees for loans from the bank and all the rest. Why should we do it that way? Why should it be necessary to lose the time that will be lost before obtaining suitable industries for Cape Breton Island if reliance is placed on dangling carrots before private companies who have not shown any interest before and are not likely to show interest now unless the minister can guarantee the kind of profit which these companies require?
It is in this framework that I look at this bill and I think it is horrible, shameful even, to add the interest for loans made by banking and other institutions to the other advantages which the act already offers companies who can be induced to come to Cape Breton. I think it is shameful that the most which Devco has to show now is the reduction of the standard of living of miners between 60 and 65 years of age. I think it is dreadful that
DEBATES	3253
Cape Breton Development Corporation Act as a result of Devco's operations to date all we have in terms of the morale of the people of Cape Breton is a great deal of uncertainty, a great deal of resentment and a great deal of bitterness. It is unforgiveable that the result of the government's action should be in most cases a division of the union, disagreement as to what should be done with this pre-retirement plan and a great deal of conflict within the ranks of the miners.
The minister may say that this is a little bill which makes only a small change and that it ought to pass quickly. I say to him that this bill, little though it may be, reminds us of the total failure of his efforts and the efforts of the minister who preceded him. It is a total, shameful, criminal failure and inadequate to deal with the problems that face the people of Cape Breton Island. Instead of that, Devco has done the things I have already referred to, the things that the speaker leading off for the Conservative Party referred to, the things that are mentioned in the hundreds of letters I have received from Cape Breton about the situation there.
I said I would not be long, Mr. Speaker, and I do not intend to be because I would just be repeating what I have said already. However, I want to say in conclusion that when a community in a country has suffered disadvantages such as the people of Cape Breton have for so many years, when at last the Parliament of Canada says to these people, here is a plan that is going to help you, it is little short of betrayal to let these people down. Canada as a whole, through the government, has raised the hopes of the people of Cape Breton that perhaps at last they can look forward to an improvement in their situation, the removal of the feeling of insecurity and the removal of the feeling of economic inferiority with respect of the rest of Canada, the feeling of hopelessness and helplessness which the constant reduction in steel and related production on that island has brought to them. But for the corporation to have been in existence for two years, for the people of Cape Breton not to have reason to feel that even a small step has been taken toward the achievement of that objective, is nothing short of betrayal of the interest of the people of Canada and of this Parliament.
I plead with the minister to take another look at this, at the bureaucratic cuts in the income of the compulsorily retired miners. I ask him to take a second look at a corporation which is approaching its job with little plan and even less imagination. I ask the
3254	COMMONS
Cape Breton Development Corporation Act minister to take a second look at a bill which continues to depend on private enterprise which has never shown any interest in Cape Breton Island and which continues to hold out guarantees to these companies which have not responded in a way the situation requires.
I ask the minister to bring in a bill to amend the act that will mean something to the welfare and future of the people of Cape Breton instead of an act which will merely add to the bureaucratic control by his department in a hopeless situation.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I shall not be very long, either. I shall only take a few minutes to comment on this bill-


Jean Marchand: Half an hour.


Robert Muir: The
minister interjects, but I did not hear what he said.


An hon. Member:: It does not matter.


Robert Muir: In
any event, Mr. Speaker, the member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis) has certainly brought to the attention of the House and to Canada many of the problems with which we are confronted on the island of Cape Breton through the operations of what we term Devco, which is the shortened version of the Cape Breton Development Corporation.
We heard the views of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) with regard to many of the things that were happening-or perhaps I should say not happening. They are not happening because this minister does not seem to want too much to happen in the Cape Breton area. I say this, Mr. Speaker, because of the fact that time and time again we inquire from the minister about problems affecting the work force of Devco but he has a way of sloughing off his responsibilities and his duty to reply in this House regarding these problems.
I am only going to mention a few matters because the member for Cape Breton-East Richmond has pretty well covered the field, as has the member for York South. The greatest objection I want to raise is the fact-I regret the minister is leaving the chamber but he undoubtedly is going to smoke a cigarette and will be able to hear me from that vantage point-that a man who has a union background and has led unions in IMr. Lewis.]
DEBATES	February 5, 1970
this country, has been involved with the working people of this country over many years, has shown such a lack of ability for proper liaison between those who are affected by the operations of Devco. I think he, of all people, should be in a better position to know that there should be good relations between himself and the members of this House, between himself and the unions involved, the work forces that are being directed by Devco. However, as I have already mentioned, he does not seem to want to co-operate.
With regard to the question of the method of paying the retirement allowance, I have on occasion brought this to his attention in the House and have made the suggestion to this minister, as well as to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey), that we all have views on the manner in which these moneys are being paid, where the moneys are being taken from and so on. I have suggested that there should be an investigation which could clarify the proper situation, but this request has been refused. It has been ignored by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and the Minister of Labour and for what reason I do not know. Surely, there is nothing to hide. Surely, nothing would be heard as a result of such investigation that the government would not wish to hear. The investigation would clarify the situation for all concerned.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I support the bill, although I cannot say that it is earth shaking by any means. If it will attract industry to Cape Breton Island, contribute to the progress of the area and assist the officials of Devco, I endorse it and hope that it will be successful in its aim of inducing industry to go to Cape Breton. That is not an easy job and, as I have said before in public forums, the people associated with Devco certainly have their hands full. They have a big job in trying to induce industry to go to the island, because all Canada wants industry and it is not easy for some areas to obtain industry. The people all over this country are trying to attract industry to their regions and as a result Devco faces much competition.
With regard to the recent appointment of Mr. R. D. Cameron, may I say that Bob Cameron has made his mark on the industrial life of Nova Scotia. It amazes me that for some months this government and this minister were looking for someone to be the new chairman of Devco, and undoubtedly the pro-
February 5, 1970

vincial government of Nova Scotia was as well, while the man who was needed was right under our noses. There is a man, I feel, who will do a tremendous job with Devco. These remarks are not a reflection on those who have served in that office before. We never heard the real reason the former chairman retired; personal reasons played a part in his resignation. I hope that in committee the minister will advise us why the resignation took place, and also advise us of many actions which have taken place within Devco.
The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond talked about the change-over of the mine lamps that were used. Like the hon. member, I worked in the coal mines for many years. The lights used in the Cape Breton coal mines were provided by Mine Safety Appliances of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, through a Canadian outlet. To my knowledge, they were safety approved, but they are not to be used any more. We are to have different type of lighting equipment which must be purchased in Britain. I do not know the reason for this; this provision is unusual.
Another unusual provision is that the supervisory staff of Devco apparently must come from Britain. I really think that there are in this country Canadians with brains; I do not think we have to bring these people over from Britain. May I ask the minister a question that has to do with the people being brought over. Is it correct that Devco will allocate funds to the people coming from Britain for the purchase of or construction of new homes at low or no rates of interest, with the proviso that Devco shall have the option of buying back the homes if they are no longer used by the persons being brought in? Is this correct?
I should also like to know from the minister why there is such a rapid phasing out of the coal industry in Cape Breton Island. Oh, yes, we have been assured in the House by the minister, by others concerned and by the officials of Devco, that no one will walk the streets until alternative employment is provided. This, in large part, has been done by a method of shuffling around miners. When one mine has been closed, its personnel have been placed in another mine.
I am vitally interested also to know the future of Princess Colliery in the town of Sydney Mines. The mine is the backbone of the area's economy. According to evidence presented before the Standing Committee on Regional Development, before which Devco officials have appeared, the mine at one time had 1,110 employees. I understand that as a
DEBATES	3255
Cape Breton Development Corporation Act result of putting people on pension and, as the hon. member for York South said, making them submit to a lower, more meagre standard of living by virtue of the allowance provided to them, Devco has succeeded in reducing the work force to approximately 800 people. By the same token, because these people are being made subject to the provision of the retirement program, there is no money in the area to be expended on services. As a result, the whole economy of the area is suffering.
Then, will the minister tell us what is to be done about the new generation which is available for work in the area. True, the authorities have been trying, but without much success, to bring in new industry; and from time to time we hear great statements put out by the public relations people of Devco to the effect that a great new industry is to come to our area. I want to know how many jobs have been provided by Devco since it was created by legislation. I doubt whether we can point to many jobs which have been provided.
It is very difficult and almost impossible for us to obtain information from this minister, Mr. Speaker. I do not know why he is so close-mouthed about the operations of Devco or about other areas coming under his responsibility. I recall that when he first came to this place he was a most co-operative individual. In the past couple of years, it seems that he has not wanted to provide any information to the House. Maybe he cannot; maybe the poor soul cannot, because many times when you ask him a question he shakes his head, stirs himself a bit and gives an answer relating to something about which you have not inquired.


Jean Marchand: What information does the hon. member want?


Robert Muir: would appreciate receiving, now that the minister has certainly left himself wide open, answers to those questions which have been asked today by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond and-


Jean Marchand: Which ones?


Robert Muir: would appreciate full answers to every question asked. That is the only way the minister will be able to justify his existence. The hon. member posed some very penetrating questions.
3256	COMMONS
Cape Breton Development Corporation Act


Jean Marchand: Yes, very
penetrating.


Robert Muir: The
hon. member for York South also asked some penetrating questions yet the minister says, "What do you want to know?" Well now, Mr. Speaker, this great fund of knowledge has shaken itself from its lethargy and is now about to open up and disclose to Parliament and the country answers which we have been seeking for so long.
The other day we posed a question because of representations that were received regarding the method of paying the pension allowances. I am speaking of the legitimate appeal that came from those members of the CBRT who are employed by Devco. They have a grievance. They have a problem and they want an answer. They want to be given consideration, but the minister sloughed off the question with the attitude that they constitute an insignificant group of people. His attitude was, "We have received no request from the officials of the United Mine Workers of America regarding these men. These people are not important. This is only a small handful of workers."
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Donald MacInnis: He called them superannuated.


Robert Muir: That's right; he did call them superannuated. He did not seem to be aware that they are not superannuated. At the present time they are employed by Devco which comes under the responsibility of the minister. He was referring to those people on this allowance as superannuated. They are Canadian citizens who have a grievance which should be corrected. They should not be sloughed off as a group of old men on pension that we do not want to hear from any more.


Jean Marchand: I want the hon. gentleman to cite from the answer I gave to see if it corresponds. This is not correct, Mr. Speaker, and I do not think it is honest.


Robert Muir: I am
glad, Mr. Speaker, that we have aroused the minister to the extent that he will at least try to straighten out what he did say.


Mr. Danforth:: You are being optimistic.


Robert Muir: It is
very difficult to be optimistic about this minister. It really is. I am stating what I think the 
DEBATES	February 5, 1970
minister said. Of course, when we read Hansard he is not in fact recorded as saying that. I checked Hansard because a number of my colleagues believed the minister referred to old men. I also thought I heard this statement, but I could not find it in Hansard.


Jean Marchand: No.


Robert Muir: Isn't that most unusual?


An hon. Member:: It was cleaned up.


Robert Muir: There were many people sitting around me at the time. In addition to that, there were two ladies in the gallery who happened to be from a constituency in Cape Breton, not my constituency. They stated that they also thought they heard the minister say that. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis) seems to be of the same opinion as I am. In any event, the reference did not appear in Hansard and therefore I have no recourse other than to take the word of the minister.


Donald MacInnis: Let him repeat his words.


Robert Muir: I will gladly do that.


Jean Marchand: I never said it.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Check the tapes.


Robert Muir: wish the minister-


Donald MacInnis: I rise on a question of personal privilege. The minister just interjected from his seat that we are a bunch of liars. He can deny that if he wishes, but my hearing is not that bad. I call Your Honour's attention to the fact.


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest if that was said the minister did not intend it. As is well understood, and I think generally accepted by hon. members of this House, terms such as that are not used and I am sure it will not appear in Hansard. Being as generous as possible to the hon. member, I have some misgivings about the degree which we seem to be ranging from the bill. I realize it is a rather general subject, but I invite the hon. member to restrict his remarks as much as possible. With that suggestion, I invite the hon. member to continue.


Robert Muir: As
usual, Your Honour is very kind and courte-
February 5, 1970	COMMONS
ous. I have listened with great interest to what Your Honour said. Maybe I misunderstood, and for guidance I ask Your Honour to help me. I thought I heard Your Honour say that possibly the minister said we were a bunch of liars, but it would not go on Hansard. Does that make it any more correct? If the minister did not say that, let him say so because I now rise on a question of privilege. I ask him to again make the comment he made a moment ago which was referred to by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond or is the record to indicate that we on this side are a bunch of liars?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago the hon. member was referring to people in the gallery who understood the words he was reporting, I believe not necessarily in the House. I say that those people who told him that are a bunch of liars. That is all.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a weaseling and sniveling way to get out of something. The minister now says that I am not a liar, the member for Cape Breton-East Richmond is not a liar, the people in the Commons are not liars, but the people who sat in the gallery and told us that are liars. Good heavens, what are we coming to when a minister of the Crown acts like a child?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: He used to be a wise man.


Robert Muir: Yes, one of the three wise men from the province of Quebec. Wise, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Dinsdale:: One of the three blind mice!


Robert Muir: One
of the three blind mice, that is correct. This minister should lean toward the working man so far as this bill and Devco are concerned because of his background.


An hon. Member:: Where did he work?


Robert Muir: don't know where he worked. He was supposed to be involved with a union in the province of Quebec for many years. Surely, this minister who is piloting this small piece of legislation through this House should lean toward the working man for whom he professedly fought as a union leader for years. We are now told that people who sit in the
DEBATES	3257
Cape Breton Development Corporation Act gallery and state something are liars. These people's husbands are coal miners. However, the minister has clarified his statement in this august body. We, here, are not liars.
We wonder why there are so many problems with regard to Devco. How could it be otherwise, Mr. Speaker, when we do not have a minister who will smarten up, be responsible and do his utmost to work in co-operation with members of this House and representatives of Devco? Is it a fact that there is no liaison between the Devco officials and the minister? Is it a fact that he is minister in name only and that the deputy minister, Mr. Tom Kent, tells the minister what is going on, but the minister is not intelligent enough to carry little tales from the deputy minister.


An hon. Member:: We have heard of Tom Kent before.


Robert Muir: We
certainly have; we have heard too much of him.


Mr. Peters:: People knew what to do with him.


Robert Muir: I ask
this minister to make a statement as soon as possible with regard to the future of Princess colliery at Sydney Mines, the backbone of the economy of a town of 9,000 people. Up the present time, there has been no new industry brought into that area by Devco. It is my wish that the town of Sydney Mines get new industry. I think this minister and the officials of Devco owe to the mayor, councillors and the people of that town, advice as to what the future holds.
During the Christmas recess I was interviewed on television. I said it had been rumoured that the Princess colliery will close in approximately two years. This is what I have been told. When you are here a few years you get a few friends in different departments who advise you about a few things. I have been requested not to divulge that person's name and I will not do so, but I want the minister and Devco officials to correct me if I have been erroneously informed. This would be great. It would be wonderful. If I have been correctly informed, I ask them to come forward and say what is going to happen to Princess colliery.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I believe it is the duty of Devco and of the minister to take this responsibility seriously
February 5, 1970
3258	COMMONS
Cape Breton Development Corporation Act and disclose what is the future of the area from which men are drawn to work in the Princess Colliery. They do not know what tomorrow will bring. Will it bring industry, as a result of this amendment to the bill? Let us be reasonable. That will take some time even though we have B.ob Cameron-and there are some good people in Devco who work hard. We cannot expect success overnight. You cannot turn a key and establish an industry the next day. We know there is a problem involved here. But let us be open with the people who are most directly concerned, those whose lives depend on what Devco plans to do. As a fellow by the name of Johnson said in the United States some time ago: "Come, let us reason together." Is that in the thoughts of the minister?


An hon. Member:: Not likely.


Robert Muir: "Not likely" is right. He continues, through the operations of Devco, to reduce the standard of living of those living in the towns affected by the phasing out policy at much too fast a pace. Until there is alternative work, no man should lose his employment. We were assured that this was what the government had in mind. Nevertheless, they are now engaged in this phasing out process and reducing the working staff of the coal mines, though no alternative employment is being provided.
At this moment I see the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) is telling weirdo jokes about Stockholm-how he crawled on his belly to the agents of Mao Tse-tung. And the minister is laughing his head off.


Jean Marchand: You say something, and I will listen.


Robert Muir: Now, we are getting the hon. gentleman stirred up. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I do not agree with many of the things the minister says. In fact, there is very little he says with which I agree. Nevertheless, I shall defend to the death his right to be ignorant. It is only proper we should do that. I hope that when this amendment goes to the committee the minister will appear before that committee, together with some of the people from Devco, and be in a position to answer the questions which he said today he would be glad to answer. It may be that the minister will be able to answer our questions this evening. I am sure he will be glad to answer all the questions which have been posed to him this afternoon.


Jean Marchand: Which one?


Robert Muir: Oh,
he acts like a stupid little idiot. He sits there and says "Which one? Which one?" The question is really so foolish. It is unusual to find one of Her Majesty's ministers behaving in such a stupid, silly, ridiculous, childish manner.


An hon. Member:: Look at yourself.


Robert Muir: Oh,
someone who is still sitting on his little brain is commenting, now. Why doesn't he identify his constituency?


Mr. Gibson:: Pursue your personal vendetta elsewhere.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I would ask hon. members, and the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir), to restrict their remarks to the subject of the debate. I must say I am a little troubled by the direction in which it is going; I do not know whether this concern is shared by other hon. members but I do invite the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys to restrict his remarks to the bill before the House.


Robert Muir: thank Your Honour for that advice. I certainly feel I should be reprimanded on occasion, but since all the members of this House got here the same way I think Mr. Speaker might take notice of other remarks which were made, especially by the hon. member for Hamilton Wentworth (Mr. Gibson)-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I was not restricting my comment to the hon. member. I was suggesting to all hon. members that we limit interventions and confine our observations to the bill. I was certainly not trying to single out the hon. member.


Robert Muir: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let us hope the minister will do his utmost in the future to provide some information concerning Devco and the nature of its future plans for the areas concerned, particularly with regard to future employment. Let us hope the minister will give this information either in this House or before the committee at the first opportunity. There is great unrest. I should like to invite the minister to go to Cape Breton and conduct an on-the-spot investigation him-
February 5, 1970	COMMONS
self-not of Devco, not of anything in particular, but of the situation generally. Let him sit down with the miners' representatives, with groups of civic authorities from the towns concerned, and with his officials from Devco. We know the minister has a difficult job. We know how difficult is the task before Devco. But there must be better liaison, more information forthcoming about what Devco or the minister are trying to do. This is all we ask. I plead with the minister to follow this course.
The amendment is good as far as it goes-I have said that already. I shall close by making just one point. Despite the fact that the minister and I cross swords in the House, he knows that we can co-operate with him, and often do co-operate with him on various occasions. He does get a little peeved and upset at things which are said to him, but anyone who has spent as many years in the union movement as I have knows that you fight a little rough, sometimes-it is possible that the minister himself has done so on occasion. This is all we are asking. We want the minister to take some action, to smarten up the people in Devco, to take a little more interest in his portfolio as it concerns the Cape Breton Development Corporation.


William Arnold Peters: Since it is almost five o'clock, Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 40 to outline the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment: the hon. member for Hum-ber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) -Public Buildings-Stephenville, Newfoundland-construction of new facilities; the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)- The Canadian Economy-inflation-increase in bank directors' fees; the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr.	Mongrain)-Canadian
Pacific-Montreal-Quebec line-closing of stations after six o'clock-lack of comfort for passengers.
DEBATES	3259
Cabinet Committees and Membership



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


David Orlikow: That an order of the House do issue for a copy of the list of all cabinet committees of the Government of Canada and the federal ministers belonging to each of these committees, as mentioned by the Prime Minister at a press conference on October 25, 1969, at the National Press Building.
He said: Mr. Speaker, my motion calling for the tabling of a list of cabinet committees and their membership appears to me to be a simple and reasonable one. It is part of my belief that the business of government, which is the business of all the people of Canada, should be conducted as publicly and openly as possible.
It therefore appears obvious to me that if the public, members of Parliament and members of the press want to know which problems are being discussed by the government, and which ministers are involved, there ought to be no question about the government's willingness to table the information quickly.
I am not surprised that the government has refused to accede to this request. After all, there are now more than 350 notices for the production of papers on the Order Paper. Of those which have been dealt with, I venture to say that more than 90 per cent have been turned down by the government because, in the words one hears almost every week with monotonous regularity, it is not considered in the public interest to provide the information sought. It would be funny and ludicrous if it were not so serious and tragic.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
We have a government that is led by a Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) whose reputa

tion is based on his supposed belief in participatory democracy, in involving all the people in government and in a discussion of government problems and policies, a Prime Minister who is involved, as I think the young people say, in tuning-in the people to what is going on.
We have a government that has set up a task force to look into the information services of the government. Lord knows, we spend enough millions of dollars on information, supposedly for the public. This task
February 5, 1970
3260	COMMONS
Cabinet Committees and Membership force brought forth a report that recommended the setting up of something called Information Canada. In response to repeated questions about whether the government intends to implement the recommendation of the task force and set up Information Canada, the Prime Minister said he would make a statement in the near future.
As a matter of fact, some members of Parliament and some members of the press already know that a group of civil servants are working as part of Information Canada. What is Information Canada? Supposedly, it is a body that will give the people of Canada more information about government operations and policies. I submit that it is just one more attempt-which undoubtedly will be to an extent successful since the government has the power it needs to ram through the measures it wants-to set up a propaganda machine that will churn out information that is favourable to the government, information that the government wants disseminated.
I submit there is a basic philosophical difference between the Prime Minister and people in government and people like myself.
I believe that the business of government should be public. I believe we ought to follow the Swedish example of making all government documents public unless, for special reasons that are explained by the government, they must be kept private. But the government follows a policy that is the exact opposite of this. Like the kings in past feudal societies, the government considers it should have absolute power; that it has the divine right to say that reports and studies done by the government or for the government are the property of cabinet ministers.
I submit that what we have here is censorship of the worst type. What we have are the makings-if the government has its way-of, in effect, a one party state. If the people cannot be given detailed information on which proposed government policies are based, then the people will not be able to make choices which, I submit, in a democratic society they are entitled to make. Without this information they are to a large extent powerless.
From the reaction of the government to what I submit is a very simple request on my part, and from the reaction of the government to other motions, we see what is the position of the government. The position of the government is that hon. gentlemen opposite are the government; that they have the right to ask for information; that they have the right
[Mr. Orlikow.l

to increase the Prime Minister's staff in the Privy Council office by 200 to 300 per cent in one year or less; that they have the right to spend millions of dollars hiring private consultants to make specific studies on behalf of the government, all of which information becomes the property of the government and must not be divulged to any member of Parliament, not just to any opposition member of Parliament. I suggest there is no member of the House who knows less about government, and can be less happy about his situation than the backbencher of this government who does not even have the right publicly to complain and criticize.
As a result of the government's attitude, members of Parliament have no right to information. Neither have the members of the press gallery, except those who might have toadied to the Prime Minister or to somebody else and had information leaked to them. Certainly, the ordinary citizens and voters have no rights at all in this connection, other than those that the present Prime Minister, who if he were not king of Canada would be God, deigns to favour.
The policy followed by the government is exemplified by its blanket refusal to release information on the most basic and fundamental questions, by refusing requests for information about studies done by the government and about policies that will lead to legislation which will be of long lasting importance to every citizen of Canada.
I submit that the people of Canada have the right to be given this kind of information. I submit the government is wrong in principle in refusing such requests, that it is wrong in its approach. Although the government talks of democracy, it just does not understand what democracy is. When it does understand what it is, it does not believe it. I submit that my request is not only a legitimate one, one to which the government ought to agree, but is one that the people of Canada have the right to expect the government to grant.


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with one thing the hon. member said. He pointed out that a most important subject, a basic and fundamental question, is before the House today, because we are debating the problem of the dissemination of information to the public through their members of Parliament, as contrasted with the necessity to keep information in certain areas, on which the govern-
February 5# 1970	COMMONS
ment might take action, confidential. I submit certain information must of necessity be kept confidential if indeed it might form the basis for future government action in certain areas.
The hon. member also pointed out that there was an unprecedented number of motions for the production of papers listed on the Order Paper. Both he and I have been in the House for a number of years, and personally I have never seen such a large number of requests for papers. If the impression I receive from the hon. member's remarks is the correct one, he appeared to blame the government for the number of notices of motions for papers presently on the Order Paper.


David Orlikow: Remaining unanswered.


James Edgar Walker: Just the contrary is true.
It is because this is such an important subject that I have gone into it very thoroughly. Having given some study to the matter, rather than address myself to the broad question-and I must say that I felt the hon. member addressed himself to a much wider area than called for by the motion-I will deal with the specific matter raised.
As a result of my research I feel I could make two types of presentations, one of which would deal with the broader aspects. I will save that for later, since I am aware that the hon. member has another motion on the order paper. When that comes up for debate I will at that time cover the waterfront and deal with the general situation, but for the moment I prefer to be specific and speak to the motion itself.
Although the motion has been read I should like to read it again. It provides:
That an order of the House do issue for a copy of a list of all Cabinet Committees of the Government of Canada and the federal Ministers belonging to each of these committees as mentioned by the Prime Minister at a Press Conference on October 15, 1969 at the National Press Building.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
On the surface this seems to be a very reasonable request. On looking into the whole question, I wondered whether the government and those on this side of the House were not being a little oversensitive on this rather small point. The government felt it was not proper, right or fitting, that the members of these committees should be revealed. I was interested enough to find out why.
I found that there are a great many precedents for refusing to reveal the composition
DEBATES	3261
Cabinet Committees and Membership of committees of the cabinet. There are many precedents in Canadian practice for the customary refusal by governments to disclose the names of ministers serving on committees of the cabinet. Because this is such an important subject 1 want to put on the record some of the reasons and some of the precedents so that the hon. member will not feel it is just this government, for small reasons, which refuse to divulge the names of cabinet ministers on specific committees. There have been several references to the British practice of not revealing the composition of cabinet committees. Here, we are concerned with what Canadian precedents there may be for such reticence.
The Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker, then Prime Minister, put the matter succinctly on February 4, 1960 in reply to the following questions by Mr. Paul Martin, who was then the hon. member for Essex East:
Has there been a meeting of the cabinet committee on economic and industrial development since September, 1957?
The Prime Minister of the day replied:
The means by which the cabinet conducts its business are traditionally regarded as its own domestic affair, and questions on the subject are normally neither asked nor answered. It is well known that many committees of ministers are formed from time to time, and meet as and when required, to facilitate the working of the cabinet as a whole. Only the two established by statute have power to exercise any legal authority.
Earlier, on May 8, 1959, Mr. Diefenbaker had said in a parliamentary reply that the treasury board and the committee of the privy council on scientific and industrial research were established by statute. He provided copies of orders in council appointing members to these two committees. The orders contained the names or titles of the members. The Prime Minister also noted that a minister is chairman of the standing committee on public records and that ministers serve with the Speaker of the House of Commons on the committee of internal economy.
Mr. Diefenbaker was expressing the traditional view of Canadian governments that the inner workings of cabinet are not matters for comment or question, a tradition accepted on both sides of the House of Commons. He was expressing the distinction made between ad hoc committees of cabinet, formed to help in the orderly dispatch of business, and statutory committees. The names of those serving on the former are not made known by the administration. We will later examine some reasons why this practice commends itself to governments.
3262	COMMONS DEBATES	February 5# 1970
Cabinet Committees and Membership
Reticence about cabinet committees runs like a thread through parliamentary records. The Hon. Robert Winters, asked about the work of a special cabinet committee on labour matters, replied:
Subject to correction, I do not believe it has been the policy to report to this House on the work of cabinet committees. If I am wrong, I would be glad to be so informed.
He was not corrected.
In June, 1966, the Minister of National Revenue-the hon. gentleman is now the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson)-declined to give the names of the members of the Treasury Board and said:
-as this is a cabinet committee, I should not like to disclose the names of ministers-
Perhaps the Minister of National Revenue of that day was too cautious. Mr. Diefenbaker had, in 1959, tabled an Order in Council listing the members of the Treasury Board, a statutory committee set up "pursuant to the Financial Administration Act." Nowadays, the Treasury Board is regarded "as a separate ministry with a separate deputy minister and its own staff", to quote the words of Mr. Benson on May 31, 1966. It is evidently quite different in nature to the other committees of cabinet.
The Hon. Judy LaMarsh, looking back on her days in office, said:
The Cabinet's Committee on broadcasting was chaired by the Prime Minister. Although it has never been the practice to make the personnel of such Committees public, for some reason Mr. Pearson himself did so.
The Trudeau administration reduced the number of cabinet committees, gave them more power of decision and speeded up the whole process of committee work. Anthony Westell, that great newspaper columnist, reporting on these changes said-


An hon. Member:: A government apologist.


James Edgar Walker: This government needs no apologist. He said:
It has not been the practice to name ministers serving on cabinet committees and Mr. Trudeau refused to announce committee membership yesterday".
It is clear from these examples that the custom of not supplying lists of members of cabinet committees has been followed and defended by several administrations.
Bourinot gives reasons why motions for production of papers may be refused. If one considers a list of cabinet committee members as a paper, the arguments of Bourinot are

pertinent. It would be futile to contend that the safety of the state would be endangered or any serious harm done if cabinet committee names became known, but a government may rightly claim that, as Mr. Diefenbaker said in 1959, the way in which a cabinet does business is "its own domestic affair". Hence the ministry may reject inquiries for such lists by arguing with reason that they are confidential.
During discussion of a motion for production of a list of consultants said to have been prepared in the Postmaster General's office Mr. Pickersgill, then Secretary of State, said it was apparent from page 258 of May's 14th edition that:
-the only kind of documents for which motions can properly appear on the order paper are papers and correspondence of a public and official character sought from government departments-
This is not a government rule, this is a rule of the people who are recognized as authorities on parliamentary procedure.
Speaker Macnaughton on the same occasion remarked:
The general principle concerning the character of papers which may be asked for is set out in May's sixteenth edition, page 270, where it is stated: "Parliament is invested with the power of ordering all documents to be laid before it, which are necessary for its information."
Some would argue that it is not necessary for Parliament to know the makeup of cabinet committees any more than it is essential for the conduct of the business for Parliament to know the contents of messages passing between the federal and provincial cabinets.
We should note in passing that Speaker Macnaughton commented:
There is no rule which states that confidential documents may not be asked for, and in some instances what are ordinarily considered to be confidential documents are tabled.
This is not to argue that when confidential papers are requested they must be tabled.
Tradition is based on unwritten rules to some extent, particularly parliamentary tradition. There is the custom that new ministers do not look back at the conclusions of the earlier administration but follow the well established practice of parliamentary government, by putting aside their conclusions. This is now a practice entrenched in our system. One may contend that refusing to disclose the composition of cabinet committees is a similar time-honoured practice established and maintained because it is useful, even though it may not be based on the kind of logic that one employs in establishing a mathematical proposition.
February 5, 1970	COMMONS
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
There are other considerations I wish to place on the record because the hon. member's speech will read very well tomorrow if one does not take into consideration that there are some very good Parliamentary precedents for the refusal of the government in this instance to make public to the House the composition of certain cabinet committees. Sir Ivor Jennings mentions the rule that, generally speaking, information should not be given about existing cabinet committees lest the responsibility of the departmental ministers be undermined. There would be danger that the chairman of a cabinet committee might be regarded as the exponent of government policy rather than the departmental minister.
Lord Morrison explains that during the war it was made known that the prime minister was chairman of the defence committee of cabinet and the Lord President co-ordinator of information services because, for special reasons, Parliament and the people should be aware of these functions. But it is inherent in the cabinet system that decisions of cabinet are supported by all ministers, even though in discussions leading to decisions ministers differ.
Secrecy about what occurs in cabinet is a vital part of the system. It is one of the elements that helps an administration perform heavy and complex tasks and ensure cabinet solidarity. The anonymity of committees appears to be a safeguard for this secrecy. Departmental ministers have the duty of defending their conduct of office in Parliament and may be rightly questioned about matters coming within their responsibility. However, it is not part of the responsibilities of ministers who happen to be chairmen or members of ad hoc or other committees to answer in Parliament for cabinet decisions taken in committee but affecting one or more departments. So, this is not as simple a proposition as the hon. member would make it. The committee is ultimately responsible to the cabinet as a whole and to the Prime Minister rather than to Parliament.
I wanted to place this argument on the record, Mr. Speaker, I do not say that many of the motions for the production of papers on the order paper are frivolous, but I should like to point out that I do not believe, up until this point, there has been any detailed answer other than just a government refusal to produce the papers. Now, we have an answer which gives some background in respect of 21611-67J
DEBATES	3263
Cabinet Committees and Membership the reason the government has taken this position on this particular matter of cabinet committees.
I could cover the broader subject, but as I said at the beginning I would rather speak on the specific point about cabinet committees. I believe the hon. member has other motions on the order paper. I think there is one which deals with correspondence between the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and a certain scientific council. Later on when these motions come up I have a more thoroughly researched document which I shall place on the record which I hope will be of assistance to the hon. member. Then, I am sure he will be in a position to go out and acquaint his constituents and others with some of the traditional rules and precedents of Parliament. Therefore, if we are to have proper government operation, not always but from time to time, it is in the public interest and in the parliamentary tradition that these specific names not be revealed.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, may I say at the outset that I had not intended to take part in this debate. However, I am baffled by the remarks of the parliamentary secretary. I cannot help but think back to a year and a half ago when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was campaigning and portrayed an image of his party. Now, today, we hear the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister attempting to justify the activities of the government on the ground of rules and precedents. He has quoted authorities of years gone by to justify the government's refusal to divulge certain information. This is the government which went to the people and said: We are a different political party. We are not the same as we were last year or the year before. We will do things in a different way. We will bring government to the people and allow the people to participate. We are asking the people to become involved. We are throwing away some of the needless old traditions about which one hears so much.
The only justification the parliamentary secretary has given us this afternoon is that traditionally, according to all the precedents he has dug up, this is just not the thing to do. He has based his case strictly on these arguments. This is really baffling when it comes from a government which has called for participatory democracy. More and more we see, not participatory democracy but participatory autocracy, on the part of people in the Prime Minister's office. This is the sort of thing
February 5, 1970
3264	COMMONS
Cabinet Committees and Membership which bothers me more and more as time goes on. If the government is to be so sensitive in respect of something as minor as revealing the names of people on cabinet committees, then what is to be the situation in respect of the major issues of the day. If we are to rely so much on tradition in respect of a matter of this size and significance, on what are we to rely in respect of some of the social matters of significance we will have to face in the future.
I think many people who realize the nature of the reply we have received today in respect of a matter of this size will also realize very quickly the type of government we have. I believe many people have been misled. I am sure the people are beginning to realize this. I think the action of the government with regard to the production of papers in this instance will expedite this realization very rapidly. I and other members of Parliament at times do wish to know about the composition of the cabinet committees of this government. We desire this information because there are certain issues with which we are concerned. In my case, the desired information may have to do with the cabinet committee on agriculture or finance. The members of such committees will have great influence on the type of policy adopted. Such information is of great significance. I am sure it was of great significance in respect of the decision as to whether or not Canada should remain in NATO. I would think that the composition of that particular committee would be of importance.
I would have liked to have had this information. I was in favour of Canada withdrawing from NATO. Many other members wished Canada to remain in NATO. Regardless of our position, I believe many of us would have liked to know who the members were who influenced the decision of the committee. So, without taking up any more time on this issue, I would ask that we completely reevaluate the situation because it is a ridiculous one. We are moving further and further away from participatory democracy. We are moving toward participatory autocracy.


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: Mr. Speaker, the closing remarks of the hon. member who has just spoken might have been prophetic when he said this is absolutely ridiculous, but I think it applies to the motion. The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) spoke at great length about the destruction of Parliament and democracy, as if the composi-


tion of a cabinet committee had anything at all to do with Parliament.
e (5:30 p.m.)
Let us suppose that we knew who were the members of each cabinet committee. Then what? Shall you reproach all ministers on such a committee dealing with one particular subject? Shall you blame, or shall you attach any responsibility to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), the Minister of External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cote) for policy on natural resources, if they happen to be sitting on that committee? Surely, ministerial responsibility attaches to the minister in charge of the department, and it does not much matter who is on the committee.
Hon. members opposite have misunderstood the Prime Minister's purpose and reason. At one time all issues were discussed more or less among all members of the cabinet, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has said, "To make it more efficient we will break it up so that issues are discussed by certain committees, but the whole cabinet and the government take the responsibility." Let us suppose that the membership of a committee is changed. Shall the Prime Minister inform the hon. member for Winnipeg North of all the changes he intends to make in the composition of that cabinet committee? Shall he send him memos of what is to be discussed? To suggest this is utter nonsense.
Democracy and this House are in danger, but they are more in danger from the perversion of the rules with respect to Notices of Motions. The purpose of Notices of Motions is to give an hon. member an honest opportunity to call for papers which are needed and which should be debated. I shall read the names of the members who have Notices of Motions on today's Order Paper. Starting from the first one and continuing to the last, they are: Mr. Orlikow, Mr. Broadbent, Mr. Broadbent, Mr. Skoberg, Mr. Burton, Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre), Mr. Orlikow, Mr. Burton, Mr. Harding, Mr. Howard (Skeena), Mr. Mather, Mr. Harding, Mr. Orlikow, Mr. Gilbert, Mr. Gilbert, Mr. Gilbert, Mr. Saltsman, Mr. Saltsman, Mr. Saltsman, Mr. Howard (Skeena), Mr. Saltsman, Mr. Orlikow, Mr. Orlikow, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Orlikow.
Then we come to Mr. Comeau. How in the world did he ever get in there? I continue: Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre), Mr. Skoberg, Mr. Skoberg, Mr. Skoberg, Mrs Maclnnis, Mr. Saltsman, Mrs. Maclnnis, Mr
February 5, 1970

Gleave, Mr. Peters, Mr. Broadbent, Mr. Sko-berg, Mr. Burton, Mr. Thomson (Battleford-Kindersley), Mr. Burton, Mr. Orlikow, Mr. Skoberg, Mr. Skoberg.
The rules are not being followed. They are being abused by that party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steven Otto: None of these motions is sincerely meant to be put. They were devised secretly by that little research organization that they have over there, who think of everything to monopolize all the opportunities to speak, whether it is for private members' bills or Notices of Motions. In that way they will destroy Parliament, not the members of committees of the cabinet.
It is said that the government has refused to accept 90 per cent of these motions. Mr. Speaker, the government is justified in refusing to accept 100 per cent of them. They are not meant sincerely; they are merely for partisan purposes. That party has no intention at all of making this House more effective. It wants merely to embarrass the parliamentary system.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If I read the expression on your face correctly, sir, I believe you were about to suggest the same point of order. I have no objection to the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) disagreeing with what we are doing-I quite enjoy his attacks-but I am afraid that as a Member of Parliament I cannot accept the charge that we do not put these motions on the Order Paper sincerely; that we do not want the information that is asked for in them.
My name was mentioned two or three times. One of the motions in my name seeks a study by the Department of Labour on the minimum wage; another seeks the Willard reports and reviews on social security. Mr. Speaker, I was never more sincere in my life in asking for documents of that kind, particularly the Willard report. The government may want to deny it to me, may even have reason to deny it to me; but it is not the privilege of the hon. member to question my motive or to say that I do not sincerely want that information, and I am sure he would like to correct what he has said.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order-


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for York East.
DEBATES	3265
Cabinet Committees and Membership


David Orlikow: I rise on the same point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) made a suggestion at the conclusion of his point of order, and I anticipated that perhaps the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) wanted to respond. It seems to me a reasonable suggestion, and I am sure the hon. member for York East would want to respond to it. Therefore, I recognize the hon. member for York East.


Mr.   Olio@: Mr. Speaker, if you review my remarks you will find that I said it was the party, the NDP Party. I did not say it was any of the members. In fact, I also said it was the party organization and the research assistants employed by that party who do all this; and if my motives were imputed, it was to them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
the point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member directly named us. He directly named me. He singled out motions that are mine, and he is now saying that I was not sincere in giving notice of my motions, particularly the one with regard to the Willard report. He says that it was put at the suggestion of the research people. I deny that categorically. If anybody in this House needs to be told of my interest in social security matters, and that I do not need to be prompted on that subject, surely it is not the hon. member. The offer I made to him to modify his language was one that in all wisdom he should have accepted.


David Orlikow: I rise on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not quite the easygoing gentleman that my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is. I knew, when the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) was speaking, that he was abusing his privileges, that he was imputing motives to me and to other members which he had no right to do; but I considered the source it was coming from. There may be stupider members of the House, but they know enough to keep quiet. Under the circumstances, I did not think it worth while to get up.


Steven Otto: Well, it wasn't worth while for you to get up.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order, please. I am not quite sure where this leaves us, but in view of the exchange we have had the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre might like to make a suggestion.
3266	COMMONS
Agriculture Consultant Studies


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the imputation of motives on both sides be withdrawn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sure that is a reasonable suggestion and that it would be agreed to by all hon. members. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Motion negatived, on division.
Motion negatived.
CONSULTANT STUDIES^-DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


John Leroy Skoberg: That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all outside consultant studies undertaken for the Department of Agriculture as mentioned in answer to question No, 1,323, tabled on June 25, 1969, as reported in Hansard on page 10597.
He said: Mr. Speaker, before asking the minister whether or not he is prepared to accept this motion I think it only proper that we look at the question that is before us, look at the answer that was received, and see whether there was any reason why it should not be placed on the Order Paper as a Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I was somewhat amused-and understandably so-by the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) in his latest barrage of inaccuracies. This follows along the line of what is wrong with this House of Commons today- the complete misunderstanding of hon. mem-

DEBATES	February 5, 1970
bers from central Canada of the problems affecting the west and the Maritimes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Leroy Skoberg: Listening to the hon. member for York East when he spoke today, and on an earlier occasion when I raised the question of notice for the production of papers, one could see that he is a strong supporter of political patronage in its worst form. If the hon. member would read "The Rise and Pall of the Third Reich," he would realize that this party in particular is determined that all documents shall be public and that all newspapers shall have access to them so they can inform the country in an enlightened way.
The hon. member for York West (Mr. Givens) appeared on television recently and suggested that because 80 per cent of the population of Canada lives in large urban centres, this House should devote 80 per cent of its time to the people of those areas. But, Mr. Speaker, 42 per cent of the people of Canada are either directly or indirectly connected with agriculture. It seems, however, that the people of central Canada are completely unaware of the importance of the agricultural economy.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: That is not a fair charge.


John Leroy Skoberg: It is most important, Mr. Speaker, that every Member of Parliament ask this government for all papers pertaining to those things that are important to the people of this country. It is no wonder the west is seriously talking of secession. It is time, before the patient dies, that the government look at this serious situation in an enlightened manner. I sincerely hope that members from central Canada will never sit on a committee looking at the problems of the east, or the west, because they do not understand them.
I should like to ask whether the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) is prepared to accept some of this report I have before me in regard to my notice for the production of papers. I know the minister is well aware of the situation in regard to farming throughout Canada and its importance to our economy. I am given to understand that he may be prepared to supply some of this information. In the event that he is not, I wish to complete some of the statements I have to make at this time.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: When the hon. member has finished his speech, I shall make mine.
February 5, 1970	COMMONS


John Leroy Skoberg: It then appears, Mr. Speaker, that the minister is not prepared to produce the papers.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, it does not mean that at all. If the hon. member wants to be in committee of the whole, that is a different situation.


John Leroy Skoberg: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I thought we could find out whether the minister is aware of the situation as it pertains to this particular report.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: You will find out as soon as I make my speech.


John Leroy Skoberg: Although the minister comes from the west, it seems that he is not concerned. Too often in this House things that should be made public, for the benefit of all concerned, are kept private. All this report asks for is certain documents. If some documents are highly privileged, or could be embarrassing to the government, I could understand. I am very surprised that the minister would not make public, right now what has been asked for in the report and thus put a stop to this discussion.
The report says that in 1963-64 there was competitive tendering on various consultant studies; but as time goes on we find that there was no competitive tendering as far as this report is concerned. It is important to note that the report states as follows:
Please note that the foregoing does not include special studies commissioned by the federal task force on agriculture.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, it is not necessary for me to remind the minister of the serious economic plight of the west. He knows as well as I that the people are quite prepared to accept situations that cannot be remedied immediately. If they get the reports, they can read them themselves; they can digest them and assess the situation as it exists.
In 1964-65 two studies on financial management were competitively tendered, but the study in 1965-66 was not tendered. The hon. member for York East suggested the other day that my knowledge of competitive tendering, and tendering generally, was somewhat limited. But I can assure him that I know that tenders are either private or invitational. I am sure that no one in this House would deny that invitational tenders smack of political patronage, and I believe it is up to us to do something about it. That is one of the reasons why so many notices for the produc-
DEBATES	3267
Agriculture Consultant Studies tion of papers appear in the name of this party, Mr. Speaker. I make no apology for this. I am prepared to accept my responsibility for any notice for the production of papers. The reason is very evident, and I am sure you will find that the people of Canada are prepared to accept the same reasoning.
Mr. Speaker, the book "Listen to the World" spells out the British system. It seems odd that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Mr. Walker) would come here and quote history when we know quite well that the younger generation will not listen to us if we continue this train of thought.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Leroy Skoberg: I quote from this book as follows:
Under the British system, which is ours, no political party can erect a prohibitory barrier to prevent the electors from getting information concerning the policy of government. Freedom of discussion is essential to enlighten public opinion in a democratic state; it cannot be curtailed without affecting the right of the people to be informed through sources independent of the government concerning matters of public interest. There must be an untrammelled publication of the news and political opinions of the political parties contending for ascendancy.
Perhaps the minister will now state that he will make available the various reports asked for. I do not think that is too much to ask, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Richardson) recently stated that he plans to hire a firm of consultants to make an examination of the entire government pay system. The same thing would apply here. All I am asking is that these reports be made public and that in practically all cases they be opened up for competitive tendering.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I think some of the remarks ;made by the hon. member who moved this motion, with respect to alienation of westerners or easterners, and that sort of thing, are completely irrelevant to the motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: As a matter of fact, he would have a very difficult time pointing at me and claiming to be more of a westerner than I am. I come from a part of the country that is probably farther west than his, and perhaps I have had as much experience as him, or even a little more, in that part of Canada in deal-
February 5, 1970

Agriculture Consultant Studies ing with economic problems and many other matters.


William Arnold Peters: And in raising hell.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I do not accept the hon. member's arguments. In fact, I do not think they are related at all. What the hon. member is asking, if you are to accept his argument, is that all documents relating to these consultant studies be made public. With respect to the hon. member's request for the list of such studies tabled in the House during the previous session in response to question No. 1,323, may I say that 19 consultant studies were undertaken between 1963 and the present year and I am prepared to show each and every one of them to the hon. member and, indeed, to any other hon. member of this House.


John Leroy Skoberg: What about the press?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am not prepared to put the public to great expense and reproduce all these documents in response to this kind of motion so that there will be copies for the hon. member and all hon. members of the House, and goodness knows how many thousand copies the hon. member might require in order to make the documents a matter of public information.


Mr. Bigg:: It is not necessary to print them.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The government has a responsibility to do what is reasonable and to do those things that are useful and reasonable, having regard to the expense involved.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I quite agree.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I hope the hon. member will withdraw his Notice of Motion. I will undertake that every one of the 19 consultant studies referred to in his motion will be shown to him and to any other hon. members who may wish to see them, at any time they want to see them, if only they will give us reasonable advance notice as to when they want to see them.
There is nothing in these 19 studies that is so confidential as to make us unwilling to show them. We are not trying to hide anything. This motion and many others like it on the Order Paper would require us to produce thousands and thousands of copies of the kind of material requested. To me that would involve an unjustifiable public expense and that is why I cannot accept the motion the way it is worded. It seems to me that it would

be better for the hon. member to withdraw his motion.
I will see to it that he obtains these consultative reports or has a chance to look at them and read them. In future, if we have any such reports, if they are not confidential or involve security or like matters he is also welcome to look at those. There is no problem with regard to the 19 studies alluded to. They form 100 per cent of the list the hon. member has asked for. I therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.
If he chooses not to do that, we can vote on the motion. But even if the motion is defeated I will show the hon. member every one of the 19 consultative studies if he will give us reasonable notice as to when he wishes to look at them or read them.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, will the minister permit a question? Will he agree to make available to the press, under the same conditions, copies of all the consultants' reports? Also, is it not correct that whenever the government has received consultants' reports, only one copy has been made available to the member requesting same? Why is the minister, therefore, talking of thousands of copies that will be needed?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The hon. member's remarks seem to reinforce my argument. Is he arguing that the members of the public and all hon. members of the House are entitled to these documents, or is he saying that he is the only member who should see them? I do not understand him. I know that we table two copies of such reports, and these are available for hon. members of the House to see. Usually enough are printed for all hon. members to have a copy. It seems to me that the hon. member is asking for consultant studies that go all the way back to 1963, some six to seven years. We do not produce that many copies of each one, but the hon. member can see a copy of every study.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Speaker, I do not suppose the government needs me to defend it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Oh, yes, it does.


Mr. Mongrain:: The hon. member's kind words are always welcome.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: As a responsible member of this House, and as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I have often wondered when the dumping of alarming amounts of
February 5, 1970

printed paper on my desk every day of every week is going to end. For how long can our forests stand this drain of wood used in the manufacture of paper? I fill several wastepa-per baskets several times a week and throw out the paper which I do not want and would not order for myself in any circumstances. It clutters up our mail boxes. If we received less of this type of mail, and more legitimate mail, perhaps our postal facilities would not be so jammed and perhaps the pressure could be taken off the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans).
If Notices of Motions requested papers which enabled hon. members to become "genned-up", perhaps we would accept them unanimously. But requests of the kind now before us, which might involve the production of many thousands of pieces of printed paper, are beyond the capacity of our present staff to fulfil. This Notice of Motion goes too far. In case anyone thinks I am here to hand out bouquets, let me say that I think we have far too large a staff as it is. We should not waste public funds and the time of public servants. We must stop this terrific waste of paper and this terrific waste of the public's time in producing a mountain of useless information. As it is, the work of the Public Accounts Committee is behind. I am perfectly certain that if the hon. member wishes to obtain this type of information, he can obtain it.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Marchand (Langelier) that Bill C-138, to amend the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Development.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I am sure most members who were in the House this afternoon listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon.
DEBATES	3269
Cape Breton Development Corporation Act member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis) and the hon. member for Cape Bre-ton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir). This bill raises many questions for hon. members from other parts of the country. I had the distinction of being a miner for 15 years, and I am very sympathetic to miners in other parts of the country because there is a great similarity in the problems of the various mining communities. Many miners move from one community to another; they are probably the original transient workers of our nation.
I have been very sympathetic to the problem that has developed in Cape Breton over the years. These miners have not had the benefit of the same wages as miners in other parts of the country in the last few years, because of the position in their industry. Because of the interest of hon. members in this situation we undertook to provide the funds necessary to establish Devco, which was to end many of the problems plaguing miners in the Maritime provinces.
Some hon. members who participated in the debate a year ago said that possibly it would be better to pay all the miners in Cape Breton a pension and forget about the whole operation. They suggested that perhaps a more viable operation should be established which would provide employment for the people in that area. They felt it would probably be wise to use the money we were going to spend and pay each miner $5,000 or $6,000 a year until a reasonable retirement age, and close down the operation entirely. The minister of the day, when piloting the Devco legislation through the House, led us to believe that a number of things could be done with the complex in Sydney, and that Devco would not only undertake reclaiming some of the operations in the mines in that area but would expand into other fields.
We listened with interest to the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond. I learned something that I did not know; I read several letters written by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) which indicated that this must have been contemplated at the time of the establishment of Devco, that is, the unemployment insurance fund would be used to supplement the act which stated there would be a $3,000 retirement fund established for each miner.
I am sure that the miners as well as most Members of Parliament believed that the unemployment insurance fund would be used in a normal manner, and that the moneys we had appropriated would be in addition to this
3270	COMMONS DEBATES	February 5. 1970
Cape Breton Development Corporation Act and not part of it. Certainly the unemployment insurance fund is not the type of fund that can be used to get over difficulties in which the government finds itself. It is still an insurance plan under, presumably, an impartial commission which operates in accordance with regulations it has established. Obviously, in this case it did not establish a regulation. The regulation established by the government and operated by Devco allowed them to integrate the amount that would be paid from the unemployment insurance fund to the workers as part of the $3,000 settlement that the miners were to receive. Three thousand dollars is not a very large sum for the pension plan of an industry in which many miners have spent 20 or 30 years.
I think the amount they normally would have received from the unemployment insurance fund should have taken into consideration the fact that the men were available for work and then, as in other parts of Canada, at the end of a certain period other parts of the Unemployment Insurance Act would come into effect. This would mean transferring the workers to areas of high employment. This obviously was not done. There must have been some very dishonest people working in the unemployment insurance office, because these people were not available for work in the true sense of the word. This must have been known to the Unemployment Insurance Commission. There was obviously collusion between these two groups.
When speaking in a debate involving another bill for which the Minister of Regional Economic Development (Mr. Marchand) was responsible, I mentioned that a number of schemes have been operated in the Mari-times. One of them involved a heavy water plant in the same general area as Devco. I suggested at that time there should be legislation which would pick up the tab for whatever must be done to either establish or dispose of the liability for the heavy water plant in Cape Breton. If the government intends to get into this project, I believe it should do so by the front door, not by the back door.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
I am sure most hon. members would support the government in any decision to put some money into the heavy water plant, though I believe we would all demand a much greater degree of control over the operation of that plant. We would probably demand that the Atomic Energy Commission give serious consideration to whether it was right in

the advice it gave about the best way of producing atomic power. The question as to whether heavy water or enriched uranium is the better material in these circumstances should be decided before Canada is called upon to spend any more money in this direction. We should be making a decision on this question.
The bill, in part, would allow the government, through Devco, to do something about this situation, because it would permit large sums of money to be borrowed. If the operation is not satisfactory, we shall have to pick up the tab anyway, in the event of bankruptcy, and I would prefer assistance to be provided openly rather than through the back door.
Some charges have been made with regard to management. These charges are serious and should be investigated. If staff are being brought from England, and in particular from the National Coal Board Whose history is not without calamities, and the appointments include people who cannot operate well in a Canadian context, we should be doing something about the situation.
To judge from the speeches made so far, there is general acceptance of Mr. Campbell; most hon. members have paid tribute to his accomplishments. He is a tough customer, I understand, and he will probably be approaching the government shortly with demands for a clean-up as an alternative to his ceasing to be chairman of the operation.
What we are being asked, in effect, is to confer important new borrowing capacity upon a corporation which, apparently, has not succeeded in doing the job for which it was established. In his outline of the legislation the minister told us that the bill sought to add only two relatively minor amendments to the act which is now in operation. I do not think this approach was entirely fair. If the present legislation is not working as anticipated, when the minister appears before the committee he will be obliged to provide answers to some of the important questions which have been raised. If not, we will have a new minister.


Jean Marchand: Yourself?


William Arnold Peters: There is no need for hon. members to travel personally to the Maritimes to find out whether these projects are working effectively. When the representatives from the Maritimes express their views in this House as strongly as they did today, I for one
February 5, 1970

am prepared to allow that they know what they are talking about-that all is not well.
By simply pouring, say, another $100 million into a sick institution we are not accomplishing much for the institution and we are certainly not making the best possible use of the $100 million. Of course, I have no doubt that the bill will be passed. Politics enter into these considerations and I realize that a political decision will be made in the end. However, I am interested not so much in the politics of the decision as in whether we are doing the right thing by passing this bill, in light of the charges which have been made, supposing that those charges reflect the opinions of the people in the area most directly concerned. The bill refers to $100 million. I do not believe that in Canada we have this kind of money to throw away.
I have been shocked by what I have read, and seen on television, in connection with the heavy water plant. I know this was intended as a big experiment likely to provide additional industry in Nova Scotia. It was felt that a plant of this kind could lead to the establishment of many subsidiary industries in the area and would serve as a base for industrial development. It has not done this. Similarly, we were given to understand that by establishing Devco we were establishing a national agency which would take over from the former owners of the coal industry and provide the people of the area with a viable economic base-an industrial base capable of expansion.
The people who live in the area have a right to assistance, in my opinion, and I believe the people of Canada generally are willing to provide such assistance. But I, for one, am unwilling to provide $100 million as a basis for industrial development if the arrangements which have been established do not appear to be working.
The situation is comparable to that of the Company of Young Canadians, to the extent that one can let things ride for so long, in fact, until poor administration and bad management destroy the principle which it was intended to establish. Something like this is happening in the case of Devco. The minister may not have talked to the people who live in this area. Cape Breton people are, I know, highly political and extremely vocal in expressing their opinions, so this may be a highly political issue.
Nevertheless, if this agency is not working in the opinion of the average guy employed in the mines, or if the man who has been laid 21611-68i
DEBATES	3271
Cape Breton Development Corporation Act off and finds himself unemployed feels that the program is not in his interest, we have not done the right thing. In that case we do not need more, but less of it and we should set up a thorough investigation to find out whether the charges which have been made today are correct.
I listened to the speech of my hon. friend from York South (Mr. Lewis). He has visited Cape Breton Island many times and has many connections with the mineworkers' unions and other organizations there. Others among my hon. friends also have personal knowledge of conditions there. They are all of the opinion that the charges which we have heard are correct that there are abuses in the management of Devco and that the corporation has failed to produce the results it was established to produce. In these circumstances, the provision of another $100 million in borrowing power will not improve the situation.
In coming to Parliament for additional powers at this time, the corporation should be prepared to provide Parliament with an assessment of what has been accomplished to date. In what way has it eased the problems existing in the mining industry? Further, the corporation should provide Parliament with an indication of what use it intends to make of the resources which we are being asked to provide. If these things cannot be done, I think we would be well advised to vote against this legislation.
I am well aware of the consequences for the people of the maritimes, particularly of Cape Breton, who are in desperate straits. There has been little expansion of industry in the region; a large proportion of the population has moved from the island, leaving behind people who cannot easily be retrained to take employment in new enterprises. Devco was established to eliminate these problems, but apparently has been unsuccessful.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I suggest that the minister is shouldering a dual responsibility. I also suggest he may get into a great deal of trouble with me in the future in light of his background, which has consisted of working in the interests of those who have not had their share of the good life. In this regard he has accomplished things. He has, I am sure, been able considerably to raise the standard of living of those he has represented. In doing so he has also been able to increase his own ability and knowledge.
Now he has a personal responsibility to the people we want to help, and his knowledge of
February 5, 1970
3272	COMMONS DEBATES
Cape Breton Development Corporation Act the problems and needs of people puts him in a special category. The minister really cannot say that he does not understand. He has represented people working in industries where there is no pension plan. He has represented people who have not received a fair reward over long periods of time. The minister has seen workers who were left in less than advantageous circumstances and who either retired or were forced to retire.
So I repeat that the minister does have an obligation to meet. So long as he holds this portfolio we have the right to expect him to make more than just an average contribution to these people whom he represents and whose problems he understands. I suggest he will have to make this kind of contribution. Certainly he will have to indicate that he is making this contribution when he appears before the committee otherwise I would be prepared to vote against this legislation on third reading.


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whii-by):: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to rise at this point in the debate since normally I like a little more time to prepare what I am going to say. I have just returned, literally within the hour, from Sydney which I visited last evening and today.


An hon. Member:: An instant expert!


John Edward Broadbent: By no means do I claim to be an instant expert. I regret not being here to follow what has been said both by the minister and by members on this side of the House.
One thing I should like to convey to the ministers, in all seriousness, is the general feeling or atmosphere which I found in the Sydney area. It seems to me that, whatever the cause, there is overwhelming discontent in this part of Nova Scotia. I come from another industrial part of the country, one that is relatively well off, where there is relatively full employment and good industrial relationships, relatively speaking. Therefore, it was a rather unique experience for me to move into an area where there are unionized workers and firms that have established themselves for many years, and to find the kind of bitter frustration and antagonism which I observed in the Cape Breton area. I inform the minister that this is a genuine feeling that exists in the province, and the minister should be under no illusion that this sense of discontent and frustration is likely to pass quickly.

Without going into the details of this bill, may I try to suggest to the minister the kind of problems about which the people of the area spoke to me. First of all, there was a feeling that things were being done to them, rather than by them or with them. There was the feeling that somehow outsiders were imposing their will on the people of the area, and there was little confidence that the outcome would be any better than what exists at the present time.
Second, and directly related to this, of course, was the feeling that the people themselves have had no active say in the operations of Devco. They have not been consulted about what should take the place of the mining industry there. They have not been asked to make any proposals, even with regard to the limited kind of tourist industry that has been newly established. They would like to play some role in this kind of decision-making.
I understand that the House was a little excited this afternoon by some rather blunt language from this side of the House, and some blunt language may be coming from the minister in reply. But I want to repeat to the minister that if the language this afternoon was blunt and forceful, it was probably a very accurate reflection of the feelings of the people in the Sydney and Glace Bay area in particular.
What I should like to suggest at this point is that the Committee on Regional Development move quicky into that area. I suggest this committee not wait a couple of months or until something serious develops in the form of violence; instead, I suggest that very soon the committee visit the Devco site itself. This committee, composed of members on both sides of the House, should make a genuine effort to understand the views of three sets of people. They should listen to the Devco officials. Then they should listen to the union leaders. Above all, they should talk to some of the people there who have this very genuine feeling, which I think has a great deal of foundation, that they are being unjustly dealt with.
It seems to me that this is the least we can do. The expense to the government would be minimal. The committee need not spend a week there; I suspect that two days would be quite sufficient to have frank talks with the people of the area. The committee could determine the basis for their grievances and see whether they are legitimately grounded.
February 5, 1970

The committee could see, in short, whether the minister has been right in what he has told the House-though I am not suggesting he has attempted to be dishonest, or anything like that.
It is my impression that if this effort is made there will be certain basic changes made, to the legislation if we act appropriately, and to the management attitude of Devco if they act appropriately. I cannot emphasize too much the feeling I had that violence, real violence, could break out at any time in this area. Anything that can be done to de-fuse the situation, to let the people of the area know that we, in this relatively distant place of Ottawa, are concerned at what is happening, should be done. Therefore, I close my remarks with the suggestion that the committee move into the area as quickly as possible and discuss with the people involved the problems that are facing Cape Breton.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I must inform the House that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, if I were not aware that there would be an early opportunity to answer all the questions raised in the House this afternoon, I would now go to the trouble of answering each and everyone of them. But I know that I will soon have the occasion to discuss with the hon. members in committee all the problems brought up in the course of the present proceedings.
To my mind all those who know anything of the problems involved in economic development realize how difficult it is for the government, as well as for a Crown corporation or any other agency, to ensure economic planning and development. This is not a simple matter in Canada, not any more than in the United States, England, Sweden or anywhere else. It is a complex and difficult process and I believe that, in its efforts to spur economic growth, it is desirable that the government be continuously submitted to sound criticism in order to reset its sights if need be.
I do not come here professing to be the saviour or healer who has instantaneously solved the problems of underdevelopment in Canada. On the contrary, I come very humbly knowing full well that results so far have not been satisfactory, nor tailored to the size of existing problems in Canada. Therefore I do not rise to apologize inconsiderately for our
DEBATES	3273
Cape Breton Development Corporation Act policy but simply to dispel impressions and question some statements made earlier this afternoon.
What I find hard to take is not that the government or a minister is attacked, because I have often been a target in my life, so that I have become inured. I for one have also often attacked. So I find all this quite normal.
However, there is an unfair and negative way to attack, particularly when the attacks do not lead to fire correction, and thus get off target. Such is the type of attacks that have been made this afternoon.
After all, the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis) criticized the vice-president of Devco, asking the minister to get rid of him. I do not know why, but the hon. member does not seem to agree with him, and he talked at great length about him. I suggest that the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond should at least read the legislation.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to ask the minister a question?


Jean Marchand: My remarks will be very short, but all right.


Donald MacInnis: I want to ask the minister this question to his face before he terminates the debate. I will ask him only one question at this time. Does he agree with the representations made by Mr. Blackmore?


Jean Marchand: This is not what I am talking about, Mr. Speaker. I think all this will be discussed in the committee. If the hon. gentleman is there, I think we can discuss it. I am not going to make a trial of Mr. Blackmore's position here in the House- surely not.

Mr. Speaker, anyone who had taken the trouble to just read the act, which is not complicated, could have seen that the vicepresident is appointed by the board of directors and not by the minister. What do the members of the opposition want? That I control Devco? They would then be the first to say: the government wants to control that Crown corporation, depriving it of the autonomy needed for its operations. And there would of course be pathetic speeches on centralization.
The vice-president of Devco reports to the board of directors and more specifically
February 5, 1970

Cape Breton Development Corporation Act to the chairman. There is a new chairman oi the Board. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond says he has confidence in Mr. Cameron. I believe he is right because I also have confidence in Mr. Cameron. It might be the first time that we agree, since I have been sitting in the House. We will let Mr. Cameron act, because he has some authority on the board of directors of the Corporation. If the vice-president ever behaves like the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond suggests, Mr. Cameron, whom he trusts, will also become aware of it.
Then, what do we do? A minister is asked to dismiss someone when it is a well-known fact that he does not have the authority to do so. Evidently, nobody, not even the members of the opposition, except the member concerned, would approve if I were to dismiss the vice-president of a Crown corporation solely on the opinion of the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond. I am rather allergic to those personal attacks. If there are grievances, we could consider them. Most of those he raised this afternoon are unjustified and unfair for those concerned.
I shall point out another injustice. The member for York South (Mr. Lewis), whose intelligence and knowledge of the sector cannot be questioned, told the House that Devco had done nothing in Cape Breton, that it was a "complete failure". This is a serious accusation. He claimed that many of those who worked in this corporation, who are absolutely honest and whose beliefs are similar to those of some opposition members had accomplished nothing in two years. According to him, that was the summary of the government policy in Cape Breton Island, through the Devco Corporation.
In my opinion, this kind of accusation is serious.
One might well say that with the means that were available to Devco, the company could have done better. In point of fact, it did not manage well enough in the area of development. Its achievements as mentioned in its report, were not sufficient, something I can very well understand. But what I do not understand is the statement of the member for York South who says that we have done nothing for the miners and the people of Cape Breton.
Let us consider the facts, even if it is sometimes tedious. Of course, it is less exciting than talking of the exploitation of miners, because that is undoubtedly exciting. One can
IMr. Marchand (Langeller).]
talk of the plight of the miners, of their difficulty to make a living, of that part of their lives they spent down in the mines. I, too, can make this kind of speech; indeed, I have all my life, and this is what is easiest. But what is difficult is to know the facts, and when you have a research staff at your disposal, it seems to me that it is imperative to do so. Now what are the facts? I shall quote only a few of them, not to report on the work of Devco, but only to draw attention to the fact that we have here a gratuitous assertion which I am not prepared to accept from a responsible, intelligent man who is able to check the facts. What has Devco done in the field of development? I can quote here a few of its achievements. Thanks to Devco the Nova Scotia Pulp, for instance, has developed to an extent which would not have been possible without Devco.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
And what does it mean? That at least 1,000 jobs have been generated in the area. People should know that.
Devco has attracted a strontium development company to the area, thus creating employment for 125 persons. An electronic products manufacturing company employs 150 people, thanks to Devco. Gulf Oil has settled down in the Canso strait area, again thanks to Devco. The corporation helped them and made the necessary efforts to make it happen.
The Hustler Company, which is engaged in manufacturing dashboards for trucks, has 175 employees. They caused an apartment building to be erected. This can be criticized, as the hon. member for York South did this afternoon. There is nothing in the Bible that says that people must necessarily build hotels. It is easy to yield to demagoguery by saying that miners do not stay in hotels. That is the easy part. It is more difficult to find technicians when no adequate housing can be offered to them. That is debatable. However, some 1,700 jobs have been created more or less directly by Devco.
That Company had been asked by the House to progressively eliminate work in the coal mines. That is spelled out in the act. However, Devco was asked to find employment for the miners or to find some way to give them a pension. Has Devco endeavoured to carry out this task? They have succeeded in doing something that the miners understand. The miners do, but not the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond-
February 5, 1970


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Jean Marchand: You spoke
enough this afternoon.


Donald MacInnis: The minister keeps bringing my name back into this matter. He is supposed to be explaining to the House what Devco has done. He referred to 1,000-odd jobs provided by Devco. I ask the minister, who says he is interested in the miners, to tell us how many miners got these jobs. On my question of privilege, I want to correct the minister on the remark he made about unsubstantiated charges made-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Jean Marchand: There is no question of privilege.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, you are not without help. The minister in referring to my remarks said-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. This is not a question of privilege. The hon. member had the opportunity this afternoon to make his speech. He has already participated in the debate.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege, how can you rule there is no question of privilege when I have not stated what it is. If Mr. Speaker wants to jump the gun again on behalf of his colleagues in the House-


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


An hon. Member:: The Chair has ruled.


Donald MacInnis: When the minister stands in his place and says I have made baseless accusations against the officers of Devco, he must substantiate it. I can substantiate all the statements I made. They can be supported, and I will support them with no less than a letter written to me by this minister who claims my statement is baseless. I have in my file a letter signed by the minister himself, which makes a liar out of Mr. Blackmore and makes a fool out of the minister.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, that is the only way the hon. member can discuss things. He says that he can prove his charges. He did not say that he had so far.
Cape Breton Development Corporation Act As for me, I am asked to prove that I am right. We are not before a court here. This is probably why one day when he was in my office with the officials of the United Mine Workers of America, the president said at one point: You know, the M.P. does not give our views on the matters we are discussing.
I recognize it was somewhat humiliating. It happened here, in my office, and there were many witnesses. That was not something new for as regards all the problems we had, to cope with, we tried to have consultations with the miners' union, as Devco has done. Problems may not always be solved to their full satisfaction, but the union leaders who are commissioned to speak on their behaf of the miners, do not speak the same language as the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond. It is another story altogether and as for me, I prefer the opinion of the union leaders to that of the hon. member, who spoke to us all afternoon and is still making tonight assertions that are not only false but somewhat "sickly".
At any rate, what I am trying to say- [English]


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond on a question of privilege.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege arises from the fact that the minister has now stated that a statement I made was false. I would ask the minister to substantiate that statement, or do as would be expected of any hon. member in this House and stake his seat on the fact that he can prove it.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I cannot reply to the hon. member as to the number of jobs created for the miners, the list of which I gave a while ago, but I am inclined to believe he is probably right in saying that the majority of those jobs are probably not filled by miners. Although I did not check that assertion, I am ready to admit a priori, that he is right, because such a thing is possible. At any rate, I will check that but I am inclined to think that, in that field, his information is correct.
February 5. 1970
3276	COMMONS DEBATES
Cape Breton Development Corporation Act
However, I must say that the government asked Devco to create new jobs, to see to the development of Cape Breton Island.
I will simply say that the statements by the hon. member for York South disregard the facts. Indeed, they are too general and unjust, not for the government, because this Crown corporation is an independent body that was created by the House of Commons, but surely for Devco which has made efforts that we may analyze together.
To make here in the House a pompous declaration to the effect that nothing has been done by Devco is unfair and irresponsible.
In the field of coal mining, Devco had no compelling reason to make an effort, for instance, to open a new mine. They did open the Linden mine which employs over 1200 workers. Nothing in the legislation compelled them to do so but they were concerned with that problem and they did do something. You may argue that it is not enough, that more could be done. All right, say so, but do not say that nothing has been done. Nobody would dare to come and say that in front of the miners because they would be the first to deny it, as did their authorized representative when he contradicted the hon. member right in my office.
Just consider, for instance, the pensioners and the pre-retirement fund. Surely, this plan is by no means perfect. No doubt it could be much more generous. We could discuss the matter at length. However, there is something striking about the fact that the miners, 55 to 60 years old, were given the choice between going on working or accepting retirement. Do you know how many of them accepted it from their own free will? I am not speaking of those who had to retire. Well, 78 per cent of those between 55 and 60 chose retirement.
So, here is another field open to criticism. You may say it is not perfect but you cannot argue that nothing has been done. It would simply be unfair. It is the hon. members' duty to inform the House and the public accurately.
I do not want to prevent criticism, far from it. People can criticize but taking the facts into account and in a rational way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear. Of course I know-


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question? While he is hot on the subject, I want to ask-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis) wishes to ask a question if the minister will permit it.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member behaved in a civilized way, I would have no objection to it. I never insulted him in the House. Seeing how he respects others, I do not see why I would show him more respect than he shows me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Marchand: I know about the lack of income of the miners. With $3,000 a year, it is not possible to spend the winter in Florida. I have no illusion. I say, however, that if we could repeat the experience made by Devco in all parts of Canada where there are problems, this would prevent a lot of human tragedies which happen every day in the country. I know that several factories are closing down and that the workers are not protected. They do not get a pension. They are not offered any. They are simply flat broke. Ask the former employees of Canadian Vickers in Montreal.
The government took the human factor into consideration and understood the nature of the problem by offering a pension to those who had lost their job or who did not want to work in the mines past a certain age. This can be criticized; if we could do more, we should do it. I have no objection to it. But to pretend that nothing has been done for the Cape Breton miners is an insult to the Canadian people who, with their taxes, try to solve the problem. It was not enough but it can be said that a greater effort has been made there than probably anywhere else.
I am thinking, for instance, about the Bell Island mine, in Newfoundland, and the Lauzon dockyards, in Quebec. It does not mean that it is enough; with more money, we could certainly do better.
Devco is a corporation which tried to do its job but which might not have succeeded fully and-


John Edward Broadbent: Would the minister permit a question? Has the minister investigated himself, or had his officials investigate reports that were given to me within the past 24 hours, that many of the miners accepted early retirement-I agree with the minister that they did so voluntarily-because they were
February 5, 1970	COMMONS
under a mistaken impression of what that entailed?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the pre-retirement plan was accepted by the union, which understood it, studied it and indicated to us that it was satisfactory. If I must choose between the judgment of the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond and that of the executive of the union, I prefer that of the executive. If it is insinuated that the representatives of the United Mine Workers of America did not understand, that they allowed their members to be pushed around, it certainly does not prove much respect for the union leaders in Cape Breton.
I say I have more respect for them than that.
If there have been new developments, I have no objection to studying them. On the contrary, I would be the first to do so. Still, it was recently stated in the House that we received telegrams from the United Mine Workers of America which, in fact, were official interventions. I looked everywhere; I asked Devco to supply me with them; we do not have any. We have received only one protest from the Retired Miners Union, and not from the United Mine Workers of America which officially represents the miners. I saw no other document. If there are any, I would be happy to see them. I should like to make sure that we were not the only ones to have received those documents and that they were in fact addressed to those concerned.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, we will have the opportunity in committee to study more closely each one of the grievances which may have been voiced. We will attempt, in a civilized manner, to determine objectively what the situation is.
What we are asking now is, as I have said, a simple amendment, not a simplistic one. It is not a series of provisions that must be interpreted by comparison with one another, but the bill simply says: We shall authorize the Cape Breton Development Corporation, the DEVCO, to guarantee loans for industrial development to the extent of $100 million. Why? In order to give to DEVCO the same powers which my department enjoys in special areas, which means that DEVCO must not be prevented at some time from developing the area because it has not been authorized to guarantee loans. This is not giving money away, as has been suggested. As a matter of fact, the bill does not provide for that. All the bill provides for is to authorize DEVCO to guarantee loans for industrial development purposes.
DEBATES	3277
Cape Breton Development Corporation Act
Moreover, I am told that this should be done directly by the government. Of course, we shall have occasion to discuss that point with the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), since the corporations set up by the government do not necessarily offer guarantees of success. Besides, the hon. member knows very well that Deuterium of Canada Limited, a corporation controlled by the Nova Scotia government, has not met with much economic success. Because industrial development is carried on by a Crown company does not mean that success is assured automatically.
Anyway, an honest discussion can be entered into, and I am prepared to go along with it any time, except tonight, because now some hon. members are trying to show that this amendment will have very serious consequences, which is not true. It simply puts Devco in respect of the Cape Breton area in a position similar to that of my department in respect of the special areas. No more, no less. Therefore, the point is not to create a precedent, but simply to take steps to prevent the same people charging us with having prevented the development of Cape Breton by refusing to authorize the company to do what is provided for in the amendment.
In fact, it would be very easy to blame the government should we learn one day that a company had been unable to settle in Cape Breton because the government had been mean, had not treated the Island in exactly the same way as the special areas. No doubt we would hear all sorts of comments. We want this company to be unable to find excuses and the region to be on an equal footing with special areas, according to the provisions of the basic legislation establishing the department. The act does not aim at giving money, nor at looking after special friends, but at promoting industrial development, what the corporation has already started to do and, I hope will continue to do.
Mr. Speaker, in that sense it is a simple amendment. We will no doubt have the opportunity to start this whole debate over again in committee and also when the estimates for Devco will be introduced in the house, to criticize Devco again. It is normal that violent attacks should be launched and I will surely not get angry. But when speakers strike below the belt, I react like any human being. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I want to say that we have no right to leave the people of Cape Breton in an inferior condition com-
3278	COMMONS
Cape Breton Development Corporation Act pared to other special areas and this is what those objecting to the amendment will accomplish. It will be one way of saying to the Cape Breton people: You will not be dealt with like other people in special areas of Canada. In fact, I do not think that anyone would feel it advisable to create such a situation.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. My question of privilege arises out of the fact that the minister has distorted a number of facts and has accused me of so doing. I would first call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that there is no pension plan for retired miners in Cape Breton, something which the minister implied on a number of occasions. He referred to this wonderful pension set-up among Cape Breton miners.


Mr. Deachman:: Is this your point of
privilege?


Donald MacInnis: You wouldn't recognize it if you saw it.


Grant Deachman: Tell the Speaker your point of privilege.


Donald MacInnis: There is Leady Deach, who can do nothing better than make recommendations around the House which violate the principles of committees. You are the last one who should open his mouth.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member should address his remarks to the Chair. I would remind the hon. member, and other hon. members of the House, that Standing Order 37 provides as follows:
No member may speak twice to a question except in explanation of a material part of his speech which may have been misquoted or misunderstood, but then he is not to introduce any new matter, and no debate shall be allowed upon such explanation.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, that would give me a lot of leeway, because all my remarks have been completely misunderstood. To begin with, on the question of pensions which has been entirely misunderstood-and you have just ruled that 1 can only get up and explain those things which were misunderstood-I say again to the minister that there is no pension for those Cape Breton miners who were pre-retired, forcibly retired, or whatever way you wish to look at it. This is his mistake; he continually refers to it as a pension. I do not even allow the Devco

DEBATES	February 5, 1970
authorities to use the word. It is not a pension; it is a pre-retirement leave plan.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
The minister also referred to a meeting in his office when the executive officers of the UMW said, "Never mind that fellow; he does not represent us". True, I do not represent the UMW, but I represent each and every person in Cape Breton, whether they be UMW members or not. As long as I have the responsibility to represent them, the minister and those hired in the Crown company who have been selling the big lie in Cape Breton are not going to get away with it.
With respect to the meeting in the minister's office,-and this only requires a yes or no answer-was the minister not informed by union members-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. The hon. member raised a question of privilege; now he is asking a question.


An hon. Member:: It is a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member raised a question of privilege, and there is no privilege. I read the hon. member the Standing Order which states that no member may speak twice to a motion.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. My point of order is that it is impossible for me, when Your Honour is on your feet, to say anything. The only time I am permitted to speak is when Your Honour has resumed his seat.


An hon. Member:: Stand.


Donald MacInnis: Yes, I can stand. But, Mr. Speaker, you have already ruled that no member shall speak twice on the same subject unless it is to explain his remarks which have been misunderstood. I repeat, on the same question of privilege, that the minister made accusations about a certain meeting which took place in his office and which I attended. He also made reference to the fact that 78 or 65 per cent, or whatever percentage he used, of the men accepted this preretirement leave plan voluntarily. The question to the minister is this: Was it not at that same-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Donald MacInnis: Was it not at that same meeting-
February 5, 1970

Criminal Records
The Acling Speaker (Mr. Bechard): Order. The hon. member is now asking a question. He rose on a point of order, and he is asking a question. I would ask the hon. member to state his point of privilege as briefly as possible.


Donald MacInnis: As I said before, Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is that I am entitled to explain certain of my remarks which were misunderstood. At the same time,
I take exception to the remarks of the minister in answering me, which remarks were far removed from the fact.
In this meeting in the minister's office to which he referred, the minister was informed in the presence of the UMW executive, or one of the mine union locals, and the municipal authorities that the 77 per cent he referred to was a false figure and that many of the men had accepted pre-retirement on the basis of fear. I ask the minister to tell us if that is not so. Isn't that the truth? Isn't that the representation that was made in your office? He cannot deny it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Development.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, January 30, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mcll-raith that Bill C-5, to provide for the relief of persons who have been convicted of offences and have subsequently rehabilitated themselves, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: I understand that when we adjourned the debate the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) had the floor-the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) had the floor.


Stanley Howard Knowles: believe he had concluded his remarks, Mr. Speaker.


William Arnold Peters: I am willing.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is always
willing.

I believe that the hon. member for Portneuf wishes to take part in the debate, so I now give him the floor.


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, this small bill made up of eight clauses, running to four pages only and entitled the Criminal Records Act is of great interest to me. I hope that this piece of legislation will bring peace and some hope to those who have an undeserved criminal record or one which results from an extremely unfortunate situation.
Since it is quite easy nowadays, in our society, to have such a record, I think that this bill which provides for the expunging of records after five years have elapsed, is most welcome and I wonder why it has not been brought forward sooner.
Moreover, if this act is fairly applied, irrespective of race, language, religion or political affiliation, we can expect very good results from it.
A small enquiry is enough to show that, at the present time, there are too many people who, after having been charged, wind up with a record. Many people in my riding, from all walks of life, have had an opportunity to realize that cases of miscarriage of justice are more numerous than reported by the media. The victims resign themselves to their lot, often for lack of money, or because they just cannot pursue the matter further. This is often caused by a lack of confidence in the courts and because they are sure right from the start that they would lose their case. Whether it be in municipal, provincial or federal courts, I suggest that there are not enough judges, that they use obsolete methods and that they have to examine too many cases at the same time and also to pass judgments without having enough information on the case.
Another abnormal situation is that judges have not all been chosen wisely. Unfortunately, they are appointed to those positions as a reward for political or other services. That some persons whose behaviour has never been exemplary should be in a position to pass judgment on the behaviour of others, that is a puzzle to most people.
I have before me an article published on December 5, 1969, in La Presse, one of the most important dailies in America. It reads:
For shoplifting of goods worth $37.21: seven days; For stealing and receiving a value of $160,000: seven days.

February 5, 1970
Criminal Records
In municipal court, by mere chance, that police officer was shaking his head when a number of female shoplifters were sentenced to seven full days for stealing goods worth some ten dollars in Miracle Mart outlets.
Incidentally, none of them had a record, like that 19-year old girl whose eyes were wet with tears as she walked to a cell for having stolen some pieces of clothing worth $37.21 in all.
One question ... !
"It's serious, the police officer told us".
"But, asked the same detective, don't you think it is as serious for a 35-year old habitual criminal to steal $160,000?
The people have lost confidence in the courts because some of the jurists have a doubtful past. And it is always the same question: are these people with a doubtful past fit to judge the actions of others? You can imagine a Conservative judge having to render a verdict in the case of a liberal organizer who was responsible for his defeat in the last election.
Besides, old racial grudges might flare up again. Just imagine a Chinaman being judged by a Russian or an English speaking Canadian from Ontario being tried by a Quebec separatist judge. Or else, a unilingual French Canadian of Quebec being judged by a unilingual English speaking judge from another province.
Past events provide us with enough evidence that too many people are given false records. A man from Rimouski visiting Quebec City last spring asked a taxi driver where the Court of Justice was. The driver replied: "Well, my friend, the Court is over there, but you will have to look for Justice!"
I think that legal proceedings are obsolete in many cases. They never end because giving oral testimony is an ancient custom dating back to the days when most people were illiterate, which made it necessary for people to meet personally in order to settle a number of issues.
In my opinion, we should consider giving written testimony as this would do away with much too many postponements.
Since Unemployment Insurance Commission officials generally solve most cases this way, I feel that other courts should consider doing the same thing.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Since in many cases the accused and the witnesses could prepare their own testimonies themselves, it would obviously save the parties concerned some expense as often the

accused could dispense with an attorney's services.
In police matters, self-examination is also necessary. In order to avoid the opening of certain files, the R.C.M.P. should never intervene without valid reasons. This police body is never too expeditious when it comes to find individuals of the calibre of Lucien Rivard or Georges Lemay. When it comes to arresting a peaceful citizen, however, it is something different. Just by placing a telephone call, anyone can have a man arrested. I am thinking precisely of the particular case of a Quebecer who had become a bit of a nuisance for certain citizens comfortably entrenched on the municipal council. A mere telephone call and our man was "penned" for two months following false testimony.
Such methods are of a blatant dishonesty and I firmly hope that means will be found to put an end to them.
If I might be allowed to make a comparison, Mr. Speaker, in order to qualify for a $200 yearly subsidy, a farmer must submit an affidavit to the Canadian Dairy Commission, and when it is attempted to destroy the reputation of a citizen, it is abnormal, I think, that one anonymous phone call should be enough to set in motion the police machinery. I will quote, if I may, a letter dated November 8, 1968 which was sent to me by the Commissioner of the R.C.M.P. It reads as follows:
I shall not mention the name.
On July 15th, 1968, our Quebec detachment was advised by a fictitious source that a stranger was bottlegging alcohol in a car-
Mr. Speaker, the investigation later revealed that the man in question had merely been the victim of a mean trick. As his friends were thinking of having him elected alderman, an opponent had simply put a gallon of "home brew" in the car that was seized.
Allow me to read you the next paragraph:
You will no doubt be pleased to hear that following further investigation no action will be taken under the Excise Act and we have asked our chief of police in Montreal to return the car that was being held.
I say again that my first letter was sent to the Commissioner of the R.C.M.P. on September 13th, and I point out that the reply was sent only on November 8th, that is four days after the municipal elections in the area concerned. Needless to say the taxpayer was defeated and finally the purpose of the anonymous phone call achieved.
February 5, 1970

I should now like to deal with another situation, that of the construction of prisons, federal and provincial. As you know those buildings are filled to capacity. It is not that the citizens have turned evil suddenly, but that with a few exceptions, our citizens are willing to abide by the law provided they are given a chance. Unfortunately, under our present political system, too many Canadians have been refused that chance.
We have proof of this in the number of State boarders in our prisons, which number always bears a relation with the number of unemployed. Every time citizens are drafted, statistics prove that our prisons become empty. On battlefields, in plants, everywhere, citizens find a way of selling their services.
Nowadays, in this quiet era where there is nobody to wage war against us, we must wait and what is more, we must make others wait.
Young people are fed up with waiting, waiting for a scholarship, for a job, for a meagre welfare assistance, for a chance to get married, for a buoyant economy, for their district to become a designated area, for inflation to be checked.
Mr. Speaker, one must not be surprised if all those people who are forced to wait decide at one time or other to help themselves. Thieves who are arrested may be less guilty than some others more clever, more able to monopolize what belongs to others on account of their profession or of the position they hold.
I certainly welcome Bill C-5 which will help to rehabilitate the alleged outlaw, but in my opinion, we need more than that. To pull an inmate out of prison and help him to make a new start in life is not bad, but we should do everything in our power to prevent the judges from passing unacceptable sentences. I feel that nowadays, too many irresponsible actions are done in the name of the law. When the government has reached the point of creating unemployment in order to balance the economy, we have a right to ask questions and the duty to state our views on the problems resulting from bad administration.
I have nothing against a bill suggesting to expunge judicial records after five years. However, we should take steps to prevent people from committing further offences.
Bill C-5 will be automatically ineffective if the Minister of Justice (M]r. Turner) for instance remains shut up in his office. I think that the economic field should also be considered.
Criminal Records
Too many Canadians lack basic necessities and are induced to break the rules and to ignore the laws of the land. If the country has the right to make laws which must be obeyed, the citizens also have rights, the first one being the right to live.
The policy and legislation of the Canadian government will be just when they are obeyed by the administrators and all levels of government.
However, I rely on the understanding of this government and mainly of the Minister of Justice. I hope that he will convince the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) to set up a just and honest system, not in the name of the law but in the name of life and the right to live.


Mr. D. R. Tolmie (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcll-raith) for bringing before the House this bill incorporating the practice of sealing records. From my subsequent remarks it will be noted that I feel if this bill is to be of any real benefit to a convicted person, it must have substantial amendments.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
I first became interested in this subject in 1966 and brought in a private member's bill which was later studied by the justice committee. I had no intention that the private bill would become law and used it only as a vehicle to introduce the principle of sealing criminal records. The justice committee held four formal meetings with witnesses, all of whom agreed with the principle of sealing criminal records. A report was made to the House, and later the then Solicitor General, Mr. Pennell, made recommendations to the cabinet which were accepted.
In order to produce an effective bill, one must consider what we are really trying to do by sealing criminal records. This is not an attempt to be soft with criminals; it is not another bleeding-heart crusade. This bill should have one goal only, to restore to the offender as far as possible all the civil and economic rights he enjoyed before the offence was committed.
This type of legislation should relieve people who have paid their debt to society, and taken their place as law-abiding citizens, of the continuing stigma and harassment of past criminal records. The principle of this bill should be based on the concept that a sentence served is expiation for his crime,

February 5, 1970
Criminal Records
and on the grounds that the perpetual retention of a criminal record impedes rehabilitation. In addition, this proposed legislation should endeavour to eliminate the real disabilities a convicted person suffers by the retention of his record.
It has been stated that we sentence, we coerce, we incarcerate, we counsel, we grant probation and parole, but we never forgive. There is considerable evidence to indicate that the failure of the criminal law to clarify the status of the reformed offender impedes the objective of reintegrating him with the society from which he has been estranged. The more heavily he bears the mark of his former offence, the more likely he is to re-offend.
The most troublesome disabilities to the reformed offender are the economic and social reprisals engendered by his brand as an adjudicated criminal. The vagaries of public sentiment often discriminate against persons with a criminal past. This is especially true in the vital matter of employment, which perhaps as much as anything else influences a man's concept of himself and his worth and accordingly influences the values which guide his conduct. The effects of criminal stigma are felt even more strongly in the area of licences and government-regulated occupations than in the sector of public employment. In many cases, employment in the public service, enlistment in the armed forces, employment where bonding is required, and licensed employment such as taxi driving, is refused absolutely or seriously curtailed.
Perhaps in particular the purpose of this bill should be to assist the thousands of Canadians who in their youth incurred a record for some petty offence and are now completely rehabilitated and law-abiding citizens.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Ross Tolmie: The recent number of convictions of young people for marijuana offences illustrates how necessary this type of legislation really is. Many of these young people who have paid their debt to society will continue to be harassed and hurt emotionally and economically to their dying days. I should also add, if one needed further persuasion about the necessity for such legislation, that since the introduction of my private member's bill I have received numerous pleading, heart-rending letters from across Canada
[Mr. ToLmie.l
urging the early passage of legislation to provide for the sealing of records.
Without going into too much detail, because I hope this bill will go to the justice committee for close scrutiny, I would like to make a few remarks about the principle contained in the bill now before the House. Frankly, although as I have already indicated that I commend the Solicitor General for introducing this legislation, in my opinion in its present form it will not achieve the objectives this type of legislation should achieve.
First, instead of pertaining only to offences under an act of the Parliament of Canada or a regulation made thereunder, this bill should apply to all records under federal jurisdiction even though the offence was against a provincial statute. This certainly would broaden the scope of the act and give relief to many more people, which I presume is the intention of the bill.
Second, after the applicant applies, the act should not state that the Parole Board shall cause proper inquiries to be made in order to ascertain the behaviour of the applicant. People who are applying for the sealing of their records will in the main be those who suffered a conviction years ago and since that time have been living an ordinary life, with the public completely unaware of their past indiscretion. Any investigation would vitiate the very object and spirit of the legislation. This type of applicant would not want officials prying into his private life, asking neighbours if he is a decent citizen and arousing suspicion. It should be accepted policy that if the five-year period has elapsed without a conviction, he has rehabilitated himself and the expungement of the adjudication of his guilt should be made mandatory unless strong affirmative reasons exist for denial. In addition, any judgment denying expungement should be made appealable by the applicant.
The mechanics envisaged by this bill seem unduly tortuous and complicated. An application must be started, followed by a National Parole Board inquiry, followed by a favourable report to the Solicitor General of Canada, followed by referral of the recommendation to the federal cabinet, followed by cabinet consideration and government approval. This is a cumbersome procedure. I submit the application should be made to a competent authority, be it the National Parole Board or a board of convictions review in the Department of Justice, adjudicated upon with the right of appeal to the Governor in Council.
February 5, 1970

Criminal Records
Third, the effect of the pardon as outlined in the bill is of little or no practical benefit to the applicant. What tangible good is it for an applicant to know that the government is satisfied that he has behaved properly and that the pardon granted should no longer reflect adversely on his character? Brave, noble and pious words-but of no practical benefit. The applicant is applying because he wants relief from not only the psychological effect of a record but from the economic consequences. He wants to be able to compete in the marketplace for employment on equal terms with his fellow citizens. This desire is the whole crux of this bill. He has paid the penalty; he does not want a conviction, in many cases incurred years ago, to haunt and taunt him when he seeks employment.
The statute should expressly set forth the effects of the order in restoring the civil rights of the redeemed offender, and it should expressly annul the conviction and the offence. In addition to specifying that the person will thereafter be regarded as never having offended, it should provide that in all cases of employment, application for licence or other civil privilege, examination as a witness and the like, the person may be questioned only with respect to arrests or convictions not annulled or expunged. A person might be questioned about his previous criminal conduct only in language such as the following: Have you ever been arrested for or convicted of a crime which has not been expunged by a competent authority? It is submitted that to restrict the questioning about his offence places the focus where it belong, on the attitudes of society.
Mr. Solicitor General, there has been some indication-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but I would like to bring to his attention that his remarks should be directed to the Chair rather than to the Solicitor General.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Donald Ross Tolmie: There has been some indication that certain Crown corporations and government agencies no longer, in their employment application forms, ask questions about an applicant's record. The Solicitor General apparently favours this trend. Therefore, if such a clause pertaining to limited inquiry about records were placed in the statute, it would be crystal clear that all agencies over which the government has control would be
forced to comply with this new concept. This would apply to corporations such as the CBC, Air Canada and the CNR. It would also apply to the Armed Forces and the public service.
I am aware that constitutionally the government of Canada cannot, by legislation, force ordinary employers, individual or corporate, to restrict themselves to the limited inquiry rule. But I do know the Province of Ontario is interested in this type of legislation and I urge the Solicitor General to contact the Attorney General for the Province of Ontario and ask him to introduce similar legislation in Ontario, particularly in relation to limited inquiry about records by employers.
In the fifth place, I believe the principle of limited disclosure should be incorporated into this bill. We know there is a lively traffic in facts about all of us, particularly facts relating to such matters as criminal records. Consideration should be given to requiring that every person, agency and business which keeps records of criminal conviction, whatever may be their purpose, inform the minister of the existence of these records and, upon sealing, all such persons or agencies, other than perhaps the commissioner of the RCMP, should be directed to destroy them.
It should also be noted that Canada is not pioneering this type of legislation. Other countries including Russia, France, Turkey, Bulgaria, Spain, Belgium, Hungary and Italy have legislation aimed at eliminating the effects of a previous conviction. California has held extensive hearings on the question of sealing criminal records and is in the process of drafting a bill. I hope the justice committee will have available for its deliberations memos of this comparative law, which I feel would be most helpful.
Associate professor of law at the University of Santa Clara, Aidan R. Gough, has written a comprehensive and incisive article on the expungement .of records, which may be found in the Washington University Law Quarterly, volume 1966, No. 2, April, 1966. I would recommend this article to members who wish to learn more about this important subject.
I do not think that the bill before us, or any revised bill, will cure completely the disability suffered by those with convictions. However, I do feel that such legislation will be of benefit to many decent Canadian citizens. Only when the public generally is educated to the point of view that once a man has paid his penalty, society should not exact further punishment, will the offender find the path to true rehabilitation. Parliament creates the

February 5, 1970
Criminal Records
situation under which a record is brought into being. The use which Parliament allows to be made of that record is also its responsibility.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from Professor Gough's article in the Washington Law Quarterly as follows:
Most offenders do not remain criminals all their lives, and we should not treat them as if they do. It is manifestly not the purpose of the penal law to ascribe permanent criminality to a first offender, though that is largely its effect. This article is not intended as a panegyric for a soft-headed penology. It is rather an attempt to point up a serious flaw in our present legal system; the failure to provide means for redefining the status of the rehabilitated transgressor. It is submitted that an expungement process will not serve to hamper effective law enforcement, but will stand as an adjuvant to the goal of the correctional law. It should provide a potent incentive to reformation, and should render our response to criminality less febrile and more effectual. At the very least, it is deserving of serious trial.
We would do well to bear in mind that it is a legal principle that correctional law is forgiving. Forgiveness is part and parcel of rehabilitation, whether of criminals or anyone else who has erred, or who has, in fact, what all of us have-the defects of being human.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing tonight with Bill C-5, an act to provide for the relief of persons who have been convicted of offences. Basically, what we are trying to do here is, in certain circumstances-as the chairman of our Justice and Legal Affairs Committee has so ably put it-expunge the records of those who have been convicted. According to the Oxford Dictionary, "expunge" means to erase, omit or do away with.
First of all, I should like to say that we are very fortunate, I think, in the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, to have a chairman of such high calibre.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I would say to the minister in charge, through you, Mr. Speaker, that I adopt pretty well everything the hon. member said tonight. That is why my own speech can be brief. He has stated clearly that the bill before us is a great disappointment to anyone who has any knowledge of criminal jurisprudence, and that it will not do the job which the committee recommended to the minister before the measure was introduced in the House.
I now wish to deal with a subject mentioned by the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Tolmie) in a brief reference. I refer to the Criminal Code itself. When we talk about
great reforms we should realize that the Criminal Code of Canada contains section 12, which states:
No person shall be convicted of an offence in respect of an act or omission on his part while he was under the age of seven years.
Then it provides-this is section 13 on page 10 of Tremear's Criminal Code-as follows:
No person shall be convicted of an offence in respect of an act or omission on his part while he was seven years of age or more, but under the age of 14, unless he was competent to know the nature and consequences of his conduct and to appreciate that it was wrong.
We are dealing today with a difficult situation. The Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith) may close his eyes to it, but there is a problem facing us in many of our universities and high schools inasmuch as 50 or 60 per cent of the young people of this nation are, whether we like it or not, on marijuana or drugs.
The Code contains a section which provides that a person over the age of seven can be convicted of any offence while he is between the age of seven and 14, provided he knows the nature and consequences of the offence. In other words, we are faced with a situation to which I drew attention in the House of Commons some time ago, in which young men aged 15, 16, 17 and 18 across this nation, in urban centres where 80 per cent of Canadians will be living in the near future, are subject to the Narcotic Control Act and to the Food and Drugs Act, under which they could be incarcerated for more than two years. This would create for them a criminal record which would prevent, for example, their going to the United States.
The problem to which I refer is not confined to Canada and the United States; it is faced by all western countries. We are dealing with a most serious subject in an area in which the law has remained unreformed. Since I have been in the House I have on four occasions introduced a bill to amend this particular section of the Code with reference to the age at which a person may be convicted.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
I have brought to the attention of the Solicitor General in the House of Commons cases of young men and women aged 15 or 16 who have been incarcerated in the penitentiary without being given any chance during that time to rehabilitate themselves and expunge their criminal record, thus enabling them to go if they so chose to the United States or any other country. That is the situation that exists today. In addition, once a

February 5, 1970

young man or young woman who has a criminal record gets into some other difficulty in society and is charged under any section of the Criminal Code, what happens when bail comes to be set? In all our great, sprawling urban centres the Crown counsel reads out the record. If the record is A plus B equals C, what happens? A different scale of bail is set. The record is referred to every time the question of bail arises.
Once a young person has paid his debt to society and goes out to try to obtain employment, what is the situation if he requires to be bonded in order to obtain a job? Since he has a criminal record, the bonding company will not make him bondable.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether in making his last statement the hon. member is being up-to-date on that subject. The fact is that there is a procedure whereby bonding companies do grant bonds to persons who have been previously convicted. This fact was the subject of a public announcement last fall, when a great deal of detail was given.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The Solicitor General may want to make a speech on the subject, but he knows as well as I do that when an application is made to a bonding company by a person with a criminal record, the bonding company will take a tough look at it. The company uses its discretion whether to grant the person a bond.


George James McIlraith: The hon. member is not upto-date at all on that.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: As far as I am concerned, that is what is going on in Canada today. Let the minister check it out.


George James McIlraith: It has not been going on for the last six months.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My hon. friend says that I am not up-to-date. He is so up-to-date that when I asked him several months ago whether he had Crown counsel representing the Department of Justice in a matter dealing with drugs, a question I asked him as Solicitor General, as the person who appoints Crown counsel, who are generally Liberal-in politics that is how they are appointed-on the subject of sentence, he used the wishy-washy answer that he knew nothing about the charges or the appointments. I suggest a man who does not know anything about-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether the hon. member is not straying
Criminal Records
from the bill now before the House. I invite him to revert to what we are supposed to be considering, which is the principle of Bill C-5 which is now under consideration.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The only reason I put the question was that this is still a matter of court procedure and concerns the appointment of Crown counsel. Young men and women who come before magistrates and courts and who are dealt with by those the minister appoints, if convicted are given a criminal record. Therefore, I submit my point is admissible in so far as this particular argument is concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may think that, but if the Chair has to make a ruling I would tell the hon. member that what he is saying is irrelevant to the bill.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I have always abided by your rulings, but may I say through you that the Solicitor General should be prepared to accept the argument I have put forward with regard to the bonding of young people. The situation today is that people with criminal records, irrespective of under what section of the Criminal Code of Canada they are charged, are not given a bond. I suggest it is high time we took a hard look at this situation.
May I come back to a matter I started with. We have developed a new committee system. The justice committee made certain recommendations to the government and to the minister. In spite of this, the bill has not been drawn along those lines. Committees make recommendations to a minister having made a study of a certain subject and having called before it witnesses from across the nation. In view of this, those recommendations should be accepted by the minister and the government. The committee hears all the pros and cons before making its decision.
The minister has not yet told the House, though he may when he closes the debate, why he has not accepted the recommendations made by the committee and as set out by the hon. member for Welland. If, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said the other day, we are moving toward the presidential system of government, which means that our committees would take on a new type of responsibility in making recommendations to the government, then surely under such system the recommendations of committees should be accepted. On that ground this bill is

February 5, 1970
Criminal Records
a great disappointment; it has not incorporated the recommendations that have already-been made by the committee.
How are committees of the House of Commons formed? The justice committee is probably fortunate in that it is made up of professional people. It is a pretty independent committee and does on occasion make recommendations that are contrary to the policy of the executive. However, if our recommendations are to be ignored, we might as well lock the door of the committee because we are just wasting our time.
If, under this new presidential system, the executive is to take the position that any recommendation made by a committee is all right as a recommendation, that members of the House who are very able are to be kept busy attending committees and studying subjects, but that their recommendations are to be put by the minister into the filing basket and he thereupon comes forward with a bill that is recommended by his own advisers, we are wasting our time. In view of what the chairman of the committee said tonight, what will be the position if the committee makes certain recommendations in regard to this bill? Will the minister come back to the House and tell us that the bill will go through, no matter what the committee has recommended? In the justice committee there are a number of backbenchers who are able professional men, just as able as the minister.


Grant Deachman: Able men on both sides of the House.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am glad the hon. member said both sides of the House. But are we to be merely rubber stamps? If the minister is going to bring in his own bill anyway, then as I see it the committee is wasting its time.
There is a very simple procedure for dealing with this situation. What we should do is to go through, as we are tonight, the sham of second reading of the bill and send it to the committee. No longer does the committee of the whole House study each clause of the bill. The standing committee can waste a few hours for each of two or three weeks studying the clauses and making recommendations to the minister. If the minister, in spite of the remarks made by the chairman of the justice committee tonight, is not prepared to accept the recommendations of his own chairman, a man who doubtless had the approval both of the minister and the Prime Minister, then he is setting himself up as a little tin god. He

will be a member of an executive that is going to run to the country its way no matter what the members of the Liberal Party of the opposition say.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
This emphasizes once again the waste of time of committees. If the government wants to keep its backbenchers busy-and they are getting wise to this-on projects such as contained in this bill, I hope it will not think we are naive enough over here that we will be engaged in this kind of project which does not lead to fruition as far as reform of the Criminal Code is concerned.
The recommendation I make is the same as that of the hon. member for Welland. If we are to have effective reforms in respect of those who run afoul of the law so far as the Criminal Code is concerned and are sentenced to penitentiary where they are fingerprinted and catalogued, having served their incarceration and after another five years we should be able to expunge the record and let that man or woman start over again.
I should like to express one last thought. I ask the minister to reconsider his position. I hope when he comes before the committee he will be able to accept the unanimous recommendations of the committee and agree to amend the bill. We will then feel that the committee is doing something and functioning properly, and that the minister and the executives are actually listening to Members of Parliament rather than just running this country as little tin gods and dictators.


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-5 which, when passed, will provide relief for persons who have been convicted of offences and subsequently have rehabilitated themselves. However, not being a lawyer like those who preceded me, I am not going to deal with the technicalities of the law but rather with the compassion that this legislation will rouse in the hearts of men.
I have a special interest in this bill because a member of my family has been very active in the work of the John Howard and Elizabeth Fry Societies of Thunder Bay. It is a bill, as was pointed out by the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith), that is an honest attempt by the government to bring forward legislation that will deal with the aspect of rehabilitation of persons who have been convicted of an offence and have subsequently
February 5, 1970

Criminal Records
shown evidence of good character, to whom the National Parole Board, upon application, would grant a pardon and cancel the conviction and, in addition, provide the withdrawal of criminal records.
Personally, I wish to congratulate the Solicitor General for introducing a bill which will enable the National Parole Board to consider deserving applicants for pardon.
I am also certain that the principle of relief for rehabilitated offenders will be supported by members of all parties and by the vast majority of the public. Punishment is the easiest but not necessarily the most successful way to deal with criminals. They are put behind bars, confined within walls of dreary rooms like so much surplus humanity. We are confident that while they are there they will not commit the same offences and hopefully believe that others warned by their punishment will avoid engaging in similar offences. The trouble is that it does not seem to deter crime. In the Middle Ages convicts were branded with hot irons, or their heads were cut off, but in spite of these and other punishments crime continued to flourish, especially in the slums of big cities.
The government of Canada is to be commended for introducing a policy which may well reduce the crime rate and at the same time save the nation millions of dollars a year. A few months ago the chairman of the National Parole Board made a statement to the effect that allowing a prisoner to return to a productive life produces savings in two ways: the state is no longer responsible for his maintenance and he is usually able to support himself, his wife and family.
He also gave us a very interesting report on paroled offenders. For one month it showed that 2,284, or 86 per cent, were gainfully employed. Their gross earnings for the month were over $673,000 and they were supporting 2,514 dependants. Multiply these earnings by 12, and the total income is over $8 million for the full year, with the parolees subject to normal income tax and other taxes that all Canadians must pay.
The cost of keeping an inmate in a federal penal institution ranges from $3,600 to nearly $5,000 a year, while the cost of keeping a man on parole is only $300 to $500. Money is a big factor, but not necessarily the most important one. It is also reassuring that almost 90 per cent of paroled men complete their parole periods satisfactorily.
Therefore, it is quite evident that parole is not only effective in rehabilitation but represents a tremendous saving to the taxpayer. But what is even more important is that in the year 1968, for which I have the figures, 3,689 paroles were granted and of this number only 480 paroles were revoked.
It may not be generally known that the Parole Board consults judges about prisoners whom they have sentenced. It is impossible to have a parole system unless we release persons from prison. Mr. Justice Ouimet once stated in a report:
Parole is a treatment-oriented correctional measure, not a sentence-correcting method. It is in no way aimed at reviewing the sentence of the court... As part of the correctional process, its function is rather to determine the portion of the sentence which is to be spent in the community and the kind of control and supervision which will be needed...
At the same time, for the offender, parole is an opportunity and a test of his self control and ability to get along in the community. For society it offers immediate protection through a degree of surveillance and control over offender behaviour and long term protection through a reduced likelihood of recidivism.
There will always be individuals who cannot be trusted as members of society because of problems which make them dangerous at all time. They must be kept segregated. On the other hand, this bill is a move to long overdue, more humane and more sensible treatment of the average person who breaks the law.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
Some years ago Sir Winston Churchill, writing about crime and brutality, wrote these words:
The mood and temper of the public with regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilization of any country. A calm dispassionate recognition of the rights of the accused, and even of the convicted criminal against the state; a constant heart searching by all charged with the duty of punishment; a desire and an eagerness to rehabilitate .. .tireless efforts, unfailing faith that there is a treasure, if you can find it, in the heart of every man. These are the symbols which ... mark and measure the stored up strength of a nation ... proof of the living virtue in it.
The substance of this bill is a heartwarming decision on the part of the government. The changes will depend largely on fuller use of probation and parole services.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but it is approximately ten o'clock. Has the hon. member unanimous consent to complete his remarks?
February 5, 1970

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe there is agreement to allow the hon. member to conclude his remarks within approximately five minutes.


Hubert Badanai: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and hon. members. The John Howard and Elizabeth Fry Societies are doing a tremendous job with limited and inadequate financial resources. Here I appeal to the Solicitor General to be more generous in granting financial assistance to these societies which are composed of men and women dedicated to the rehabilitation of the unfortunate young and old who happen to fall into the channels of crime.
To give an example, the executive secretary of the John Howard Society of Thunder Bay, who visits the Manitoba penitentiary 12 times a year to see the inmates from Ontario and who also looks after the parolees from the province of Ontario, receives only $1,500 a year toward an operating budget of $21,000. The balance has to be obtained from the Thunder Bay United Appeal and membership subscriptions. This is always a haphazard dependence because in some years the United Appeal fails to reach its objective, and membership decreases.
In 1969 the society looked after 14 parolees. It could handle more if it had more money. Therefore, I suggest that a revision of the relationship between the federal government and the John Howard Society be carried out with the object of increasing the latter's effectiveness by greater financial support.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, on a question of order, before we move on to the next item of business perhaps I might confirm that it would be the intention tomorrow to call this measure after the two which have been announced.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-Sl. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I should first like to

apologize to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing) for having been brought back at this late hour, especially since I did not have an opportunity last year to thank him for announcing to me that my district was to have a $2J million harbour development. This was much to the consternation of another minister who had wanted to make the announcement first. However, I was able to beat him to the punch.
I should like to deal with a question in respect of which I have difficulty in obtaining answers. Ordinarily I like to deal with members of the staff rather than bother the minister and take up the time of the House. Last year a meeting was held at the town of Ste-phenville among members of the town council, the chambers of commerce and all interested leaders of the surrounding communities to discuss the need for expanded postal facilities due to the projected expansion of the town by way of potential industry and the resultant need of expanded postal communication.
It was agreed by the district postal supervisor, who attended the meeting along with myself, that in view of the potential growth of the area a study should be made of the expanded projected growth commensurate with the planned increase in population due to growth of planned industry. Furthermore, it was agreed that the existing post office was located at a dangerous intersection where normal access was difficult due to the danger of being in a school area which endangered this access, and in turn endangered the safety of hundreds of children.
After serious consideration it was agreed after further study that to facilitate economy of purpose, consideration should be given to the establishment of a federal building not only to house the post office but other federal agencies which the government was leasing, which tended to destroy centralization of purpose to facilitate proper administration.
My grievance is not with the action of government but is only raised to indicate my inability to follow progress with regard to the eventual decision to provide the facility. I cannot understand why I cannot get a definite, straightforward answer with regard to progress, as a Member of Parliament who is only trying to obtain the information asked for by the people whom I represent. I would not mind if I were told to mind my own business or, "We don't tell you anything." But to be kept waiting and being offered procrastinating excuses, that I will have the answer
February 5, 1970

tomorrow-and tomorrow never comes-is becoming difficult to bear.
Sooner or later, Mr. Speaker, we will have to treat one another with respect. I only ask to be told-as is my right on behalf of the people I represent-at what stage of progress is the consideration of the construction of a federal building for the community of Ste-phenville to serve the governmental needs of the people of the Port au Port peninsula. I ask the minister to indicate the intentions of the government, so that I can fulfil my obligations to these people who deserve an answer, and get on with the many other problems of my district. I request this answer with the great respect which I have for the Minister of Public Works.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, after the double-edged speech that the hon. member has made, in which he first thanked me for having made an error, I do not know how I can handle this question. I will endeavour not to repeat the error that I apparently made last year, so that when he leaves tonight he will probably not know a great deal more than he knows now, and probably not a great deal more than I know.
I agree with the hon. member that we are speaking of an area that is a potential growth area, an area which has come to the attention of my colleague, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand). I agree with him that the present location of the post office is inadequate, in that it is directly across the street from a large school and the traffic is dangerous to the school children. Our difficulty is that the total plans of the government with respect to the growth of the area are not yet fully formulated.
If my hon. friend asked me tonight what is going into that federal building, I could not tell him now. Although some departments require space in it, they have not yet indicated to us their full requirements. But I can assure him that the longer this matter is put off, the larger the building will be, because that is generally the case.
It is our hope-and I am not going to publish tonight any indication of my estimates which will be tabled in the House in a week or two-that in my estimates there will be an item that will enable us to make an additional acquisition of property there of about 200 feet by 200 feet, and this in a good area of the city. In addition, it will enable us to draw up the plan for the building which might
DEBATES	3289
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion commence, subject to the approval of the government in respect of those estimates, in the following year.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY-INFLATION-INCREASE IN BANK DIRECTORS' FEES

David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, on January 21 I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) whether he would give consideration to requesting restraint by officials of the Toronto Dominion Bank who had announced the day before that the annual fees paid to directors of the bank were to be increased from $6,000 to $8,100, an increase of 33 per cent at one time. In view of the government's program of austerity and moderation, it seemed to me that the minister might ask the officers of the bank for restraint.
The minister answered facetiously that he was pleased that I was a supporter of moderation in wage demands. I will come back to that in a moment. The policy of the minister and of the government is obviously influenced by the kind of advice they are getting from the governor of the Royal Bank of Canada, the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission and, I presume, the Deputy Minister of Finance.
I do not need to reiterate the kind of speeches the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission has been making. They are well known to every Canadian citizen who reads a newspaper or watches television. The governor of the Bank of Canada made a speech to the Canadian Club in Montreal a few days ago which was reported in the Globe and Mail of February 3.1 read a couple of sentences from the newspaper report as follows:
Louis Rasminsky, governor of the Bank of Canada, defended Canada's anti-inflation measures yesterday by saying that without the restraints, the situation would have been worse.
He went on to say:
Wages and salaries in Canada continue to show a year to year gain in the range of 7 to 7.5 per cent which was greatly in excess of the trend of productivity increases-
He put his support firmly behind the commission: "The Prices and Incomes Commission has recently taken an important initiative, which deserves the full support of the whole community."
Mr. Speaker, it is that kind of thinking which has led the governor of the Bank of Canada and the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission to urge working people to show restraint in the wage increases they
February 5, 1970
3290	COMMONS DEBATES
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion are claiming, and to urge leaders of the labour movement to go to their members and try to sell this type of program. They have been joined by the press and other news media who have been, to say the least, unenthusiastic about a policy of wage restraint.
I do not believe wage restraint can work. I say to the Minister of Finance-or I would if he were here-and to the government that the only way wage restraint would have a chance of working would be if the government really meant business and were to show the ordinary working people that restraint is for everybody. I think they should start with just the people I have spoken about. The governor of the Bank of Canada recently had his salary increased from $50,000 to $75,000 a year. I submit that does not show much restraint.
In 1966 the Deputy Minister of Finance was paid a salary of $27,000 a year, but he now receives between $37,000 and $40,000 a year, which is an increase of at least 37 per cent in less than four years. The chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission is also paid $37,000 to $40,000 a year, which I suggest is substantially more than he made as a professor at the University of British Columbia. I am not suggesting that they are being paid too much; I am simply saying there is not much restraint here.
Looking at self-employed people we see the same pattern. The income of doctors and surgeons in ten years from 1957 to 1967 has increased by 95 per cent to a total in 1967 of $27,000. The income of engineers and architects in those ten years has increased by 51.6 per cent to over $22,000. The incomes of lawyers and notaries has gone up on the average by 66.2 per cent, their average income in 1967 being over $22,000.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I am not suggesting this is too much, but I am simply suggesting that if the government believes in restraint it must demonstrate its belief by demanding equity. If sacrifices have to be made, in other words, I suggest it is unfair and completely wrong for the government to urge restraint and sacrifice by ordinary working people. We have heard a great deal about tremendous increases in wages, the so-called inflationary wage increases that have gone to our supposedly higher paid steel workers and auto workers.
The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Gray) from Windsor knows how much auto workers earn. Few auto workers or steel workers in

this country earn more than $8,000-not a great income but one which enables them to get by at a certain standard of living. If the government believes in restraint, it can demonstrate its belief by saying to people like the directors of the Toronto-Domin-ion Bank and other captains of industry, "Do not ask for restraint on the part of others. Do not try to stop inflation by putting the blocks to ordinary working people. Instead, let us see you setting an example by showing some restraint." If and when they do that-and I submit they have not yet begun to do it-the leaders of trade unions in this country might be persuaded to go to their members with the kind of appeal the government has been making in recent days.


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, the government has set up as part of its fight against inflation the Prices and Incomes Commission. The commission has been working to create a program of voluntary restraint on the part of all sectors of the economy as a method of breaking into the inflationary spiral and in this way speeding up the process of stemming the pressures of inflation. In its efforts the commission appears to have taken into account the views of certain labour leaders to the effect that attention be given to restraining rises in prices before looking into ways of restraining wages and salaries.
The commission, therefore, has been working to obtain a consensus from the business community on a formula to limit increases in prices. The leaders of several large business groups have given their support to this concept. Several key companies and key industries have at the request of the government agreed not to put into effect certain prices increases at least until March 1.
The Prices and Incomes Commission will hold next week in Ottawa a conference of business leaders to attempt to develop and confirm such a consensus. Once this is done the commission will be able to turn its attention to the role of other sectors. As the hon. member has said, no one suffers more from the effects of inflation than the working man-people in the low-income group. That is why we are calling for the support of all sectors for the efforts of the Prices and Incomes Commission and for the efforts of the government to stem the process of inflation before it does further harm to the Canadian economy.
As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) said, he was very pleased to hear the remarks
February 5, 1970
COMMONS DEBATES	3291
that the hon. member made in the House which seemed to indicate support for moderation in wage demands. This is very significant, coming as it does from a member of the NDP, the party which some leaders of the labour movement refer to as the official voice of the labour movement. Many will say it is very encouraging, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN PACIFIC-MONTREAL-QUEBEC LINE -CLOSING OF STATIONS AFTER SIX O'CLOCK -LACK OF COMFORT FOR PASSENGERS

Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, I will confess right away that I have had a very innocent and interesting passion all my life: I have kept cats and dogs. 1 would have blamed myself, and my fellow citizens would have blamed me, if I had kept these charming animals freezing outside in cold weather such as we have had lately. But the Canadian Pacific does this regularly. The CPR has no heart or soul; sometimes we wonder if the CPR has any conscience when it leaves its customers frozen on the platforms of our railway stations.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)

I have raised that question because before the departure of the CPR evening train from Montreal to Quebec, the waiting rooms are kept closed, which forces the passengers, for all kinds of reasons, to wait in the cold on the station platform, while they sometimes come from far away or accompany sick women or children.
I ask the minister to intervene with the Canadian Transport Commission to have that situation corrected immediately, because I have the feeling that the Canadian Pacific deceives the people.
History will probably tell that it is the fraud of the century, since from the outset the CPR has obtained from Canadians fabulous wealth and exemptions which bring it fantastic returns and turned many Canadians into millionaires. The Canadian people have no objection to that provided that the Canadian Pacific supplies a proper service, but the company is not keeping its promise since it has created separate companies in paying sectors but complains that the passenger service is not profitable enough. It hopes to be able one day to turn its management over to the government.
It is time to remind the CPR that it is bound by a commitment to the Canadian
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion people, that of giving proper service. One should not forget that the Canadian public has given with an overwhelming generosity very substantial sums of money to that company.
Those are signs of a gigantic fraud that should alarm Parliament and the public opinion, and which should be terminated very soon.


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) for his rousing speech against the closing of some railway stations between Quebec and Montreal.
I will not go so far as to say, as the hon. member did, that it is a gigantic fraud, but I shall limit myself to answering the question he asked in the House yesterday, to the effect ' that certain stations between Montreal and Quebec are closed at night.
I know the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres is alarmed. The people who have travelled on Canadian Pacific trains and have had to wait at stations are right in complaining to their members. The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres is right in pointing out the matter to the minister's attention.
On the other hand, it should perhaps be recognized-not that I want in any way to protect the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific-that for certain reasons a few stations had to be closed. But between Montreal and Quebec, four stations are open at night: those at L'Epiphanie, Portneuf, Pont-Rouge and Lorette. I see the hon. member making signs that it is not so. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but that is the information I received this afternoon from Canadian Pacific officials. I shall have to tell them tomorrow morning, through the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson), perhaps not that they lied to me but that they gave me inaccurate information. However, I must pass along the information I received.
Other stations have been closed because the employees leave at five o'clock. Formerly, a part of the waiting room remained open to passengers after office hours.
Vandalistic acts against office equipment resulting in heavy damages have compelled the management of the Canadian Pacific to close those stations.
As for the four stations which I mentioned a while ago, stating that they were open to the public, although the hon. member
February 5, 1970
3292	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion motioned to me that they were closed, representations were made by the citizens of those communities and as a result, the Canadian Pacific has accepted-I repeat has accepted, because I am told that those stations are open-to leave the waiting rooms at the disposal of the clients.
As for the other stations, seven trains are on a flag stop basis and two stop on Fridays.
If the hon. member has special cases to draw to the minister's attention, I will gladly point them out to him, especially since tomorrow morning I will communicate to whom it may concern the false information

which I provided this evening. I shall check this point with the department tomorrow morning. I shall be happy to give this.
I am also happy to tell the hon. member that Canadian Pacific officials have assured us that the problem of waiting-rooms would be studied, each case separately. We hope that with the re-opening of this waiting-room, the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres-


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

Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.23 p.m.

Friday, February 6, 1970