1970-03-23

PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF PRESIDENT OF FRENCH NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

Mr. Speaker:: I am most happy to point out to the House that a distinguished visitor is in attendance in the Speaker's gallery. He is Mr. Achille Peretti, President of the French National Assembly. For his hosts at least, Mr. Peretti's stay in Canada, which is coming to a close today, will have been too short. Mr. President, we are greatly honoured to welcome you to our Parliament, and my colleagues and myself sincerely hope that you will long keep pleasant memories of your trip to Canada.
Very fortunately for us Mr. Peretti is accompanied by a colleague who has shown unwavering sympathy to the Canadian people and Parliament, Mr. Lucien Neuwirth, Ques-tor of the French National Assembly.

On behalf of hon. members I am delighted to welcome our distinguished visitors. It is worthy of note, I think, that this is the first time a President of the French National Assembly has come to Canada as the officially invited guest of our Parliament. You have come here, sir, as a parliamentarian on a highly commendable mission of good will. You are here today as a friend and we greet you, of course, as a friend.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: This message, which was brought to us by Mr. Peretti and which he imparted earlier to us in such eloquent terms, conveys the sincere and deep-felt affection of France and the French people for Canada. On behalf of my colleagues in the House, I must tell you, Mr. Peretti and Mr. Neuwirth, that the Canadian people, likewise devoted to an ideal of liberty while respectful of the parliamentary institution, sharing your language
and your culture, keep their long-standing links of brotherhood and friendship with France.
0	(2:10 p.m.)


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as usual, you have said what was essential, but I am sure you will not grudge me the privilege of subscribing to your wishes. I have had the pleasure and the honour of meeting President Peretti in the past, when we were both carrying out other functions. I just want to be the spokesman of government members and to join with you in welcoming President Peretti.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, may I, on behalf of the members of this party, associate myself with what you and the Prime Minister said. I assume that you have had an opportunity to discuss with your distinguished confrere your mutual problems. He has left his behind in France; Your Honour still sees yours in front of you here. I realize that these problems exist. I suppose, sir, you will be able to tell your distinguished colleague that you have problems which to some extent he does not have.
The very fact that I am able to address Your Honour today in one of the two official languages would indicate to him that your problems are twice as many as his. In addition, sir, there are other difficulties which we are going through right now. England has a Prime Minister, the United States has a President, France has both, but we are not sure what we have.
I hope, sir, you will express on our behalf our hope that the visit of our distinguished guest will be pleasant and happy and that he will come back again to see the Canadian west and the Canadian north.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker,
1	do not think it is necessary to take any more time than to say that my colleagues and I join with you in expressing to the President of the National Assembly of France and to his colleague our very warmest greetings and our pleasure at seeing them in this chamber.
5324	COMMONS
1970 Dairy Support Program.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join you in expressing the best greetings of the House to our famous visitor.
I live in the oldest part of the country which was discovered by French pioneers and which is close to the old capital founded by Samuel de Champlain. The presence of our distinguished visitor gives me the opportunity to remind the House of those facts.
Since you extended best wishes to the President of the French National Assembly,
I am sure he will be happy to be greeted once more in his mother tongue in Canada.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House of the dairy support program for the year starting April 1, 1970. Before giving the details, I might refer briefly to the circumstances which have had to be taken into account in the formulation of the program.
The major consideration, to which I have referred on several occasions and which is widely recognized within the dairy industry, is that Canadian production of certain dairy products is substantially above the quantity which can be sold at the Canadian price support levels. This surplus, in the past, has been concentrated mainly in skim milk powder. More recently a surplus of butterfat has developed. Present rates of butter production and consumption are resulting in a surplus to the order of about 10 per cent of Canadian production.
There are continuing heavy world surpluses of dairy products and depressed international prices. The situation on skim milk powder has improved as a result of the minimum price arrangement under the GATT, in which Canada played on important part, but those prices are still well below Canadian levels.
The cost of disposing of Canadian surpluses is a heavy drain on the funds provided to support the dairy industry. This results not only in lower returns to milk and cream producers, but also impedes progress towards the long-term objective of a more self-sufficient

DEBATES	March 23, 1970
dairy industry. The program, therefore, must be designed so as to achieve a closer balance between the production of dairy products and Canadian requirements.
In considering the most desirable program we have had the benefit of thoughtful and useful presentations from many sources, including the report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
The dairy farmers' national organization, the Dairy Farmers of Canada, has presented a proposal which has created wide interest and which was endorsed in the report of the standing committee. This proposal is for a system of supply management through market share quotas. Under this, producers supplying milk or cream for processing into manufactured dairy products would have market shares related in total to Canadian requirements. For that quantity they would receive a price based on Canadian market prices for dairy products. Production in excess of that market share would be priced in relation to prices in international markets.
Since this involves pricing within a province, its adoption requires the co-operation of provincial agencies. My department, the Canadian Dairy Commission and the Dairy Farmers of Canada will pursue this actively with provincial authorities.
I turn now to the specifics of the program.
As hon. members know, there are two facets to the policy. One is the support of the market prices of major dairy products, which determines the market value of milk and cream to producers. The other is the direct producer subsidy.
There will be no change, as of April 1, from the product support prices established by the Canadian Dairy Commission for 1969-70. These are 65 cents per pound for butterfat, 20 cents per pound for skim milk powder and 46J and 47 cents for cheddar cheese during the main producing season.
Producers are eligible to receive subsidy on their deliveries during the year up to the amount of their subsidy quota. The rate of subsidy for the year starting April 1, 1970, will continue at the 1969-70 level of $1.25 per 100 pounds of milk, or 35.71 cents per pound of butterfat.
Because of the cost of disposing of surplus dairy products there is a holdback, or deduction, from subsidy payments. On deliveries up to quota the holdback will remain at the same
March 23, 1970	COMMONS
rates as in 1969-70. These are 26 cents per 100 pounds of milk deliveries and 1 cent per pound of butterfat on cream.
The deduction from subsidy payments on milk deliveries in excess of quota will be $1.25 per 100 pounds. In the year just ending it has been 52 cents. On cream deliveries in excess of quota the rate will be 8 cents per pound of butterfat.
The net effect of this is that the position of producers whose deliveries do not exceed their subsidy quotas will be identical to that in the year just ending.
For those who exceed their quota, the value of the over-quota milk is reduced by $1.25 per 100 pounds. If the market price of milk is $3.60 delivered to the factory, the actual value of the over-quota milk is $2.35. In terms of value at the farm, the cost of delivery to the factory would have to be deducted from that.
At a farm value of milk around $2 producers certainly would want to consider the advantage of feeding excess milk to calves or other livestock rather than marketing it. With good veal calves at current levels of about 45 cents per pound, 100 pounds of whole milk will produce about $4.50 worth of gain. Even after allowing for other costs, returns from surplus milk fed to calves should be considerably more than from the market.
Various representations, including the report tabled by the standing committee, have pointed to the fact that some portion of the surplus products is coming from producers who are not within the subsidy program but who benefit from the price supports on dairy products. This involves mainly milk from fluid milk shippers in excess of that which is sold as fluid milk.
The Canadian Dairy Commission cannot secure a contribution from such producers toward the cost of surplus disposal through the holdback from subsidy payments. Nor can the commission make a direct levy from the market price of such milk, since that is not within federal jurisdiction. The commission could, however, make it a condition of the purchase or subsidization of any product under price support that the factory remit to it some amount to be fixed on all milk used by that factory from producers outside the subsidy program.
The commission will continue on an urgent basis discussions with provincial authorities and marketing agencies to develop a program for contribution toward the cost of surplus 21774-59
DEBATES	5325
1970 Dairy Support Program disposal from producers not now contributing to it. Some important areas have agreed to co-operate to that end.
Hon. members will appreciate that it is not possible at this time to make a precise estimate of the extent to which the measures which are to be taken will restrain excess production and, because of that, of the cost of surplus disposal in 1970-71 and the extent to which the levies will meet that cost. It may be necessary for the commission to revise those levels during the year. The subsidy rates, though, will continue for the full year.
While the main thrust of this program or changes in the program is the containment of production, the government recognizes the need to exploit actively opportunities for market development and increased utilization. To this end the government has just sponsored a technical mission to Europe, the objective of which was to explore and assess the potential of new or different uses for milk and milk products on the Canadian market.
The government proposes to place increased emphasis on the use of dairy products in its foreign aid program. In this connection Canada's increased pledge to the world food program should be noted. Consideration will also be given to assisting reconstituting and allied facilities in developing countries.
In conclusion, the program provides for precisely the same level of support in 1970-71 as in 1969-70 for those who restrain their deliveries to their subsidy quotas and thus co-operate in the essential objective of restraining excess production. At the same tune it places a heavier and proportionate charge on milk and cream which contribute to the surplus in order to provide the funds necessary to move the excess product to market.


Mr. H. W. Danforlh (Keni-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, the statement made today by the minister provides the dairy industry with an indication of the government program for the coming dairy year. The fact that the government was disinclined to reduce the government subsidy by the proposed $10 million will bring some comfort to the dairy industry and would indicate that a tribute is due to the members of this industry who protested so violently against this reduction.
As I listened to the minister and began to assimilate the portent of this announcement it became clear that there is little else in it that will bring any comfort to the dairy industry
5326	COMMONS
1970 Dairy Support Program of Canada. Under the terms and provisions set out here many more thousands of the dairymen of Canada will no longer be in business 12 months from now. The degree to which controls are spelled out one after another in this statement should cause the agricultural industry of this country to assess exactly what the proposed program of the government is, because the statement indicates in no uncertain terms the degree of government intervention in a once free enterprise industry.
When the National Dairy Commission was established it was thought by the dairy industry that it would have at its command access to all the pertinent information and statistics and that it would work with the dairy industry to promote the well-being of the industry and those engaged in it. But the first thing the National Dairy Commission did was to establish a system of quotas across the country and dairymen were paid a subsidy on the basis of those quotas. Subsequent steps show the degree of control that has been exercised. First, Mr. Speaker, no dairy producer received any consideration in the form of subsidy on shipping milk outside the quotas. Then the subsidy that was paid had subtracted from it the government costs of shipping surpluses out of the country, which further reduced the subsidy to the Canadian producers.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
Now there is to be a third step. Not only are the first two commitments costing the dairy farmers a lot of money but the government has now indicated that it will assess a fine of $1.25 per hundred pounds on all milk produced beyond the quotas established by the government. Not only will the farmer not receive the market value for the milk he produces but he will be fined $1.25 per hundred pounds for any milk produced in excess of the quota. This is government intervention to the nth degree. It seems that the emphasis has been applied in the wrong direction. Instead of trying to curtail production in this country to meet the demands of a strictly domestic market and limiting international sales, this government should be directing its best emphasis toward putting this country into a competitive market position vis-a-vis other nations in the international field.
The minister has indicated that only now have we sent a commission to Europe to study what other dairy products may be introduced to increase domestic consumption

DEBATES	March 23, 1970
and our share of the international market. Only now is the government investigating the possibility of sending our dairy products abroad to feed the hungry peoples of other nations. These decisions have come after the government has announced that our domestic production is to be curtailed. Would it not have been more logical, reasonable and businesslike if the government had taken these steps first in order to assess how much of our production could be utilized before deciding the degree to which dairy production should be curtailed? What has happened, Mr. Speaker, is just another indication that the government still does not understand the problems of the agricultural industry of Canada.


Mr. Rod Thomson (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, we support the principle of market management with regard to dairying in Canada. We also support the idea of utilizing our surplus dairy products to feed hungry people, both at home and abroad. We think there are people in Canada who could well consume more of our dairy products; this is also true, of course, of the people of the hungry nations of the world. In this regard we think that some form of consumer subsidy ought to be considered to help needy groups in Canada acquire the necessary food.
The statement makes little or no mention of the increased costs facing dairy producers. The farmer has tried to increase his production to meet these increased costs, and that is one of the underlying reasons for the dairy surpluses. The government's refusal to face this awkward problem confronting the dairy farmers and, indeed, all farmers in Canada, will only add to their woes. If we permit our farmers to meet the problems posed by increased costs, other factors will fall naturally into line and may resolve themselves.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I am deeply disappointed about the statement of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) on the dairy policy for the year 197071. And when the producers of manufacturing milk know about it, they will surely approve the remarks which I intend to make.
In his statement, the minister thus resumes his policy:
-the program provides for precisely the same level of support in 1970-71 as in 1969-70, for those who restrain their deliveries to the subsidy quotas and thus co-operate in the essential objectives of restraining excess production.
March 23, 1970
COMMONS DEBATES	5327
Action Concerning Farm Machinery Prices
Up to now everything is fine, because what had been requested has been granted. But the farm organizations, such as the C.F.U. and the Federation of Industrial Milk Producers had asked that the increased production costs be taken into account. They thought that, even if the government raised the export tax rate from 52 cents to $1.25, industrial milk producers would be able to have an income commensurate to their efforts and they would themselves have taken the necessary measures to avoid exceeding their quotas. But, at least, industrial milk producers would have been assured of an income compatible with the needs for the year 1970-71. The industrial milk sector is the only one that is to be penalized. I wonder why we are persistently being blamed for inflation, when all responsible people recognize that the price of industrial milk is not excessive.
The 10 per cent butter surplus is causing a lot of worry. Now that I have heard serious evidence from well-informed people in this field, I think that this surplus of 10 per cent is not harmful for Canada, but rather beneficent. If, during the year 1970-71, a drought should last for a few months, a reduction in the production would quickly result, such reduction could not be compensated during the following months. We must foresee such happenings. We should not worry about this surplus of 10 per cent, because it is the basis on which the dairy policy for 1970-71 was developed.
As a member of the committee, I feel that we have lost our time travelling in the eastern provinces to go and visit farmers and ask them their views about their financial situation and their annual income, because today we find that the government policy has been established even before the report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture had been presented to the House.
Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to keep on trying to co-operate with the government so that the necessary steps may be taken to help manufacturing milk producers control their production so as to avoid surpluses. But it is also incumbent on me to intervene vigorously in order that the cabinet does not cease to look at the situation and improve it during the year because I think it is quite unfair to penalize so many producers who for the most part are living in a certain province.
It is not to the advantage of Canada to have such a situation in view of the conditions now existing in Canada and in Quebec. In my opinion attempts should have been made to
encourage those who really want to work for Canadian unity, and to have the same justice applied to all.



ACTION ON RECOMMENDATIONS OF BARBER


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a brief report on the action the government has taken thus far with respect to the recommendations of the Barber Commission. I gave an undertaking to make this report and I am sure that hon. members in all parts of the House are interested in the action that has already been taken and will be taken on the Special Report on the Prices of Farm Machinery.
It will be recalled that Dr. Barber, in this report, made seven specific recommendations. These involved consultation and negotiation with the governments of the countries concerned and with the companies involved, negotiation and discussion aimed at making tractors from non-traditional sources available to Canadian farmers and the possibility of the imposition of a special "reverse dumping duty."
I am pleased, in this interim report, to be able to indicate that the government has taken and is continuing to take positive action in respect of six of Dr. Barber's recommendations. The seventh, that of a "reverse dumping duty", is under study, as are certain other alternative approaches.
Discussions between government representatives and those of the companies involved have led us to the conclusion that, in line with Dr. Barber's recommendations, one of the most effective approaches would appear to be that of increased competition in the Canadian market. I wish to report that interest in expansion has been expressed by a Canadian manufacturer and also that at least two and possibly three newcomers to the Canadian farm machinery scene are planning trial marketings for the current season. While the impact of these actions on prices and the market situation in general will doubtless be limited this year, we are convinced, with Dr. Barber, that this approach is sound.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
In the meanwhile, the interdepartmental committee continues to work on the study and development of related actions that could supplement or reinforce those already under way.
5328	COMMONS
Action Concerning Farm, Machinery Prices


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: 
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, the minister said he was pleased to report that the government has taken and is continuing to take positive action in respect of six of the recommendations of Dr. Barber. I have checked those recommendations. Among other things the report recommended that the companies concerned, particularly those with European sources of supply, should be asked whether they are prepared to establish prices in Canada more in line with those in Europe. The minister in his statement did not mention any discussions with these suppliers and the co-operation or lack of co-operation that he may have been offered by the companies who were charged in this report with mulcting the Canadian consumer.
This statement does not deal effectively with recommendation No. 3, which reads:
It should ask the Combines Investigation Branch to review the findings of this report and discuss them with the counterparts in the United...and other countries, with a view to possible action.
This statement does not deal effectively been done in this regard. It does not cover the very considerable field of repair parts. Evidence was given to the commission that excessive prices were being charged for repairs and repair parts compared with the cost of parts and the repairing of other automotive equipment such as cars.
Surely it is within the competence of this government to have the Department of Justice, under the Combines Investigation Act, institute action at the national level on this matter in view of the fact that millions of dollars worth of farm machinery in this country must be repaired. This problem will not be solved simply by going to Czechoslovakia or some other place in Europe to import machines. This effort may be laudable in itself, and the more power to the minister and the government if they can find other sources of machines and bring them in so that the farmer will be at a better advantage in purchasing machines. But I do say that nol enough action is being taken against the machinery companies which have been and will continue to take advantage of the farmer unless there is positive action to prevent them from doing so.
March 23, 1970

The farmers in my area are not buying new machines; they are operating the old ones. Any farm machinery dealer knows that his bread and butter comes from providing repairs on these old machines. I hope the government will take some action on this matter. If local machine companies are prepared to import new machines and develop new machines in Canada, because there are signfi-cant operations in western Canada of local companies and co-operatives, will the minister and the government not consider giving these companies support in terms of research and development so that they can compete more effectively with the companies that have been overcharging?
The hon. member for Mackenzie quite properly raised the matter of interest rates. The government should also give this matter serious attention at this time.



MANPOWER


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table, under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2), the report of the Summer Employment Survey of Post-Secondary Students in Canada, 1969.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Thomson: 1.	Is the National Energy Board empowered to regulate exports and imports of crude petroleum and/or petroleum products?
2.	Is the National Energy Board empowered to regulate imports of electric power?
3.	What special studies on energy have been conducted by the National Energy Board in cooperation with governmental and other agencies both in and outside Canada since 1967 and, with whom did the NEB co-operate in each case?
4.	(a) Who are the five members of the National Energy Board and where did they work before their present employment (b) do any of the members have financial interests in the energy field and, if so, what are they?
Questions
5.	What are the (a) total reserves (b) commercially marketable reserves presently on hand of petroleum natural gas in Canada?
6.	What are the (a) total reserves (b) commercially marketable reserves presently on hand in Canada of all other minerals or fuels which are marketed in Canada?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: 1. Not at the present time. Should the Governor in Council, pursuant to subsection 87(1) of the National Energy Board Act by proclamation extend the application of Part VI of the Act to oil, the effect would be, in the absence of exempting regulations, to subject the export and import of oil to the licensing control of the National Energy Board.
2.	No.
3.	Under the National Energy Board Act the Board is required to study and keep under review matters on which the Parliament of Canada has jurisdiction, relating to the exploration for, production, recovery, manufacture, processing, transmission, distribution, transportation, sale, purchase, exchange and disposal of energy and sources of energy within and outside Canada and to report thereon from time to time to the Minister. In carrying out this function, the Board is continually engaged in the study of matters relating to energy, many of which are carried out in conjunction with other government departments and agencies as well as with provincial authorities concerned. In most cases, the results of these studies are for the confidential information of the Government.
One major study which has occupied the Board's staff over the time period referred to in the question has been the preparation of a long-term energy forecast. This work was completed in 1969 and published as a document entitled "Energy Supply and Demand in Canada and Export Demand for Canadian Energy-1966 to 1990". In the preparation of this work, consultation took place with the federal Department of Transport and the Economic Council of Canada as well as with provincial departments and agencies in each of the Canadian provinces and with energy oriented industries throughout Canada.
Other studies included; an appraisal of future power supply alternatives for Prince Edward Island; an appraisal of system reliability of supply alternatives to Newfoundland; economic and technical feasibility studies related to the tidal power development in

March 23, 1970
Questions
the Bay of Fundy; energy supply and demand, aggregation of statistics dealing with energy obtained from different sources and in various forms; feasibility and optimal design of gas pipe line facilities; transmission of oil in pipe lines also designated to carry other commodities; and oil and gas pipe line material, metallurgy and welding.
4.	(a) Dr. R. D. Howland, Chairman-Member-Royal Commission on Energy 1957-59; Mr. D. M. Fraser, Vice-Chairman-Director of the Energy Studies Branch, Department of Trade and Commerce; Mr. H. L. Briggs, Member-General Manager of the British Columbia Power Commission; Mr. Maurice Royer, Member-Consulting Engineer; Mr. J. G. Stabback, Member-Chief Engineer, National Energy Board.
(b) No. Section 3(5) of the National Energy Board Act prescribes as follows: "A person is not eligible to be appointed or to continue as a member of the Board if he is not a Canadian citizen or if as owner, shareholder, director, officer, partner, or otherwise, he is engaged in the business of producing, selling, buying, transmitting, exporting, importing or otherwise dealing in hydrocarbons or power or if he holds any bond, debenture or other security of a company".
5.	(a) Based on estimates of the volumes of sediments within the various basins in Canada and a comparison with other sedimentary basins of the world, which are in more advanced state of development, the Canadian Petroleum Association estimated the potential reserves of raw natural gas in Canada, to be some 725 trillion cubic feet.
(b) The Canadian Petroleum Association's estimate of proved remaining marketable reserves of natural gas at 31 December, 1968, was some 48 trillion cubic feet.
6.	(a) Based on estimates of the volumes of sediments within the various basins in Canada and a comparison with other sedimentary basins of the world, which are in more advanced state of development; the Canadian Petroleum Association estimated the potential reserves of crude oil and natural gas liquids to be some 120 billion and 20 billion barrels, respectively. In addition, recoverable reserves of upgraded synthetic crude oil, have been estimated to be some 300 billion barrels.
(b) The Canadian Petroleum Association's estimate of proved remaining recoverable liquid hydrocarbon reserves in Canada, at 31 December, 1968, were 10 billion barrels. The Association has estimated that the remaining

proved reserves, which could be recovered by the existing oil sand plant, is some 6 billion barrels. (The National Energy Board does not have information on other minerals or fuels marketed in Canada.)


NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD PLANNING
Mr. Thomson: 1.	What planning has been carried out by the National Energy Board in conjunction with the Emergency Supply Planning Branch of the Department of Supply and Services?
2.	For what types of emergency in the petroleum industry is contingency planning made?
3.	Does the government have any knowledge of overcapacity at any level of the petroleum and natural gas industry in Canada at the present time and, if so, what is the nature and extent of the overcapacity and what effect does it have on prices?


John James Greene: 1. The National Energy Board has played a major role in studies and the development of plans concerning energy by the Emergency Supply Planning Branch (ESPB) of the Department of Supply and Services in accordance with the latter's responsibilities for such matters.
2.	Contingency planning is made relating to the petroleum industry against the possibility of an armed attack on Canada.
3.	The National Energy Board is not aware of any significant overcapacity in the natural gas industry in Canada. During 1968 the level of production of crude oil was about 53 per cent of the oil field's ability to produce crude oil. The transportation facilities had a capacity to deliver some 25 per cent in excess of the 1968 level of production. There are no indications that the overcapacity has had any effect on prices.


COMPANION OF THE ORDER OF CANADA AWARDS
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	How many awards of the Companion of the Order of Canada have been made to date?
2.	Of the awards made, how many of the recipients have been Civil Servants present or past?
3.	What persons constitute the Committee on recommendations?


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secreiary io Prime Minisier);: I am informed by the Registrar of the Order of Canada as follows:
1.	As of March 10, 1970, 100 Companions have been appointed to the Order of Canada, of whom 16 are deceased, leaving a balance of 84 living Companions.
March 23, 1970

2.	Of the 100 Companions appointed, 11 were serving and 25 were former federal public servants. They may, however, have been awarded Companions for achievements unrelated to their service as a public servant.
3.	Names are submitted by individuals or organizations to the Advisory Council which, by the Constitution of the Order of Canada, is composed of the following: The Chief Justice of Canada (Chairman); The Clerk of the Privy Council; The Under Secretary of State; The Chairman of the Canada Council; The President of the Royal Society of Canada; The President of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada.


SALARIES OF PUBLIC SERVANTS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What is the salary of Mr. Basil Robinson, the new Deputy-Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and, what was his salary in the Department of the Secretary of State for External Affairs?
2.	What is the salary of Mr. Sylvain Cloutier, the new Deputy Minister of National Revenue for
Taxation and, what was his salary in the Treasury Board Secretariat?
3.	What is the salary of Mr. John A. MacDonald, the new Deputy-Minister of Public Works and, what was his salary in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?
4.	What is the annual salary of Mr. John Boucher, the new Deputy-Minister of Supply and Services, what was his salary in the Canada Council?
5.	What is the salary of Mr. Gordon Hunter, the new Master of the Mint and what was his salary in the Department of Supply and Services?
6.	What is the new salary of Mr. M. J. MacMillan, the Chairman of the Canadian National Railway Company and, what was his previous salary with CNR?


James Edgar Walker: 1. Mr. Basil Robinson, Deputy-Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, $33,000-37,000; Department of External Affairs, $28,000-33,000.
2.	Mr. Sylvain Cloutier, Deputy-Minister of National Revenue (Taxation), $28,000-33,000; Treasury Board, $28,000-33,000.
3.	Mr. John A. MacDonald, Deputy-Minister of Public Works, $33,000-37,000; Deputy-Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development; $33,000-37,000.
4.	Mr. Jean Boucher, Deputy-Minister of Supply and Services, $28,000-33,000; Canada Council, $28,000-33,000.
5.	Mr. Gordon Hunter, Master of the Mint, $28,000-33,000; Department of Supply and Services, $28,000-33,000.
Questions
6.	Mr. M. J. MacMillan, after reappointment; as Chairman $5,000 and as President, $70,000; Before reappointment; as Chairman $5,000 and as President, $70,000.


COMPUTER DATA STORAGE OUTSIDE CANADA
Mr. Kaplan: 1.	Does the government use computer facilities which store data outside Canada?
2.	Which departments and agencies use such facilities and to what extent?


Mr. Yves Foresi (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: 1. and 2.
The Department of Agriculture use on a limited scale for computer program development the Computer Time Sharing, Place de Ville, Tower A. (computer is at Boston, U.S.A.) and the Greyhound Computer of Canada Limited, 1740 Woodward Drive (computer is at Stanford, Conn., U.S.A.)
The National Research Council of Canada participates in continuing international scientific programs, by acquiring information concerning such matters as cosmic ray intensities, meteorites, solar radio waves and transmitting this to the internationally appointed agencies which store, collate and disseminate it.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police use the National Crime Information Centre in Washington, D.C. for the purpose of tracing criminals in connection with offences committed in Canada, plus exchange information on stolen motor vehicles and other identifiable stolen property. This information is also kept in Canada.


COMMEMORATIVE STAMPS, MANITOBA CENTENNIAL
Mr. Stewari (Marquette): Were postage stamps issued to commemorate Manitoba's Centennial Year and, if so (a) was the Government of Manitoba consulted on the design of these stamps (b) when were they consulted (c) who was consulted and did they approve?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General and Minister of Communications):: Yes; (a) No; (b) Not applicable; (c) The Manitoba Centennial Corporation was advised on November 25, 1965, of the department's intention to issue a stamp to commemorate Manitoba's Centennial Year and was invited to submit design proposals. No design proposals were submitted, however, and the only further contact in this regard was to advise the Corporation as to the appointment of a designer.

March 23, 1970
Questions
The selection of the designer, Mr. Kenneth Lockhead of Winnipeg, was performed by a design advisory committee appointed by the Canada Post Office. This committee is composed of six members who are internationally recognized Canadian philatelists or authorities in fields of the visual arts. This advisory com-mitte selects the artists to be commissioned to design each stamp, chooses and approves all design submissions and the finished artwork.


GLACE BAY HEAVY WATER PLANT
Mr. Thomson: 1.	Has the Government of Nova Scotia recently requested financial and/or technical assistance from the Government of Canada with respect to the Glace Bay "Heavy Water" plant and, if so, what was the response?
2.	Before approving the Heavy Water contract with the Nova Scotia Government, did AECL request full details of the "Spivak process" as to evidence of its success?
3.	Did AECL carry out any of its own testing and research of the "Spivak process" and, if so, what were the conclusions?
4.	If AECL did not approve of the "Spivak process", why was the "Heavy Water" contract agreed to with the Nova Scotia Government?
5.	What method of producing "Heavy Water" is being used by AECL at the Douglas Point plant?
6.	Is the government considering a completely independent appraisal of Canada's Atomic Energy Program and, if so, on what date and who will do the appraising?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Prime Minister's and Privy Council Offices and the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited as follows: 1. In July of last year the government of Nova Scotia approached the federal government seeking various forms of assistance with respect to the Glace Bay heavy water plant. Several exchanges have taken place since that time and the matter is still under discussion between the two governments.
2.	No. AECL was aware that Deuterium of Canada Limited proposed to use the same basic process as had been successfully used in the U.S.A. for many years, but with some changes covered by "improvement" patents.
3.	No.
4.	See 2 above.
5.	The same basic process i.e. the hydrogen sulphide-water dual temperature isotope exchange process.
[Mr. Kierans.f
6.	The government has kept and is keeping Canada's atomic energy program under continuing review and is not at present considering an independent appraisal of that program.


EXPROPRIATIONS, RICHMOND CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Beaudoin: Have expropriations been carried out by the federal government or any Crown corporation in the constituency of Richmond in 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969 and, if so (a) how many (b) what was the site, reason, date and cost of each expropriation?


Yves Forest: (a) During the years 1966 to 1969 the Department of Public Works expropriated one site, (b) Site: St. Adolphe de Dudswell. Reason: To permit construction of a small Post Office. Date: April 26, 1968. Cost: $2,300.


PATIENTS UNDER DOMICILIARY CARE, CAMP HILL HOSPITAL
Mr. McCleave: 1.	How many patients are, or were, at Camp Hill Hospital, Halifax, under domiciliary care since October 15, 1969?
2.	What range of charges per month did they pay?
3.	How many are paying the new maximum charges of $300 per month?
4.	What procedure is followed by the veterans or their families to obtain payments of lesser amounts than $300 per month?
5.	How many domiciliary care patients at Camp Hill Hospital are paying less than half of the increase?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. October, 189; November, 193; December, 192; January, 187.
The above figures include those patients provided with chronic care under Section 29 of the Veterans Treatment Regulations.
2.	Charges range from "nil" to $120 a month.
3.	None.
4.	The veteran or his family are requested to provide accurate information concerning the veteran's income and assets and the number of dependants so that his ability to pay up to $120 could be properly assessed after provision was made for all dependants and his personal needs.
5.	Not applicable.
March 23, 1970


HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION, ATLANTIC PROVINCES
Mr. MacLean: What is the estimated expenditure to be made by the federal government in the fiscal year 1970-71 for highway construction in each of the four Atlantic Provinces, other than in national parks?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: So far as the Department of Public Works is concerned: Estimated contributions to Atlantic Provinces under the Trans-Canada Highway program for the fiscal year 1970-71: Newfoundland, $5,800,000; Prince Edward Island, $28,000; New Brunswick, $2,600,000; Nova Scotia, $1,900,000.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE DISCUSSION OF ILO SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC RIGHTS CONVENTIONS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	In connection with the Canadian Charter of Human Rights, what Conventions of the International Labour Organization dealing with social and economic rights has Canada ratified?
2.	Were these Conventions, ratified by Canada, which are now part of the legal structure of Canada, included in the documents prepared by the Government of Canada for discussion at the Federal-Provincial Conference and, if not, for what reasons?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: 1. Canada is a party to 24 of the ILO Conventions all of which construed in their broadest sense relate to social and economic rights. However, on the basis of a recent study by an ILO committee of experts, the following conventions to which Canada is bound would appear to be among those ILO instruments having the most direct relevance to these areas: No. 26, Convention concerning the creation of Minimum Wage-Fixing Machinery; No. 88, Convention concerning the Organization of the Employment Service; No. 105, Convention concerning the Abolition of Forced Labour; No. Ill, Convention concerning Discrimination in respect of Employment and Occupation; No. 122, Convention concerning Employment Policy.
2. The above ILO Conventions were not included in the documents prepared by the Government of Canada for discussion at the Federal-Provincial Conference of February 1969 when a "Canadian Charter of Human Rights" was discussed. Since the Conference was concerned with the possibility of entrenching in the Canadian constitution a char-
Questions
ter incorporating the broad categories of human rights-political, legal, egalitarian, linguistic and economic-only those international conventions which enshrined the general principles governing human rights were submitted to the Conference as background material. With regard to social and economic rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which subsumes the subjects covered by the ILO Conventions was a Conference document.
It should be noted, however, that there is continuing consultation and frequent meetings between the federal and provincial governments at the Minister and Deputy Minister level dealing specifically with ILO matters, including ratification and implementation by the provinces of ILO Conventions. The next such Federal-Provincial meeting at the Deputy Minister level will convene in Ottawa from April 30-May 1 of this year.


NET DEBT OF FEDERAL, PROVINCIAL AND MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS
Mr. MacLean: 1.	(a) What was the net debt of the Government of Canada on the most recent date for which figures are available (b) what are the carrying charges for this net debt on the most recent date for which figures are available?
2.	(a) What was the net debt of each of the ten provincial governments on the most recent date for which figures are available (b) what are the estimated annual charges of the debt for each of the provinces on the most recent date for which figures are available?
3.	(a) What was the total net debt of Canadian municipalities, including school boards, on the most recent date for which figures are available (b) what are the estimated annual carrying charges for the debt referred to in Part (a)?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: 1.	(a) As of March 31, 1969, $17,335,837,990. (b) For the fiscal year ended March 31, 1969, $798,181,536.
2 and 3. The government does not have responsibility for (a) the net debt, and (b) annual carrying charges of provincial and municipal governments. Figures are published on this from time to time by the provincial governments and municipalities, and by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.


HOUSING AND APARTMENT STARTS, 1969
Mr. Orlikow: 1. How many houses were begun by builders in urban centres in 1969 and, of this number, how many were begun in Halifax, Montreal, Toronto,
5334

March 23, 1970
Questions
Hamilton, Winnipeg, Regina, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver?
2 How many apartment units were begun by builders in urban centres in 1969 and, of this number, how many were begun in Halifax, Montreal,
Toronto, Hamilton, Winnipeg, Regina, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: 1. and 2. See Table 1 below.
Dwelling Starts, by Type of Structure, in Centres 10,000 Population and Over, 1969
(Dwelling Units)
SemiDetached Single-	and
Area	Detached	Duplex	Row	Apartment	Total
Selected Metropolitan Areas:					
Halifax	432	304	-	2,582	3,318Montreal	3,627	602	323	19,098	23,650Toronto	5,782	2,535	1,838	21,719	31,874Hamilton	1,783	72	338	2,884	5,077Winnipeg	2,134	355	361	6,180	9,030Regina	648	186	64	791	1,689Calgary	3,043	754	676	5,264	9,737Edmonton	2,368	152	588	6,699	9,807Vancouver	4,763	402	580	11,945	17,690All Metropolitan Areas	35,686	6,986	7,759	93,868	144,299Total Urban Centres 10,000 Population and Over	46,787	8,636	9,694	104,622	169,739


LENNOX ISLAND CAUSEWAY
Mr. MacDonald (Egmoni): 1.	On what date was it first suggested that a causeway be constructed from the mainland to Lennox Island
2.	At what times were surveys carried out for this project?
3.	What costs were estimated?
4.	On what date is it expected this project will be commenced?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Department of Public Works and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as follows: 1. August 1964.
2.	June 1965, November 1965 and August 1969.
3.	It is not customary to give estimated costs before contracts are awarded.
4.	The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, and the gov-

emment of the Province of Prince Edward Island are still discussing the possibility of constructing a causeway between the Prince Edward Island mainland and Lennox Island. As no decision has yet been made as to whether or not a causeway will be built, it is not possible to comment on a possible date for commencement.


P.E.I.-SUBSIDY TO MILK PRODUCERS
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,395
Mr. MacLean:: 1.	What was the total amount of subsidy paid to milk producers, in the Province of Prince Edward Island, in each of the past five dairy years?
2.	What was the total number of milk producers, in the Province of Prince Edward Island, to whom subsidy was paid in each of the past five dairy years?
3.	What was the annual decrease in the number of dairy producers in the Province of Prince Edward Island in each of the past five dairy years?
4.	What has been the total quota eligible for subsidy allocated to the Province of Prince Edward Island by the National Dairy Commission in each dairy year since the inception of the Commission?
March 23. 1970


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: 1.	The statistics available on subsidies paid to milk producers have been retained by fiscal years rather than by dairy years. The total amount of subsidy paid to Prince Edward Island milk producers for the past five fiscal years as as follows: 1964-65, $598,971; 196566, $510,979;	1966-67, $1,196,226;	1967-68,
$1,604,096; 1968-69, $1,696,869.
2.	The number of milk producers is not available for the fiscal years 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1966-67. The total number of milk producers for the last two fiscal years is as follows: 1967-68, 3,411; 1968-69, 2,554.
3.	The only federal government data on total number of producers is the census figure. The last (1966) census figure was 4,675.
4.	Pounds of butterfat
1967-	68
1968-	69
1969-	70
5.691.000
5.511.000
5.105.000


REDUCTION OF RESERVE DEFENCE FORCES
Mr. MacLean: With regard to the reduction of the Reserve Defence Forces announced in December, 1969	(a)
what was the reason for the disproportionately large reduction in medical units which wipes out 75 per cent of such units (b) what was the reason for the large cut in (i) the Provost Corps (ii) the Intelligence Corps?


Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Apart from the important considerations of economy, the main reason for the reorganization of Canada's Reserve Forces, is to complement the Regular Force. The units in the land reserve best suited to do this are the arms units- Infantry, Armour and Artillery. Consequently, the Service units suffer the greatest reductions. Apart from the RCASC which must retain a transportation capability, and Signals units which will be tasked to augment the Canadian Forces Communication System in times of emergency, the Service units are reorganized on the basis that their primary task is now that of support for other land reserve units.
The retention of small independent units is uneconomical in terms of administrative overhead. Consequently, the number of Service units has been reduced but appropriately sized detachments have been retained within Service Battalions. Six Medical units have been retained and 14 detachments included within the composition of Service Battalions. This 21774-6IH
Questions
compares with 22 Medical companies which were in existence prior to reorganization. This applies equally to the Provost Corps and the Intelligence Corps. Small security detachments have been provided within Service Battalions.


OLD AGE SECURITY CHEQUE GARNISHEES
Mr. Stewart (Marquette): How many recipients of Old Age Security have had their cheques garnisheed by the Department of Veterans Affairs, through the Financial Administration Act, and in how many instances was (a) the total amount of the pension recovered by the federal government (b) more than 50 per cent of the Old Age Security cheque of the recipient recovered in the present fiscal year and in fiscal years 1967-68 and 1968-69?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: 1967-68: Number of recipients, six. (a), nil; (b), nil. 1968-69: Number of recipients, 36. (a), nil; (b), two. 1969-70 (to date): Number of recipients, 43. (a), nil; (b), two.


TREASURY BOARD GARNISHEE OF OLD AGE SECURITY CHEQUES
Mr. Stewart (Marquette): How many recipients of Old Age Security have had their cheques garnisheed by Treasury Board through the Financial Administration Act for the present fiscal year and the fiscal year 1968-69, and how much money did Treasury Board recover by these garnishees?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: By virtue of Section 95 of the Financial Administration Act, the Treasury Board may authorize the Receiver General to retain by way of deduction or set-off the amounts of certain indebtedness to Her Majesty. This authorization is granted on the submission of departments and the Treasury Board does not, of itself, initiate such actions. Statistics are not kept by the Treasury Board of the numbers or amounts of such deductions or set-offs involving recipients of Old Age Security. This information should be obtained from the departments concerned, predominantly the Departments of Veterans Affairs and National Health and Welfare named in questions 1,491 and 1,493.


FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR FRASER COMPANY SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
Mrs. Maclnnis: 1. Did the government assist the Fraser Company of Edmundston, New Brunswick, with funds to build a sewage treatment plant and, if so, on what date and to what financial extent?

March 23. 1970
Order for Return
2. Did the government receive any guarantee of minimum quality standards of effluent when it made these funds available?


Mr. Marlin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1. No.
2. Not applicable.


TOBACCO EXPERIMENTAL FARM-DELHI, ONTARIO
Mr. Buchanan: With reference to Question Number 962 answered on February 23, 1970, is the Delhi Research Station working on the development of a tobacco strain or variety that would make safer cigarettes?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The Delhi Research Station is conducting a tobacco breeding program for the production of strains and varieties with lower nicotine and tar content.


'PLACE DE VILLE, OTTAWA-RENTAL OF SPACE BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	Has the government entered into a lease or agreement for lease for twenty years with Mr. Cam-peau or one of his Companies, to rent the Place de Ville-a building now under construction in Ottawa and, if so (a) on what date (b) what are the terms thereof?
2.	What is the total amount that the lessor will receive from the government?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of this question is no. The second part, of course, is not applicable.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. MacLean: 1.	What was the population of each of the Provinces of Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario and Quebec for 1871, and each census year since?
2.	Using the population of 1871 as a base in each case, and applying the known birth rates and death rates, what would have been the population of each of these provinces for each census year since, if there had been no migration across provincial boundaries, and ignoring population increases of the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec due to extension of their areas?
Return tabled.

[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-lings):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Would he take the House into his confidence and advise whether, in his meeting with the leaders of the Canadian Labour Congress this morning, he was assured of their co-operation in the government's program to control inflation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not have to take the House into my confidence. The meetings were open and public, and I am sure they will be well reported. I suppose it would be a fair summary to say that the policies that we are pursuing did not meet with the enthusiastic approval of the labour movement.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question. I take it from what the Prime Minister has said that the government was not given any assurance whatever of the agreement of the labour bodies to the proposals that it has been making for some time through the Prices and Incomes Commission. Did the leaders of the Canadian Labour Congress suggest to the government this morning that the government should reverse its policies, which have produced the highest cost of living ever and the highest level of unemployment for the past six years, policies which-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: -are leading the country-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: -in a disastrous direction?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member might like to ask a question. It seems to me that he is making a speech instead of asking a question.


George Harris Hees: Then I will put a supplementary question. Since the leaders of the Canadian Labour Congress very clearly pointed out, I take it, the inadequacies of the government's proposals-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: -is it the intention of the government to reverse its programs, which have
March 23, 1970

led to disastrous results, accept the views of the Canadian Labour Congress, the opposition and other sensible people-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: -and introduce policies that make sense and will lead the country in a proper and sensible direction?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I believe the hon. member for York South has a supplementary.



INFLATION-FIGURES ON DIVISION OF INCOME USED BY PRIME MINISTER AT MEETING WITH CANADIAN LABOUR CONGRESS

David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary to the Prime Minister arising out of some figures that he used this morning in regard to the division of the national income between the various sectors of the economy. Would the Prime Minister agree to table the schedule of figures, showing the position from 1950 to now, on which his statement to the Canadian Labour Congress was based?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the House desires this it will be done. They are figures produced by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for York South has suggested that a certain document be tabled. Is there agreement that the document referred to by the right hon. Prime Minister and the hon. member be tabled?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Could he tell the House whether he advised the labour leaders as to what level the government would be prepared to allow unemployment to rise to in its war against inflation before it came to the conclusion that the casualties were too great?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it was the labour movement that was presenting a brief, not the Liberal or Conservative party.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister seems to have chimed in about every two minutes with this labour bit, could he not tell us what he said out in the open so that we would have full knowledge of it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. With regard to the percentage of income that he attributed to labour, could the Prime Minister tell the House whether these were figures for working people or figures showing wages, salaries and professional fees?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there was so much noise as the question began that I did not understand it.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether, when he referred in his statement this morning to the percentage of income received by workers, he was referring to wages, wages and salaries, or wages, salaries and professional fees received by people in the labour force?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I referred to two sets of figures. One set of figures showed that in the past 20 years the share of profits in national income had dropped by 25 per cent. The other set of figures indicated that the share of salaries, including wages and earnings, had increased by nearly 20 per cent over the past 20 years.


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whil-by):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Apparently the Prime Minister misunderstood the question. I understood my colleague to ask the Prime Minister whether the figures to which he referred this morning included the income of professional people.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member misunderstood my answer. The answer is yes. I said it included all of these things, and no member should take offence at this. I indicated that it was good that there had been a transfer of resources over the past 20 years, a very heavy transfer, from the profits sector to the wages, salaries and other income sector.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister, when he produces the figures asked for by my colleague from York South, whether he would break down the figures showing what percentage of the national income is wages, what part executive salaries, and what part professional fees, in order to give an accurate picture of the distribution of income?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling the document, but if the leader of the New Democratic party wants me to make a little speech about it I will do so. As to the first question

March 23. 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry whether I would table the figures, my answer was yes. If he wants me to reiterate what I told the labour movement this morning I shall. I said that our fight against inflation was not intended to prevent redistribution of income in the country, nor would it have that effect. I said it was merely a short-term fight against inflation and I outlined the steps that had to be taken now. I will gladly include this in the document that I will table, but it will then no longer be the document authorized to be presented to this House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There seems to be some difficulty. The House has agreed to allow the Prime Minister to table a document. The suggestion now is that something else be tabled. The consent of the House would have to be sought in this regard. Perhaps we might return to this subject later since other hon. members appear to be anxious to ask questions.



MANITOBA CENTENNIAL


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and it has to do with the suggestion of Premier Schreyer of Manitoba that, as part of the Manitoba centennial celebrations, the legislature of that province would like to convene on July 15, I believe, and have Her Majesty the Queen read the Speech from the Throne. For this to be done, of course, the favourable advice of the Prime Minister would be required.
Has the Prime Minister been consulted in this regard; and in any event, what would be his reaction to the suggestion of a visit that would be so widely welcomed not only in Manitoba but in the prairie provinces generally?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will have to consult my office on whether such a proposition has arrived there. I have no knowledge of it as yet, but I am interested to hear that the new government of Manitoba is taking the right hon. member for Prince Albert into its confidence on these matters.


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister
should not be so touchy and petulant. He is getting worse every day.



APPLICATIONS FOR LICENCES UNDER PATENT ACT AMENDMENTS-PLANS TO REDUCE PRICES

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs? Is he now in a position to inform the House regarding the results of his department's investigation into the applications for drug licences under the recent amendments to the Patent Act passed by the House recently, and have these investigations ascertained whether there has been collusion by members of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers' Association in not applying for these licences?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the program has been delayed because American Home Products have been contesting the right of Parliament to deal with drug patents. They have been testing it in court, but at this time we have been successful in the Court of Appeal of Ontario. There have been two licences issued by the Commissioner of Patents, both covering a drug called diazepam which I understand has a laid-down cost in Montreal of $87 per kilo and is now distributed by Hoffman-LaRoche at a retail cost of $9,000.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, since the minister
stated before the House committee discussing the amendments to the Patent Act concerning drug licences that if the government's legislation did not lower drug prices immediately he would consider alternative action, and since drug prices in Canada are still the highest of any industrial nation, will the minister undertake to make a statement on motions in the very near future indicating what new plans the government has to reduce drug prices in this country?


Stanley Ronald Basford: As I said, Mr. Speaker, we have been delayed by reason of the fact that American Home Products have been challenging the right of this Parliament to enact the legislation it did last session. Presuming that case is not taken to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Commissioner is proceeding as fast as he can in dealing with some 62 applications for compulsory licences which he has received. He has rendered decisions in some 11 of those cases but the licences are not being issued at the present time because of the litigation.
March 23, 1970


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may have anticipated my question but perhaps I could ask a further supplementary. Would the minister be prepared to make a statement on motions in respect of this very important matter in order to put the minds of Canadians at ease?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I think the last two answers I have given constitute a statement. I am not sure, until the matter of the litigation is cleared up, that there is anything more I can say that would be useful, except to reiterate that the commissioner is acting within the law as fast as he can in processing applications for compulsory licences which will be granted as fast as they can be. When they are granted, I think this will have a beneficial effect for drug purchasers.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether, in order to achieve the objective of lowering drug prices in Canada, he is considering the imposition of a tax or setting a maximum on the allowable deduction of expenses for drug advertising, sales promotion and detail men?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Not at the moment, Mr. Speaker.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question 1 should like to direct to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is Canada reconsidering its trade policies in respect of South Africa in view of the longtime policy of apartheid in that country?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker; as the Prime Minister said, this question is under review.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs also review the policy in respect of the Polymer Corporation, which I believe operates in South Africa?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is now making a representation or a suggestion to the minister.


Norman Augustine Cafik: May I rephrase that question?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member might rephrase the question.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I should like to know whether, in the review the government is undertaking in respect of trade with South Africa, it is the intention to review the policy regarding Polymer?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, all aspects of our trade with South Africa will be reviewed, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, in this review is the government considering whether it is appropriate to have a preferential Commonwealth tariff in favour of South Africa long after South Africa has ceased to be a member of the Commonwealth?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, this preference is reciprocal and we would have to consider both sides of the question.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Fundy-Roy-al: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Government House Leader whether he can help to bring forward an answer to my question on Polymer's investments in the Republic of South Africa, which has been on the Order Paper for four or five weeks?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: I will make inquiries, Mr. Speaker.


BAY OF FUNDY-CONSULTATION BY PROGRAMMING BOARD WITH DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darlmoulh-Halifax
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Prior to the decision by the government not to proceed with the Atlantic tidal power development project, did the Atlantic Tidal Power Programming Board in the course of its studies consult in depth with the minister or his departmental officials?
Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice and make a report later.


BAY OF FUNDY-RECONSIDERATION OF DECISION NOT TO PROCEED WITH PROJECT
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Prime Minister. In

March 23, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry view of the alarming increase in unemployment in the Atlantic provinces, will he reconsider the decision of his government not to proceed with the harnessing of the Bay of Fundy tides from a power development point of view?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, is it the intention of the Prime Minister to suspend construction of the new international airport in Quebec and to suspend the granting of interest free and low interest loans to underdeveloped countries in the world until interest rates decline?


BAY OF FUNDY-DEPARTMENTAL STUDY OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF PROGRAMMING BOARD
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the report released on Friday and some of the recommendations on Fundy power of the Atlantic Tidal Power Programming Board, is it the intention of his department to strike immediately a committee of departmental officials to study some of those recommendations and in particular the potential development of research to reduce the cost of generating equipment and construction in order that this project might proceed in the future?


Jean Marchand: This is something we are looking into right now, Mr. Speaker. No decision has been made yet.


Mr.. Nowlan:: I wonder if I might ask another supplementary question? In view of the fact that the report was tabled on Friday, and the minister is looking into many facets of this very fundamental project that could bring so much to the east, would the minister make a statement on motions in the very near future as to what his department plans to do about this project?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will consider this request.
IMr. Coates.]
IEnglish]


FINANCE
Mr. F. J. Bigg (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance, but in his absence perhaps the Minister of Justice will be able to answer it for me. In view of recent cases involving bribery and corruption in the Royal Mint, will the government assure the House that a thorough investigation of the operations of the Mint will be started immediately and, if necessary, a royal commission set up in order that the public interest may be fully protected?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: I will transmit the question to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker.


MANPOWER
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Could he inform the House whether it is the intention of the government to discontinue its alienated youth program in Toronto and Montreal and, if so, why?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I do not recognize the program as coming within my department.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, is the government planning any new summer student employment program in provinces facing economic difficulties, such as Saskatchewan and the Maritimes?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we are
proposing and will implement a summer student employment program in all provinces.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Is he aware of the recent announcement by Imperial Oil of Canada that it is switching its credit cards to a revolving credit system, thereby increasing the cost of petroleum products to con-
March 23, 1970



sumers, and will he inform the House whether this action is in line with the government's anti-inflationary program?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, on budget night the Minister of Finance made it very clear he disapproved of agencies, particularly oil companies, handing out credit cards wholesale, and he announced that legislation would be introduced in a matter of weeks.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, do I take it from the minister's answer that the legislation proposed by the government is designed to deal specifically with the transfer of general credit card systems to revolving credit card systems?


Stanley Ronald Basford: It is designed to deal with the matters the Minister of Finance discussed in the budget, namely, the level of commercial credit and down payments-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister tell the House whether the government asserted Canadian sovereignty over the Canadian Arctic in general and the waters in particular when Mr. Alexis Johnson of the United States State Department led a delegation here last Friday to discuss Canada-U.S. matters such as pollution, fisheries boundaries and laws of the sea?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we informed Mr. Alexis Johnson when he was here exactly what I have informed members of the House and what the Prime Minister has informed the country generally, that we regard these Arctic waters as ours.




Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, from time to time over the past two months I have asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whether they
Inquiries of the Ministry have received information from the United States concerning the first series of nuclear tests at Amchitka in Alaska. As the House will be in recess very soon, Mr. Speaker, would you allow me to redirect the question once more to the Secretary of State for External Affairs?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, we have not yet received this information. We are still inquiring and expect to get it.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday I directed a question to the Acting Prime Minister, which he indicated he would turn over to the Prime Minister, with reference to the postal dispute and the Goldenberg inquiry. Would the Prime Minister answer?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Acting Prime Minister did confer with me on some question. I cannot remember, unless the hon. member is specific, what the conference was about.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the Solicitor General was not specific. It had reference to the Empire Club speech of the Postmaster General and the indication that job guarantees for the workers in Montreal would require legislation. My question was whether this was the point of view of the government and was the commissioner so advised?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have the answer of the Acting Prime Minister. He said he would be very glad to look into that suggestion and in effect he did look into it with me.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, that is a very clever but hardly a helpful answer. I think it is very important to know whether the Postmaster General, as reported, was in fact indicating that the job security rights which are so crucial to this dispute can be transferred only through legislation. If that is the point of view of the government, was Commissioner Goldenberg so advised?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Certainly that is not the position of the government. It is an opinion expressed honestly by a minister who believes in it but the government position

March 23, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry was announced in the House about a week ago when we decided to appoint Mr. Golden-berg as mediator in this dispute. I indicated at that time that the government would await his decision before deciding what our policy would be.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I have a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Without being presumptuous, might I suggest to the Prime Minister that he acquaint the Postmaster General with the government policy?


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that, according to the reply given to my written question No. 20 on the Order Paper, during the fiscal years from 1966 to that part of 1969 when the matter of economic fraud in food and food products came under the responsibility of the Food and Drug Directorate there were several dozen prosecutions, would the minister undertake to make an early statement concerning why, since this matter was transferred to his department in early 1969, there were no prosecutions up to November 14 last year?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I will have to look at the answer first.


INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGED KICKBACKS IN DAIRY INDUSTRY
Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, in view of the demand by a union leader in Toronto recently that the government should inquire into the possibility of kickbacks in the dairy industry as between dairies and retail outlets, I should like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs whether the government or the minister's department is prepared to undertake such an investigation?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the statement. If it was so important to the union leader one would have thought he would send it to me. I would advise him to do so with whatever supporting evidence he has.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister whether he has made any inquiries or has

concerned himself with the charges by the Ontario Food Council in late 1969 that buyers for wholesale stores were named as receiving kickbacks in the food industry in that province.


Stanley Ronald Basford: There were consultations
between my officers and officers of the Ontario Food Council.


TAXATION
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, in the absence of the Minister of Communications, I asked a question in connection with Colin Brown who has paternity for some 57 advertisements which appeared in the press across Canada analysing the white paper. He has stated that his post office box in Ottawa has been closed, and that the coupons which have caused so much irascibility on the part of the government are being returned to the individuals who sent them, with the exception of those that are addressed to a Member of Parliament. Could the minister say whether this extraordinary order was made?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, I wrote a very polite letter to Mr. Colin Brown advising him that I considered the use to which he was putting the box was an abuse of the privilege of boxholders. In effect Mr. Colin Brown had taken out a box in his own name and was inviting the world to address replies, through his own box number, to all hon. members of this House who have boxes of their own. I also stated in the letter that I would be quite pleased to discuss this with him and asked him to reply in seven days. I have not yet heard from him-


An hon. Member:: He hasn't received the letter yet.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eric William Kierans: Well, Mr. Speaker, he apparently knows that his box is closed, which is what counts in this case. I am quite willing to discuss this with Mr. Brown, but I must say that all members of this House have suffered a great deal from that fact that people all across the country are addressing letters to Mr. Brown's box when it is difficult, particularly in respect of opposition members, to know who their member is. This involves a
March 23, 1970



great deal of work and has really created very much unnecessary work for the postal service in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I notice that those who are dictator-minded sitting opposite in this House applaud that statement. What is the idea of interfering with an individual's rights? Is this another example of power at any price?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have never been particularly affected by the grunts that come from the opposite side of the House. When a minister rises in this House and, apparently acting with government support, says that my mail, because, it is going to cause trouble to the Post Office, shall not be delivered to me, it is time to protest. This is interference with freedom of the individual to communicate whenever and however he wishes, so long as what he sends through the mail is not filthy. Apparently, they regard protests as being filthy literature.


Mr. Speaker:: The Postmaster General is rising on a question of privilege.


Eric William Kierans: I am simply reiterating that this has caused chaos in the postal service. I also want to state that while the people who would write to the right hon. member obviously know who he is, they do not always know who his leader is or who his colleagues are.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether this will help to solve the difficulty. Perhaps we might move to another question in a moment.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have a supplementary question for the President of the Privy Council. Could the hon. gentleman indicate when he is proposing to bring forward for consideration by this House the report of the Committee on Statutory Instruments which recommends certain protection against arbitrary ministerial actions?


John George Diefenbaker: The Bill of Rights does that now. This post office order is flouting the Bill of Rights.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Brelon-Easl Richmond):: I have a question for the Post-
Inquiries of the Ministry master General. I wish to ask him whether at some later date he could make a statement on motions or issue a press release outlining his side of the story on the cabinet split?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege concerning all members of the House regarding the longstanding principle of cabinet solidarity, which is of the essence of government in this country. I asked the Minister of Communications that question because of a bulletin put out by the Department of Labour in which the Minister of Labour referred to the cabinet split, and while patting himself on the back ran down the Minister of Communications.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!




Francis Andrew Brewin: My
question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the government taking any further action to strengthen economic sanctions against Rhodesia as a result of the recent resolution of the Security Council on that subject?


Mitchell William Sharp: As the hon. gentleman and the House know we have, of course, severed all relations with that regime. We have complied fully with all existing United Nations sanctions. We are now reviewing the situation in light of the latest resolution.


POST OFFICE
Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: My question is for the Postmaster General. I wish to ask the minister whether he can advise us on the extent of the loss of mail which was involved in the weekend fire at the central post office in Montreal, and also the types of mail that were destroyed in that fire?


Eric William Kierans: The mail that was burned, which consisted of approximately 30,000 letters, was mainly first class mail. Some mail that was damaged was second or third class mail.


An hon. Member:: Were there any coupons in it?

March 23, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


William David Knowles: Is the
minister able to advise the post office patrons who lost the mail what prospect there is of receiving compensation for their losses?


Eric William Kierans: We will certainly do our best to ascertain the names and addresses of those who had their mail damaged or destroyed, and we will take it up with them.


MONTREAL-LIFTING OF PARCEL EMBARGO
Mr. Mac T. McCulcheon (Lambion-Kenl):: have a supplementary question for the Postmaster General. Can he tell us when he intends or will be able to make an announcement regarding the lifting of the embargo on parcels to Montreal.


Eric William Kierans: That will certainly depend on the success which Mr. Goldenberg has. At present the mail is still being delayed and there is no immediate prospect of it; by that I mean to date.


MONTREAL-TRANSFER OF LAPALME TRUCKS TO NEW DELIVERY CONTRACTORS
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Communications. Are the trucks now being used by G. Lapalme for delivery of mail in Montreal being transferred to the five companies which take over the mail delivery contracts on April 1?


Eric William Kierans: No, Mr. Speaker, they will make their own arrangements.


SECRETARIAL STAFF OF LEADER OF CREDITISTES
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: I have a question for the House Leader. This, Mr. Speaker, is a matter in which you and I have a mutual interest. Would the House Leader investigate the claims that were made in print by the leader of the Creditiste party on Saturday that he had 11 secretaries in his office and did not want to leave it? Are we all going to get the same treatment, and will he also investigate the other questions involved?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am sure we are all curious as to whether Mr. Yvon Dupuis will be moving in with the 11 secretaries.


POLLUTION
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that the Ontario government has proceeded on its own with action regarding air pollution measurement, can the minister tell us when we may expect the clean air act which he has been promising us for some time?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I have already indicated that we have this under consideration for the next session.


AGRICULTURE
Harold Warren Danforth: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture arising out of the statement he made on motions today. May I ask the minister if, under the terms of the new policy announced today, the government will in effect be placing a levy of $1.25 per 100 pounds of milk on all manufactured milk offered for sale in Canada, other than that under the government quotas established by the Dairy Commission?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The answer to that question is very clearly outlined in the statement that I made, a copy of which I sent to the hon. member's party at about 1.30 p.m. today.


Harold Warren Danforth: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister say either yes or no for the record?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The answer to the question has already been given in the House very clearly.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In January, I asked if his department was looking into the matter of the increased rates for car insurance. I asked him that question again on February 9. At that time he said he was going to make a statement fairly soon as to the result of his department's investigation of these increased rates. Since it is now March
March 23, 1970

23, I wonder if the minister is able to make a statement as to what progress his department is making in this regard.


Stanley Ronald Basford: No, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister whether the investigation is going on and if the minister expects to give the results of that investigation to the House fairly soon?


Stanley Ronald Basford: My officers are still considering the matter, and when it is useful for me to say something I will make a statement in the House.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
George Harris Hees: I have a question for the Prime Minister. As the control of inflation is impossible without the active co-operation of organized labour, and as the government has failed to receive assurance of that co-operation today, would the Prime Minister take the first opportunity on motions to outline to the House what steps the government intends to take in pursuit of its control of inflation in the future?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Without waiting for that occasion, I will say that we do not share the opinion of the opposition that control of inflation is impossible.


George Harris Hees: May I take it then that it is possible to control inflation without the cooperation of labour?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


POLLUTION
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, on February 20 the House agreed to a motion to set up a special committee of the House on pollution. I wish to ask the President of the Privy Council when we can expect a motion before the House listing the membership of that committee?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I believe I am correct in saying that we do not yet have the nominees from all parties, but I will check it.
Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970 PRICE STABILITY


APPOINTMENT OF JOINT PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE
David Lewis: I wish to ask either the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs or the President of the Privy Council why the government has not brought forward government order No. 53 which was put on the Order Paper on December 17 last for the purpose of setting up a joint parliamentary committee to study the reports of the Prices and Incomes Commission, and whether it is intended to deal with that order very soon?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The principal reason is that we wanted to give precedence to the second reading stage of legislation and, as the hon. member knows, there has been a considerable volume of legislation on the Order Paper. It is hoped we can get to it very quickly.


MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES
Mr. Speaker:: Before proceeding to orders of the day may I refer to a suggestion I made to the House last week that the Chair had serious misgivings about a report of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. I have studied the matter since then and might be in a position to give my view. However, I understand that the hon. member for Peace River has his own views which he wants to bring to the attention of the House. There is perhaps not all that much urgency about the matter, and it might wait until tomorrow at which time the Chair could hear the views of interested hon. members on it. Orders of the day.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Donald Stovel Macdonald: that Bill C-194, to provide supplementary benefits for certain persons in receipt of pensions payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and to
5346	COMMONS
Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970 amend certain acts that provide for the payment of those pensions, be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-194 has been considered and debated at each of the stages thus far, namely, second reading, the standing committee stage and the report stage. Our views on this legislation have been made very clear, I trust, both in the statements that we have made and in the recorded votes that took place in this House on Friday. Therefore, it is not necessary to extend the debate at this time.
I shall endeavour to take less than my allotted time. I shall endeavour not to provoke a lengthy debate, but there are a few things that I think should be said before we finish with Bill C-194. As we have made very clear, one part of this bill has our complete support. I refer to the portion of the bill that establishes the principle that pensions of retired civil servants and of others whose pensions come from the federal government should be escalated in the years after retirement.
This bill provides that there are to be increases in the pensions of all civil servants who are now retired, and of those who come under all the categories covered in this bill, and that from now on when persons on the various federal pensions retire those pensions will be subject to increases each year thereafter if the cost of living continues to rise. I need not take any time to remind the House of the urging that I have carried on with respect to this matter for a great many years. But I repeat that I am very happy that this principle is being written into law.
The other part of the bill is a part that some of us resent very deeply. We think it was quite unfair, almost an insult, to put into a bill that is providing just one thing for everybody else a substantial revamping of the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act. Entirely apart from questions of judgment that one might make as to the generosity or otherwise of the changes that are made in our pension plan, we just do not think it is fair to ask Parliament in the same bill to do something for all pensioners that come under the federal wing and then to single ourselves out and do for ourselves something very special, something over and above what we are doing for everybody else. We indicated our opposition to this by the amendments that we moved at the report stage, and by the four recorded votes that took place last Friday.

DEBATES	March 23, 1970
Any vote at this stage would of course be meaningless because those of us who like one part of the bill but do not like the other would have to say that if we voted for the bill we would be voting for the increases in pensions for retired civil servants, but if we voted against the bill we would be voting really against the provision for increasing the pensions of Members of Parliament. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I suppose we have to settle for the fact that, thanks to the report stage, we have been able to make our position clear by the way we voted on Friday last. But in my view there are, as I have already said, a few things that should be put on the record before this debate closes.
The first thing I want to say, Mr. Speaker, is perhaps a repetition of something I have said at other stages, but it concerns me even more now than it did when we were dealing with this legislation last week and the week before. I refer to the fact that there are many retired civil servants, and many widows of retired civil servants, who are due for bitter disappointment at the end of April. I refer to those retired civil servants and to those widows of retired civil servants who are receiving pensions so low that they are also receiving amounts under the War Veterans Allowance Act.
As hon. members know, there is no means test, no needs test or dollar ceiling, or any limit whatsoever on the escalation that is to take place in the pensions of retired civil servants or their widows. There is a formula, based on the number of years from the time they left the service, and that formula is applied mathematically. When the percentage calculation is made the person drawing the pension gets the increase. There is no question about it. There is no means test, no needs test, and there is no dollar limit.
But, Mr. Speaker, in the case of those who are receiving the War Veterans Allowance it is now quite clear that the amount they receive as an addition to their public service pension as a result of this legislation, will be cut off their War Veterans Allowance. I mentioned this at the second reading stage. I brought it up again in the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. I was told there that this would have to be dealt with in the general context of the War Veterans Allowance Act, rather than under this legislation. I made the same statement here at report stage, and got the same reply. I do not accept that reply, Mr. Speaker. It is in this bill, C-194, that we are making this
March 23, 1970	COMMONS
provision for these supplemental payments, and I think it is in this bill that we should deal with all those pieces of legislation that are related to it.
As hon. members are aware, there is a schedule attached to the bill that lists 15 different acts that are being amended, and then it has a sixteenth item that is a sort of omnibus paragraph, naming many other acts that might also be affected by this legislation. In other words, the government quite clearly in this bill went out of its way-and I approve of this-to amend all those statutes that had to be amended to carry out its purpose. I contend, therefore, if it was the intention, so far as the government was concerned, that all these people should get the benefit of the increase it should have made the necessary provision in this legislation to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
On an earlier occasion, Mr. Speaker, I read a sentence or so from the letter which the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) enclosed with the cheques that went out a month or so ago to all retired civil servants, their widows, retired armed forces personnel or their widows, retired RCMP personnel or their widows, and all the rest of them. The sentence is over the signature of the President of the Treasury Board and the letter is dated February 2, 1970. The key sentence is:
I would also like to point out there will be no means tests or needs test in this connection and that all in receipt of pensions whether former employees or widows and dependents, will benefit from the new provisions.
I do not think I am doing any violence to that sentence if I pick out the key words to make clear what the President of the Treasury Board said to between 70,000 and 80,000 people. The key words are "all will benefit". Since December 19, I have received hundreds of letters, and I have one on my desk here and now, which just came in on Saturday. I found it particularly sad to receive a letter like this just a day after our debate of last Friday. I shall not quote the letter verbatim because I do not wish to identify the writer, but it is from a widow in Swift Current, Saskatchewan. Like a good many letters that I have received in the past few weeks it expresses great pleasure that this battle has been won and that pensions are to be increased. The lady mentions the letter she received from Mr. Drury, as she put it, informing her that all pensions would be increased
DEBATES	5347
Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970 effective April 1, 1970. Most of these people know that April 1 really means the end of the month, or they soon will know it.
The letter I received expresses thanks to the President of the Treasury Board and to the government for the increase and I have to say that the lady indulges in some kind remarks about my part in this over the years. In fact, she says she could not let the matter pass without writing to thank me but my modesty keeps me from reading that part.


Some hon. Members:: Please do.


An hon. Member:: Go ahead.
Another hon. Member: We will let you.


Stanley Howard Knowles: After the press gallery skit of Saturday night my modesty will not let me. The lady goes on to say how much it is going to mean to thousands of people like herself. At one point she is thanking me, not only on her own behalf but on behalf of all concerned. As an afterthought she adds the hope that in her case the war veterans allowance which she receives will not be reduced when she gets the increase in the pension as a widow of a civil servant.
How does one reply to a letter like that, Mr. Speaker? How does one reply to a widow who has expressed great gratitude for what has been done, who thanks me for my part in it and says that she is speaking for thousands of people, and I know that she is. I have to write back saying that I am grateful for her kind words but I have to tell her that under the legislation as it stands, the bitter truth is that she will get the increase in the pension as the widow of a retired civil servant but that the war veterans board will reduce her war veterans allowance by the same amount.


An hon. Member:: The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, hon. members can make their comments but this is a disgrace. Letters like this will come to hon. members in the next two or three months as veterans and their widows on allowances discover that the words of the President of the Treasury Board are not being kept. I call upon this government to stand behind what the President of the Treasury Board stated when he sent this letter to the 70,000 or 80,000 people in receipt of pensions, telling them that "all will benefit".
As hon. members know I have taken up the matter by asking a question in the House of
5348	COMMONS
Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970 the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube). This will be found in the February 9 issue of Hansard at pages 3358 and 3359. I also took up the matter in the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. The Minister of Veterans Affairs was good enough to write to me saying that he still felt very sympathetic toward my position but he saw a number of difficulties and he felt that the government would not be able to deal with this matter now. He continued:
As you are aware, the Prime Minister, on June 17, 1969, advised the House that the whole fabric of federal social legislation was under review. As war veterans allowance is a social measure, it is included in this study. As this review is continuing I am unable, at this time, to indicate what changes, if any, may occur in the War Veterans Allowance Act. Your suggestion will be kept in mind when changes in the act are contemplated.
I suppose I should be encouraged by that, Mr. Speaker, but I do not know when the War Veterans Allowance Act is going to be amended. In the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs we are dealing with the Woods report and the Pension Act, but not with the War Veterans Allowance Act. It is obvious that nothing will be done about it until after we get the white paper on social security. In the meantime, this widow in Swift Current and widows of retired civil servants across Canada who are also receiving the war veterans allowance will discover that the letter from the President of the Treasury Board was wrong when it said, "all will benefit."
I suppose that the President of the Treasury Board will claim that what he wrote is technically correct; they will get a slightly larger cheque as far as superannuation is concerned but the war veterans allowance cheque will be reduced by the same amount, so these people will not benefit, despite his statement that all would do so.
In the main, Mr. Speaker, as far as the civil servants side of it is concerned, this bill is good. It is better than we recommended on May 6, 1967, from our special joint committee. It covers not only the immediate problem but the problem on a long run basis. I give all kinds of praise to that part of this legislation that provides for these pension increases for retired civil servants, but why not finish the job? Why leave in it this serious flaw which hits again at war veterans allowance recipients and the widows who come under the War Veterans Allowance Act. You can tell me if you will that it is going to be considered later on but I know the parliamentary processes better than that. You get something

DEBATES	March 23, 1970
like this when the matter is before the House you get something like this when you are in a bargaining position, you do not get it later on. When letters start to come from other widows like this one, and from veterans across the country, I hope the government will provide us with an appropriate reply explaining why the clear statement of the President of the Treasury Board is not being kept.
That is the main thing wrong with this legislation, Mr. Speaker, but it does not detract from my general praise for it. However, there are one or two other things that I should mention about the civil service side of it. The first is the 2 per cent ceiling per year on the amount by which pensions can be escalated in the future. I recognize that this is tied to the Canada Pension Plan formula, and that that formula applies to old age security and the guaranteed income supplement but at some point we have to break that. It is not good enough to give pension increases of only 2 per cent per year when the cost of living increase is 4 or 5 per cent per year. I suggest that those who are clamouring for this formula to be geared directly to the increases in the cost of living have a point, have a case that the government ought to meet, and I press that case as strongly as I can.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Now, Mr. Speaker, I must move on. That is more or less what I wanted to say about the pension increase side of the bill, namely the part of the bill that raises the pensions of public servants now retired and provides for escalation of pensions in the future. With regard to the other part of the bill, that part which improves the pensions of Members of Parliament, I have let off steam among my friends for the last couple of days following Friday's debate and will therefore spare the House. I feel more strongly about the matter than I did on Friday and the more I think of it the more it seems to me that we will rue the day we brought down legislation that made it possible for a member who has served six years in Parliament to receive a pension of $300 a month for life, no matter what his age may be.
You know, you can argue all you like about the difference between our job and other jobs, about our responsibilities and the monkish life some of us are said to live; but the fact of the matter is that this pension scheme does not fit with pension schemes that apply in general. A pension of $500 a month for life
March 23, 1970

after ten years' service is, to say the least, pretty good; and for us to be doing this at a time of austerity-and this morning in the Railway Committee room we again heard that restraint must be practised-and at a time when we are saying to all other pensioners that they must wait for the white paper on social security, will not help the good name of Parliament. I still resent this being done. We had the chance to vote against this proposal at the conclusion of debate on the report stage. We indicated where we stood, and it is still my view that Parliament is going too far in what it is doing with regard to pensions of Members of Parliament.
I said, however, that I would spare the House some of the steam I have let off over the weekend among my friends. I shall content myself with saying this: Now that we have done this, or will have done it once the bill has been read the third time and considered in the other place-and I do not imagine that will take very long-there is a real obligation resting on us not to let the matter of pensions rest where it now is. I have a four-point program; that does not mean I shall speak ten minutes on each point, for I do not have that much time left. I think we must soon review the Public Service Superannuation Act and all other pension acts similar to it. On Tuesday, March 17, as reported at page 9:6 of Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, No. 9, of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, 1 proposed a motion which was ruled out of order. I will not repeat the arguments I advanced but I should like to put my proposed motion on the record because I think it spells out what we ought to be doing. The proposal as reported in the committee proceedings, reads as follows:


Stanley Howard Knowles: ,
That this Committee recommend to the House that there be an early reference of the Public Service Superannuation Act, and other similar acts, to an appropriate committee, for the purpose of reviewing such legislation to determine improvements that could be made therein, such review, notwithstanding the generality thereof, to include the level of contributions, the formula for the determination of pensions paid under such legislation, the percentage granted to widows and other dependents, the administration of such plans and the question of their being made subject to collective bargaining.
I find, on reading that proposed motion again, that it really does cover the points that ought to be dealt with in any review of the Public Service Superannuation Act. We did not ask for this last December 19 because the
Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970 only thing then before us was the general question of escalation of pensions. Now, because we have opened the act governing our pensions, so to speak, I think we must open these other acts, review them, and look at the various points which have been raised.
I know there is a certain amount of feeling building up in the Public Service against paying this extra half of 1 per cent in contributions for supplemental benefits. I may say that I am not indulging in the privilege of which the opposition sometimes avails itself, namely damning the government on every point. I am not doing that. I am writing the kind of responsible letters we always write on this side, making it clear that by paying this extra money into the fund we are not only providing money for those already retired but we are buying an escalation of future pensions, of the pensions of those who will retire in future. I doubt if you can buy any better form of insurance. As an item off by itself, it is good, and as one who has worked for 25 years trying to improve the pensions of retired civil servants, I am glad to pay the extra $7.50 a month-and I hope other hon. members are equally glad-to make possible the escalation of their pensions.
I am saying to civil servants who come to me complaining about the extra one half of one per cent they must pay, "I understand how you feel; I understand this is a last straw; but what we really ought to be doing is not zeroing in on that extra half of 1 per cent, but calling for a review of the entire legislation, of the level of contributions generally and the formula under which pensions are determined; of the amount payable to widows, which is 50 per cent of a pension for the widows of civil servants and 60 per cent for our widows; and the big issues you must raise are the matter of administration and the question of pensions being made subject to collective bargaining." I hope this will be done; in fact it must be done.
My motion the other day was ruled out of order. I will not propose it again, since I know I cannot do so at this third reading stage. But I suggest that just because we have obtained this increase for retired public servants we must not assume that the job with respect to pensions is done. All these broader issues must be dealt with, especially in view of what we have done for ourselves. I, therefore, call on the government to take the initiative in seeing to it that the broader question of the operation of the pension plans and pension accounts under which federal employees
March 23, 1970

Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970 receive their pensions is examined at the earliest possible date. I said I would propose a four point program, Mr. Speaker. This is the first point, that we ought to review the Public Service Superannuation Act and related pension acts, and in my book this is a must.
Point No. 2 is this. I think we simply must review the War Veterans Allowance Act and particularly its means test provisions. The most difficult letters I receive and have to answer every week relate to this. I do not get such letters as the one on my desk only once in a while; I get them all the time. We simply must review that piece of legislation, particularly in view of what we have done for ourselves.
My third point is that we ought to give more consideration to other pensions. The question of CNR pensions has been referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, and the committee should get cracking on that matter. There is also the question of those people who are covered by the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railways Employees' Provident Fund. Some of these people thought they were covered by Bill C-194, but I find they are not. I find also that retired employees of the Bank of Canada are not covered. I do not mean the big people at the top; they fix their pensions very nicely. I am speaking of the ordinary Joes who are not covered so far as the increases in this bill are concerned. If we are to do a good job, let us consider all these people.
We must also take another look at the Pension Benefits Standards Act, that federal legislation governing the standards the pension plans of private companies must meet. The day must come when, through legislation, we shall require all pension plans to contain a pension escalation clause. The Standing Committee on Transport and Communications can tell the CNR to treat its retired employees the same way the federal government treats its retired federal servants, but it cannot say that to the CPR. But we can write that sort of provision into the Pension Benefits Standards Act. So, Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of those who think our job with respect to pensions is over, I can say it is not over and probably never will be. But there are specific improvements that we can make.
My fourth point in my four point program relates to the Old Age Security Act. The government is saying to the people who come under that legislation that they must wait for the white paper on social security. We did not have to wait. We have gone ahead with ours.

This fact puts added pressure on us to do something about old age pensions at this session. We have been told since last October we were going to get the government's white paper. We will not get it in March, Mr. Speaker. We might get it in April, but more likely in May or June. Then, of course, it will have to be digested, sent to committee and all the rest. The way the present timetable is set up there is just no room for an old age pension increase at this session.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I come back ad nauseam to what we have done for ourselves. I say we have not made just a change of degree, we have made a change of kind. We brought in for ourselves the guaranteed annual income. It is a new concept. If you can win two elections, you will receive the guaranteed income. We have done it generously and handsomely. Having done that, we cannot go on leaving our old age people at $75 a month with a 2 per cent increase per year, $30 extra if you pass a means test. I think the time has come for a new guaranteed income concept that involves pensions of a level at which people can live. By all the gods of war, we in this House who are doing for ourselves what this bill provides, although it is over the protest of some of us, have an obligation not to rest and let this issue wait until the next session or the session before the next election.
As members of the House of Commons have made pensions a major issue, we have made pensions something worth getting, something which will add dignity and decency to life, at least that is so for ourselves. It is time we did this for all. The obligation to do this is made even greater because of what we have done for ourselves. Am I hopeful it will be done? I am afraid I am not. I have sat opposite this government long enough to realize it does not have any heart. It is not concerned about old age pensioners or war veterans allowance recipients. My prediction is that nothing will be done, not by this government.
Not only do I know this government, but I know the processes of Parliament. The only way you can get something is when you have a bargaining position. You do not get it afterwards. Members will say, having done this for ourselves, we will now do something for others. We do for others only as long as there is any point of pressure left. Once this bill is through, the Public Service Superannuation Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act, the Pension Benefits Standard Act and the Old
March 23. 1970	COMMONS
Age Security Act will wait. The member for Winnipeg North Centre will ask questions about them week after week, but come the end of the session nothing will have been done. That is not a very hopeful prediction, Mr. Speaker. Well, if it sounds a bit cynical, I throw to the government the challenge to prove me wrong.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) I am happy to say, in contrast to the debate last week, that I agree with some of his remarks. Those of us who have followed the pension issue certainly agree that a good deal more should be done. Any groups that have been excluded from this measure should receive equal treatment. No doubt there are some basic principles that could be put into the framework of proper pension legislation. I wish to make a few comments in reply to some of the points that the hon. member has made. I feel these remarks should be on the record.
The hon. member referred to the pension plan for members of this House as a guaranteed annual income. I intend to make one or two observations in this regard. Contributions based on current service go from $720 to $1,440. Those members of this House who make up their arrears of contributions back to 1963 will have made a payment of $4,860, plus interest. This amount will be in addition to current contributions. When we talk of guaranteed annual supplements, guaranteed annual incomes and all the rest of it, I think there is some obligation to put the increased contributions and the actuarial sum on the record. A great many of those elected to this House will never draw a penny of benefits. They will have the privilege of paying fairly substantial amounts of money into this fund and those amounts will be refunded to them without a penny of interest after their service, even after the adoption of these amendments.
I wish to make a few comments on the important measure before us, the escalation of pensions for a large number of people. My colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Richard), chaired the committee which brought in a report three years ago recommending that increases be made in pensions of those who have retired. This recommendation has been consistently supported by a large number of members of this House. We are proud and delighted to see that something has come out of it.
DEBATES	5351
Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has made a substantial point with regard to war veterans allowances and the increases under this bill. This point was discussed in committee, Mr. Speaker. There was an exchange between the hon. member and myself the other day during the debate on the report stage. I would like to review the point because I feel the hon. member is mistaken in what he is contending. I will refer to the situation of two widows, one of whom is eligible for war veterans allowance and the other not. If the hon. member's procedure were adopted, it would introduce into the war veterans allowance scheme a principle of discrimination. The widow who is receiving this benefit would be permitted an addition which would not be permitted to any other widow under the war veterans allowance scheme.
There have been only two revisions to the pensions of widows of civil servants. One was in the late fifties, under the previous administration, and this is the second. How often have war veterans allowances been adjusted? The last adjustment was less than three years ago. The widow who is benefiting from the war veterans allowance has at least had the benefit of a regular revision, however inadequate in the view of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
The attempt to introduce amendments to war veterans allowances by means of amendments in other pieces of legislation such as this, can only destroy the uniformity of the war veterans allowances scheme. The proposal to increase the ceiling of payments under the War Veterans Allowance Act by an amendment in this bill is not appropriate. I had hoped the hon. member would recognize that it is not a clear, logical or fair thing to pick out one category of war veterans allowance beneficiaries and say they should be given benefits which are denied to other recipients. If the hon. member would think it through, he would be the first to agree that if we once started on that thorny path we would make uniform distribution of war veterans allowance impossible.
I look forward to improved standards of pension administration. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has done an excellent job of setting some long-term targets to which many of us subscribe with all our hearts. The approach I had hoped the hon. member would have taken with regard to the measure before us would have been to say here is one small group of people, numerically, and any changes that are introduced should be consistent with the principles he advocates.
5352	COMMONS
Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970
I heard the hon. member and other spokesmen for his party attempt to delete the improvements to the present scheme for Members of Parliament. Their approach was to strike out every single change proposed in this bill to the present scheme. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre did not offer a single amendment to improve the scheme. He deleted every change proposed. Instead of taking the opportunity of making the scheme, covering a relatively small number of people, consistent-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question? Was not the purpose of my amendments to strike out everything except what was proposed for all?
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The hon. member has given us a statement of principles that would guide him. He has indicated that in the amendments to the Public Service Superannuation Act it should be possible to introduce new features which he may regard as an improvement.
I offered him a challenge which I hoped he would take on this occasion to introduce amendments consistent with these principles and write them into the bill. Certainly, they should be applied across the board. The 60 per cent provision for widows was in a previous act; there is nothing new about that. There are many other amendments for which staff associations are fighting as a matter of principle. I am sure that all of us would have been delighted to see a model piece of pensions legislation that is consistent with the hon. member's principles, but his approach has been to delete every other change.
The only fallacy in his argument is that few widows of public servants get pensions between $500 and $1,000 a year, or between $1,000 and $1,500. The hon. member says that the husbands of these widows were not of long service, but the way the plan is set up they will never be able to get the benefits. Therefore, there can never be an average rate of widow's pension that is in any way adequate. I suggest that the hon. member did not attempt to deal with the substance of the matter at that point. Howevler, that is the way he chose to proceed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the hon. gentleman what our widows will get under the new provisions?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The widows will get a substantial improvement under the new provi-

DEBATES	March 23, 1970
sions. If a member had, say, six years service they would get 60 per cent of $3,700, which is a substantial improvement over what is offered now. I am sure the hon. member would agree that this would be desirable. Then, there will be the survivors' benefits for children on top of this, which were not there before, though they were available under the Public Service Superannuation Act. I did not hear the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre once say in committee that, although he was deleting this benefit, there should be a survivor's benefit in the member's plan. All of these benefits he denied, keeping the plan a substandard plan, the kind of plan that unfortunately has been in existence for too long.
I regret that I have had to speak on this question at such length. I am as strong in my convictions as the hon. member and I yield to no one. I know that the people I represent are civil servants, and that it is Very easy to play to the gallery and to say that one did not take the pension for oneself. It is easy to tell them that we are terrible people who are lining our pockets instead of moving detailed amendments that will bring about an improvement in pensions legislation.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Mr. Speaker, there are, of course, some parts of this bill of which I am critical, but there are many other parts of which I approve. Other members have mentioned the escalation clause contained in the bill and looked upon it as of great benefit. I look upon it with perhaps a jaundiced eye. Perhaps it is that I am cynical, but it seems to me that by including this cost of living escalation clause in our pension plan the government has admitted there is no way to stop this terrible escalation in our cost of living, and this causes me a little concern.
Another item that really bothers me is this. The government engaged the services of Professor Curtis from Queens University to study this plan, and he has done so for a couple of years. In my humble opinion, he brought in some very excellent recommendations. I wish to refer to one only. As I understood it, he recommended that this benefit be treated as a pension, not as a guaranteed income. He further suggested that the pension should not be payable until the recipient had attained the age of 55. I think he also inferred that if the pension were paid at a younger age, it should be the actuarial equivalent of the amount that would be payable at age 55.
March 23. 1970

I would support this principle, but his advice has been ignored. I know that we play politics here, and that politics is the art of the possible. Therefore, I assume that as a result of pressure from certain quarters, perhaps, this proposal was left out. However, theoretically this situation can result. If a young man comes to this House at age 21, six years later, at age 27, he could start to draw a pension of $3,780 per year. Given a life expectancy of around 60 years, he will tap the treasury for $226,800. Yet a man who came to the House at age 51 and stayed till he was 57 would only get 50 per cent of that amount, given the same life expectancy. So, I would take exception to this particular provision in the plan.
My third complaint is this. There are few people in this great land of ours who at any time during their productive years or years of employment will be called upon to make such a fantastic deposit toward a pension as provided for in this plan. Very, very few industrial corporations have the unmitigated gall to charge their employees 12 per cent on their $12,000 salary by way of pension contributions. Some people like to say that it is 8 per cent on $8,000. I do not. I say it is 12 per cent on $12,000 salary.
Having said that, I am delighted that the constituents of my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) are going to receive some benefit. However, the average Member of Parliament at the present time will have a hell of a hard time making the deposits required.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


TEXTILE LABELLING ACT
Donald Stovel Macdonald: that Bill S-20, an act respecting the labelling, sale, importation and advertising of consumer textile articles, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Macdonald, Rosedale (for Mr. Bas-ford) moved that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.) fTranslation]
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saint-Hyacinlhe):: Mr. Speaker, before the bill is given third
Textile Labelling Act
reading, I wish to make a few comments, since I think it will mostly affect textile workers.
We all know the textile industry is one of the oldest in the province of Quebec and even in the country. It is most vital because, with related industries, it provides a great number of jobs. In the province of Quebec alone, the primary textile industry employs at least
47.000	of the national total of 83,000.
The clothing industry is closely connected with that industry. In Canada, some 110,000 people are employed in the clothing industry,
60.000	of them in the province of Quebec alone.
Labelling should be carried out and that practice would be welcomed by all, because in the past importers have knowingly misled the good faith of Canadian buyers.
I greatly approve the step proposed by the minister (Mr. Basford) and while I do not want to delay the proceedings of the House, I will just the same add a few words.
I think that I will have the opportunity to bring the matter up again before too long and state to the House other reasons why the government should endeavour to protect that industry.
Mr. Speaker, the annual output of the Quebec textile industry is worth $850 million. It is also interesting to note that between 1961 and 1966, capital expenditures totalled $635 million in the province of Quebec. I am therefore of the opinion that that industry is of prime importance to the economic life of this country and our province, and we should do the impossible to try to assure its survival, for that is a truly domestic industry.
Between 1954 and 1968, the part of the textile industry in the Canadian trade fell from 68 to 60 per cent. If my information is correct, those imports are even less important now than they were in 1968.
From 1954 to 1967, imports of textile products and clothing from countries where production costs are low have increased from 5 to 43 per cent. Even if more information is given on the labels of consumer products, Canadian consumers will have lost much if Canadian workers lose their jobs.
From 1954 to 1967, the labour force in the Canadian textile industry decreased by 5.8 per cent, which represents 5,000 jobs. The other day I read in a magazine that if textile products imported in 1967 had been produced in Canada, 20,000 new jobs would have been

March 23, 1970
Textile Labelling Act
created. Naturally, a large number of other jobs would also have been created in the related field of clothing.
The Canadian textile industry is much more in need of encouragement than of a measure making it mandatory for a manufacturer to identify in a particular way the various elements found in textile products. As I said before, the measure in itself is good, but it is not exactly what we wanted. Those involved in the Canadian textile industry claim that because of the very active competition, their warehouses are overstocked with enough merchandise to last over a couple of years. This situation could be remedied by merely guaranteeing some 70 to 75 per cent of the Canadian market to Canadian industry.
It does not strike me as an exaggeration to ask the Canadian government to reserve 70 per cent of the Canadian market for the Canadian textile industry. Expenses of this industry, the considerable amounts invested in it each year, deserve better consideration from those who are now in charge of the nation's affairs. According to information made available to me, Canadian manufacturers, provided they could depend on 70 per cent of the Canadian market, are in a position to guarantee that by 1975 they will have created from 16 to 18,000 new jobs within the industry itself. They also guarantee that the prices of their products will not be higher than they are now.
Moreover, it is very interesting to note that during the last ten years, the prices of textile products have practically not increased. In fact, they have increased by only a fraction of a cent while this industry has to pay for services much more costly than in the past and to make expenditures that have never been so considerable.
Those are the few remarks I wanted to make in the matter. In the name of Canadian workers, I reiterate my request to reserve to the Canadian textile industry a reasonable portion of the national market, that is, from 70 to 75 per cent. In so doing, the government would help, not only the workers of the clothing and textile industries, but also the population in general, since people working in these two sectors spend their money in the country and therefore contribute to the economic life of Canada.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say just a few words about this bill before third reading is given. I feel that this bill meets with

the approval of consumers across Canada in general, and the Consumers' Association of Canada, as far as it goes.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
After all, this is only half a bill because it provides for labelling in respect of the fibre content of textile articles and lays down penalties in that regard but does not include the other provision which the Consumers Association wished to have included in this bill. I refer to care labelling; in other words, instructions in respect of the washing and care of the textile fabric or article. I do not think this is a matter which should be brushed aside lightly. The minister indicated he believed it would be better if this were handled on a voluntary basis. If it is deemed necessary for consumers to have legislation containing a guarantee in respect of fibre content labelling so that there will be no fraudu-lence or error in this area, I cannot for the life of me see why it should not be equally mandatory that once the consumers have purchased the article they should be able to see right on the garment or article instructions with regard to washing and cleaning.
The statement of the minister that later on he will introduce legislation in respect of voluntary care labelling does not meet the request of the Consumers Association of Canada. After all, this organization represents all the organized consumers in this country. I should like to point out that their request was not the result of a hasty decision. The Association has looked into this matter for many years and resolutions on that point have been passed at conventions over a long period. This request resulted from a definite resolution passed at the last convention, and was to the effect that both measures be included in the legislation. In my view, the absence of provisions in respect of care labelling in this legislation is a shortcoming in a bill which otherwise would be a satisfactory one. I am sure consumers will be waiting for the provisions in respect of voluntary care labelling, but rather than have them contained in separate legislation I would much prefer to have the minister open up this measure again and include them as a fundamental part of this mandatory legislation.
Rather than have legislation brought in which would contain purely voluntary provisions, we would like to have a bill which contains both halves rounded up in one package. Some of us will not rest content until we have the second half of these necessary provisions on a mandatory basis. Legislation in
March 23. 1970	COMMONS
respect of textile labelling should also include care labelling.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES ACT


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce) moved: that Bill C-193, to amend the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, to become or remain, as the case may be, competitive in Canada and abroad in an ever freer international market, Canadian industry will have to innovate, and offer for sale goods that are increasingly useful, perfected, and sophisticated. That is its responsibility. Ours, that of the Parliament and the government is to help it, on occasion, to achieve that objective.
It must be noted that considerable progress has already been and is being achieved. For instance, in the last ten years, Canada has considerably strengthened its international position with regard to manufactured goods exports. Indeed, they represented 12 per cent of our total exports in 1959, and almost 40 per cent by 1969. That is very good.
However, that increase is not distributed equally throughout the industry. It is concentrated in a few sectors only, such as the automobile and the defence industries, where agreements with the United States on the removal of customs duties led to increased rationalization and productivity in our industry.
Mr. Speaker, one of the main functions of my department is to get other sectors of the Canadian industry to participate in the growth of our manufactured goods export trade, and one of the main ways to reach such a goal is to increase research and development in industry but also to point out their importance as well.
Research and development, that may be a stock phrase, but it is one of the main ways to realize fully our secondary industry's competitive possibilities. It is therefore essential
DEBATES	5355
Industrial Research Incentives Act for Canadian industry to allocate adequate funds to it and to boldly apply the results of such research to the creation of new products and new processes and turn those to account on the international as well as on the national markets.
Mr. Speaker, the amounts earmarked for research and development in Canada are fortunately increasing. Considering the contribution of all participants-the federal government, industry, universities, we come now to a total of $952 million, which can be broken up as follows: federal government: $501 million, or 52.5 per cent; industry: $267 million, or 28.2 per cent; universities: $171 million, or 18 per cent; other sources: $13 million, or 1.3 per cent. The total, as I said, come to $952 million in 1968-69.
Considering now those which used such amounts, the distribution is as follows: $312 million for federal government institutions, or 32.8 per cent; $347 million for private industry, or 36.5 per cent; $280 million for universities, or 29.4 per cent, and $13 million for others, or 1.3 per cent.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Although the level of expenditures for research and development in Canada has significantly improved compared to previous years, it is not considered as meeting the needs of an appropriate expansion of the Canadian industry. Industry, as I said before, carries out only 36.5 per cent of all the research and development activities in Canada. Since it is in industry that research and development are used for economic purposes, industry does far too little in that field.
Therefore, the government intends to promote the continuous expansion of this work which will be of major importance for Canada and, notwithstanding the effort of the government to restrict expenses in 1970-71, in most departments and agencies, within the framework of the restraint program, the estimates of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce provide for supplementary funds under the IRDIA, PAIT and DIP programs; I will come back to them in a short while.
I have before me a short table which it might be worthwhile to place in Hansard if my hon. friends are agreeable. This short table indicates the amounts requested for 1970-71, compared to estimated expenditures of 1969-70. You will note for 1970-71 an increase of $20.6 million compared to 1969-70. If I may be allowed, Mr. Speaker, I should like to place this short table in the official report of the debates of the House.
March 23, 1970

Industrial Research Incentives Act Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note:		* Text of	abovementioned	
table follows.]				
	1969-70	1970-71	Increase	
		($ million)		
IRDIA	22.7	30.0	7.3	32.2%PAIT	4.5	15.5	11.0	245.0%DIP	25.0	27.3	2.3	9.2%52.2	72.8	20.6	39.5%


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, in the past, the department has established five programs in order to assist research and development and I have before me another short table which I may be permitted, for the benefit of the House, to place in Hansard. This table indicates the increase in expenditures for each of these five programs.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?
[Editor's Note: Text of above-mentioned table follows.]
1.	Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act (IRDIA) Program of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to promote industrial research and development activities
2.	Industrial Research Assistance Program (IRAP)
Program of the National Research Council to increase personnel assigned to industrial research activities
3.	Defence Industrial Research Program (DIR)
Program of the Defence Council to promote industrial research activities
4.	Program for the Advancement of Industrial Technology (PAIT)
Program of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to stimulate development of products and new production methods in industry
5.	Defence Industry Productivity Program (DIP)
Program of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to encourage development and manufacturing of military and non-military equipment for export. Share for developmental work
Estimated expenditures 1969-70	1970-71
22.7	30.0
6.4	7.4
4.2	4.5
4.5	15.5
25.0	27.3


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, of course, such programs are constantly under review for improvement. And in 1968, an interdepartmental working group was formed to examine these programs and recommend amendments for improveent. A review of the working group's conclusions and of the action taken with respect to such conclusions' was tabled in the House on February 20, 1970. In that report, I indicate amendments which have been made to each of these programs. Today, of course, we shall speak only about the IRDIA program.
The paper to which I have just referred is entitled:
A review of federal government programs to encourage research, development and innovation in Canadian manufacturing industry and expresses a consensus concerning the IRDIA program, that to which we now wish to make some amendments, and I quote the part of the report concerning this program: There is a continuing need for the general incentive provided by the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act to encourage increases in research and development. While no changes are proposed to IRDIA at the present time, certain technical amendments are required to remove anomalies that have been noted as a result of experience to date.

March 23, 1970	COMMONS
So the amendments proposed in Bill C-193 which is now before Parliament do not aim at changing the purposes of the act; they are of a strictly technical nature and are suggested to remove the anomalies discovered by the working group I mentioned earlier.
We all know here about this IRDIA program, and that under this program, grants and credits are paid by the government, namely:
(a)	25 per cent of all capital expenditures involved (to acquire property other than real estate), to promote scientific research and development in Canada, and
(b)	25 per cent of the increase in current expenses made in Canada for research and development according to such average expenditures for the five past years.
Those grants are not subject to the federal income tax. Therefore, they should be added to the 100 per cent deduction allowed for research and development expenditures in Canada under the Income Tax Act.
It will be sufficient to quote a few figures to show what has been done in this regard since the act was passed three years ago. The grants were in the following amounts.
I have here a small table which I should like to place in Hansard, Mr. Speaker, if the House agrees thereto.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: Table referred to above follows:]
	No. of applications	Grants
1967-68	111	$ million 2.31968-69	464	20.21969-70	630 (est.)	22.7 (est.)Total	1,205	45.21970-71	not available	$30.0 (est.)


Jean-Luc Pepin: The above table shows that, in the last three years, 1,205 applications have been made for a total of $45.2 million. I should add that, for 1970-71, appropriations of $30 million for that program have been included in my department's estimates. Each grant averages to date $37,700.
Experience has shown that about 78 per 100 of the grants have been used for current expenses. When one tries to estimate the 21774-61
DEBATES	5357
Industrial Research Incentives Act general effect of that program on research and development, one can cite as an example that the amount of research made in Canada reached $80.8 million last year and that it went up this year to $100.8 million. These are current expenses allowable during the period between 1968-69 and 1969-70. The program has therefore led to a significant increase in the amounts earmarked for research in Canada.

We come now to the four amendments of Bill C-193. The four technical changes-I emphasize they are only technical-are the following: Section 1 has to do with associated corporations. At present, the act states that companies are associated with one another if they are associated for the purposes of the Income Tax Act. This provision was introduced into IRDIA in order to prevent associated companies not dealing with each other at arm's length from divesting themselves of base period expenditures by cycling research and development from one company to another year by year. Experience has shown that this provision creates an unintended hardship on some associated companies which actually deal with one another at arm's length and which cannot therefore influence the base period expenditures of one another. For example, two companies have been disqualified for grants which otherwise would have totalled $176,000 and 15 other companies have suffered reductions in grants totalling $325,000 because of the associated companies provision.
To remove this anomaly, the proposed amendment would permit the minister to decide that companies are not associated for the purposes of the act in cases where they are dealing with one another at arm's length. Apparently there is no other way to do it than by ministerial discretion. I promise my distinguished friend from Prince Edward-Hastings that I would be respectful of traditions and of virtue when I make such decisions.


George Harris Hees: Especially virtue.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The second section has to do with repayments to Her Majesty. Under the act at present, a company may include in its grant application repayments to Her Majesty of amounts advanced to the company under an appropriation act for the purpose of advancing and sustaining the technological capability of the manufacturing industry. As a result, changes have been made in some of the pro-
March 23, 1970

Industrial Research Incentives Act grams under which advances to companies are made. These changes would involve some companies in repayments which would not be in respect of scientific research and development in their entirety. The purpose of the proposed amendment is, therefore, to ensure that only the portion of such repayment expended on research and development will be considered an eligible current expenditure for the purpose of the act.
The third section has to do with amalgamated corporations. Some companies created by statutory amalgamations have applied for grants without including in their base periods the expenditures of their predecessor corporations. If this were allowed under IRDIA, companies would be able to circumvent the intent of the act by divesting themselves of base period expenditures by going through a process of amalgamation. These cases have been administered under other provisions of IRDIA, but for greater clarity, and to make the result more certain, it is proposed that the requirement be covered by specific wording to that purpose. This would be consistent with the intent of IRDIA to increase the level of research and development in Canada upon an equitable basis for all companies.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Finally, clause 4 has to do with the sale or transfer of property. The situation is the following: The act now requires that all or part of a grant paid for the acquisition of capital equipment must be repaid to the Crown if the equipment is sold or otherwise disposed of during a defined period. This provision is considered to work a hardship in some instances, notably in those where a company wishes to form a research subsidiary and the equipment is intended, upon sale or transfer, to be continued in use for research and development.
I had a discussion about this point. People who were not satisfied with this particular aspect of the bill came to see me. Since it would not be consistent with the intent of the act to recover grants as the result of such transactions, it is proposed to amend the act to permit the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to annul the recovery provisions where he is satisfied that the equipment will continue to be wholly attributable to research and development.
So there you are, Mr. Speaker. These are four small, technical changes, and I am keen to see the bill go to committee where possibly

my officials could give examples of the advantages of changing the act in respect of these matters.


George Harris Hees: 
John Edward Broadbent: May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Suggested discussion of Conflict of Interest Bill; the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin)-Canadian National Railways-shut down of some stations; the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett)-Research-Suggested grant to Canadian Peace Research Institute.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, Notices of Motions.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
October 28, 1969-Mr. Broadbent-The following proposed motion:-That in the opinion of this House, the government should give consideration to the advisability of ensuring by law a guaranteed annual income as a means of ensuring that all Canadians will have an income sufficient to provide for a life of dignity.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I believe there was agreement to let this one stand and retain its place, and to move on to the next notice of motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Motion stands.
5360	COMMONS
Appointments to Crown Corporations o (5:00 p.m.)



CROWN CORPORATIONS


Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane) moved:: that in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of introducing legislation to provide for the appointment of some elected Members of Parliament to the boards of directors of the various Crown corporations and other federal agencies so as to assure a better and more direct control of the legislative power over the executive power, to restore to Parliament part if its authority and to better utilize the various talents of the parliamentarians.
He said: Mr. Speaker, throughout society we notice a series of balances and counterbalances. I think the balance of power here and there in society is very necessary to the maintenance of our sociological system. Certainly, I feel that there is something lacking in the balance of power as far as the running of government business is concerned.
Who really runs the government? We can ask this question and those of us who are here reply to our constituents that on their behalf we come as elected representatives in their interest, to spend their money in the way that the majority of Canadians want it spent. Do we say that with tongue in cheek? When we get here we see that most government affairs are handled by thousands of civil servants who are encrusted in regulations. With the number of ministers we have in the cabinet, I wonder if we really have our finger on everything that is going on in government. Certainly, many ministers run their departments, there is no question about that, but there are others who allow themselves to be run by senior members of their department and there is no doubt about that either. In any case, civil servants certainly have a great deal to say in the running of government.
When we look at the agencies of government, or Crown corporations, these are even further removed from the power of Parliament than is the Civil Service, and from the influence of the people who elected us here. When a question is asked of a minister who answers in Parliament for a Crown corporation, he is obliged to say that he must respect the independence and autonomy of that organization and he passes along the remarks made. When the estimates of Crown corporations are examined in the various committees, what usually happens is that the Crown corporation appears and exposes its program to a [Mr. Deputy Speaker.!
DEBATES	March 23, 1970
group of Members of Parliament who have relatively little research facilities and who know very little about the subject. The members of the committee ask questions in order to inform themselves of what is being done in a particular corporation, but they are not prepared to ask the kind of question that would probe into the day to day running of an organization. As a result, they get a little information, but are not in a position to dig deeper.
It is my contention, Mr. Speaker, that if we are sent here to look after the affairs of the country we should be expected to have a little more authority in those Crown corporations. The country expects us to ask questions that are meaningful and which probe into the expenses of those organizations. In the case of the CNR, the CBC or CMHC, we know very little about how the operations are run. I suggest that Members of Parliament have a right to serve on those boards. They should be present to act as a watchdog for the people. Is there any reason why they should not be there? Is a member of Parliament any less capable of serving on a board than those presently appointed? I suggest that the level of talent in this House is such that many members would be more than capable. For example, who on the board of directors of the CNR has any more intimate knowledge of railway operations than the hon. member for London East (Mr. Turner)? And who on the board of CMHC knows more about housing and urban matters than the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) or the hon. member for York West (Mr. Givens)? I say the talent in this House should be put to its best use, representing the people and looking after their affairs.
I have spoken and written on this subject on a number of occasions, Mr. Speaker. On one occasion my remarks were picked up by the Timmins Daily Press of February 12, 1969, the newspaper which serves most of my constituency. An editorial appeared under the title "Public Money-Keep Closer Watch". I should like to quote some of the remarks in this editorial. I certainly will not go through all of it because it deals with the various things I have done in my area and therefore is probably not too interesting to hon. members. However, one part that is pertinent reads as follows:
His most profound suggestion has got to be the parliamentary representation on Crown agencies.
He's probing into an area of administration that is worth millions to Canadian taxpayers. Just consider the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which
March 23, 1970	COMMONS
makes requests for funds topping the hundred million dollar mark annually. That's a lot of loose change.
With income tax time here, a lot of Canadians will be thinking about disappearing dollars and the tax drain. Any accounting that can be given by Crown corporations, and most won't think much of the idea of a politician's doing the accounting, will be in the best interest.
Parliamentary watchdogs, if they are adopted, could save money. But equally important, initially, they can generate just enough scare to keep Crown corporations on their toes, and let their administrators know the public is watching.
It's a good idea.
In recent weeks, one of the committees of this House considered the International Development Agency and the possibility of placing a Member of Parliament on the board. This suggestion was accepted. An editorial against the idea appeared in the Globe and Mail the next day. I replied to that editorial pointing out that there seems to be a certain group in this country who suggest there is something unhealthy about the inclusion of Members of Parliament on these boards. Since we are held responsible for the money spent, I think we should be in a position to have some say in the operation of these agencies. It is not a question of running them, as we would be only one or two voices on the whole board. At least there would be a representative of the people working in their interest.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
As a result of the remarks in the Globe and Mail and my letter, several prominent citizens wrote to me in support of the idea of Members of Parliament serving on boards; no one wrote against it. One very prominent man by the name of Thomas Marshall who lives in Oakville, in the constituency of the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Whiting), wrote a meaningful letter. This gentleman, who is well respected across the country, submitted certain matters to the Glassco Commission. He is well respected in his community, and writes as follows:
I congratulate you on your letter which appeared in the Globe and Mail on Feb. 25th. I deplore as you do their editorial of Feb. 23rd. It seems to me the editorial writer has little or no knowledge of the day to day workings of a Crown company. If you combine this lack of knowledge with a naive belief that civil servants, because they have been given the stamp of approval by the Civil Service Commission, have a sort of divine right to run the country while thinking at the same time that Members of Parliament are inferior persons not to be completely trusted but who fortunately are not forever with us; you can see how the editorial came out as it did.
DEBATES	5361
Appointments to Crown Corporations
It is my opinion from personal observation that far too often the civil servant or Crown Company bureaucrat is ever ready to exercise authority arbitrarily, is excessively secretive and because he looks upon criticism within his own organization as disloyal, these organizations tend to become self-protecting bureaucracies, to be managed for the benefit of the people who run them to the point where in some instances they become almost the personal fief of the man at the top.
He goes on to say in his concluding paragraph:
-The way things are now I think the dice are loaded against the people. By simply stalling, the civil servant can frustrate a Representative of the people in any investigation, for the odds are better than even that, by withholding information that is pertinent but may not have been directly asked for, misinterpreting questions, giving partial or incomplete answers, the investigation can resist conclusion until such time as the hazard of election has removed the Representative.
That is how a man highly respected in his community expresses himself. I have another letter from Mr. Fred M. Halls of London, Ontario, who says:
Thank you on behalf of many of us ordinary citizens for your letter to the Globe & Mail printed in this mornings issue.
Many people feel that our duly elected representative to the three levels of our governing bodies have no control over and, indeed, very little knowledge of the day-to-day operations of not only Crown companies but Departments, Boards, Commissions.
Speaking Federally, there are those who contend that in many matters the Ministers of the Crown are but mouth-pieces for the senior Civil Servants in their various departments-
Please be sure my prayers and best wishes are with you in your good work.
I have read two letters to illustrate the kind of reaction I have been receiving. As I say, I have received no letters contrary to the idea of our placing Members of Parliament on boards of Crown agencies and corporations.
I feel that in this country today there is a desire to create more Crown corporations. I sometimes wonder if the reason behind this is that certain people wish to remove more of the business of government from the scrutiny of Parliament and the representatives of the people. Certainly, that is how it appears. A good example of what I am talking about, of complete disregard for the people, is to be found if one looks at Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. On February 21 of this year, that corporation arbitrarily passed two regulations of which no person would be aware unless he happened to tender an application to build a house or to obtain a mortgage loan. One of those regulations says
March 23. 1970
5362	COMMONS DEBATES
Appointments to Crown Corporations that if you happen to live in a municipality of more than 12,000 people you will no longer be eligible to borrow money directly from CMHC. The other regulation says that if you are in a municipality with fewer than 12,000 people and if you earn more than $8,000 a year, you will be ineligible to borrow money directly from CMHC. In other words, no one can qualify because, if you think of it, you will see that no one earning less than $8,000 a year can afford to build a house.
This is the kind of regulation that emanates from some of our Crown corporations. They pass these regulations without anyone's concurrence, and then we bear the complaints of the people on our backs. When we tell the minister about complaints like these, his answer is, "After all, this is an independent organization." That simply is not good enough and will not be good enough in future. Over 100 new Members of Parliament came here with the idea of changing the system of government. How can we change anything if the entire reins of government are in the hands of the mandarins. It is impossible to change anything.
I know my time has almost expired, Mr. Speaker, and I know other hon. members wish to debate this subject probably until after six o'clock. This notice of motion will die on the Order Paper unless we take action now. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, and I realize I am not following a usual course of action, that in these circumstances, since much has to be learned about the problem, the matter should be studied by a committee where witnesses from the provinces and elsewhere can be called. For instance, members of the Ontario Legislature serve on the boards of Crown corporations. If we can examine this matter carefully from every point of view, and obtain the points of view of others, we shall be in a much better position to determine what can be done. May I suggest, if it is the unanimous wish of this House, that the subject matter of the notice of motion we are now discussing be referred to the appropriate committee of the House in order that the committee may examine it carefully and ascertain all the facts.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with much interest to the debate so far and to the statement of the mover of this private members' notice of motion. I wish to commend him for it because it deals with a fundamental principle, a principle of public administration which will have to be considered carefully and studied by

other members of this House. I hope this will be just the beginning of the debate. Whatever the forum of the debate, the question is of such fundamental importance that it must be weighed carefully and thoroughly before legislative action is taken on it.
In principle I support the motion, Mr. Speaker. In recent years we have seen the growth of the public service. We have seen, really, a major public service and a lesser public service growing up. Numerically, the members of the major Public Service are those employed in the regular departments of government under the control of a minister of the Crown who reports to Parliament according to the established constitutional principle of executive responsibility. The other civil servants, while they may be numerically fewer, in many ways have enjoyed growing influence and superior conditions of renumeration and employment. I refer to the field of the Crown corporations.
The reasons for establishing Crown corporations are well known and have been cited in numerous textbooks. A Crown company like Air Canada is established because we want it to be like a competitive private firm. In many ways it is in competition with private industry and therefore has to adopt a corporate framework. Its members must have the ability to make managerial decisions that will enable the company to hold its own in the world of private enterprise. The Polymer Corporation was created within the same framework. It was created under the exigencies of wartime to develop a formula for synthetic rubber to meet an urgent national priority. It was given the necessary capital to do so. It was given encouragement, personnel and access to the technical processes. It has established a record of success of which Canadians are justly proud.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
In between the purely commercial type of Crown corporation, the government has developed a hybrid of another sort. I do not intend to be derogatory, quite to the contrary. I refer to the National Capital Commission which is officially described as a Crown corporation. Its responsibility is not like that of a commercial enterprise which is selling a product. The Commission is to carry out a federal purpose within an area defined by an act of this Parliament as a national capital region. That federal purpose is, in its application, the acquisition of a green belt for long-term planning, major national parks such as Gatineau Park and Vincent Massey Park and planning and
March 23, 1970

development of government buildings. It gives guidance and grants to the municipalities for various public services considered to be in the interests of the nation. It establishes national monuments. This type of Crown corporation has come a long way from the purely competitive world of Air Canada and Polymer Corporation.
In addition we have the Defence Research Board. This Crown corporation attempts to apply capital, which is urgently needed for the training of our scientific manpower, to the unlocking of those mysteries and knowledge which are the key to the technology of a modern twentieth century nation.
The reasons for establishing Crown corporations are numerous. They relate to efficiency and the need to parallel the structure of private industry itself. They are often motivated by something a little less elevated than this. Those who direct them are often concerned about the ability to engage personnel without the bureaucratic organization of the Public Service Commission. I am not one of those who berate the Public Service Commission. It would be quite impossible to apply a merit system across the board without an agency like the Public Service Commission to make sure that there are uniform rules, appointments, promotions, hiring and training of staff. By going to the Crown corporation form, it is possible to come out from under the umbrella of the Public Service Commission for these personnel functions. They enjoy a great deal more discretion.
At one time I was a president of a national association of civil servants. Among the greatest frustrations we as a staff association had were those based on the managerial decisions of some of the Crown corporations. In many cases the Crown corporation was less autocratic in its behaviour, less demanding, less democratic and less consistent in the application of personnel policies than the public service.
Another reason that leads many people to prefer the Crown corporation over the public service is the ability to pay higher rates of salaries, especially to top management personnel. I do not believe that we should ever try to skimp on salaries. I believe the Governor of the Bank of Canada is worth the salary he receives. To do the job we expect of him, the head of the CNR must command the kind of salary which he receives. I do not believe that comparable positions can be found by a parallel within a deputy minister's structure of the public service. I do believe
DEBATES	5363
Appointments to Crown Corporations there has been an over-all inhibiting effect within the public service, especially at the senior levels, because of the application of consistency. This is because the Deputy Minister of Finance must be the senior paid deputy and others must be slotted in beneath him. Nowhere in the world is there any such orderly arrangement with Crown corporations. Crown corporations have the freedom to attract capital, recruit, select, train, promote, compete, choose the corporate forms and make the corporate decisions that are essential in some commercial types of operation in order that they can be successful in the purpose for which they were established.
Along with this Crown corporation idea, and the format which has developed, has come the problem of public accountability. Those who maintain that a Crown corporation is responsible to its shareholders are trying to give credence to a myth. The shareholders of the Crown corporations cannot be comparable to the shareholders of a private industry. The shareholders of a Crown corporation are the public and the government. Through the minister responsible there is a nominal reporting, and in many cases it is no more than that, to account to this place for the operation.
As the mover of the motion said, we have all had the experience of the operation of a Crown corporation giving us some concern, going to the minister and the minister replying that it is an independent body and there is nothing much he can do about it. I suspect that many Crown corporations, depending upon the personality of the man or woman in charge, exercise degrees of individual independence that are hard to reconcile with the formal structure of public accountability. It is to the credit of the hon. member that he has tried to propose a solution. I do not believe he is the first to propose it. My colleague the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Walker) had a motion on the Order Paper to do the same thing.
I believe the solution lies in part along the lines that have been indicated. On the board of directors of such corporations can be placed members who also have responsibility in this House. This is breaking new ground, but it is ground that has been broken in the province of Ontario. In the case of the province of Ontario, every Crown corporation established in that province has one or more members of the provincial legislature on its board of directors. Examples of this are the Niagara Parks Commission, the Racing Commission-
5364	COMMONS DEBATES	March 23. 1970
Appointments to Crown Corporations
Mr. Fair weather: The Milk Board.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: -the Liquor Control Board. My friend opposite had some other suggestion.


Mr. Fairweather:: I thought milk should come before liquor.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I thought the hon. member referred to liquor. I obviously did him an injustice in that respect. Knowing him as I do, I should not have made such a quick reference. The fact is that something has to be done to try to bring some degree of relationship between the legislative branch and the Crown corporation. The gap has become too wide.
I believe the Secretary of State for External Aifairs (Mr. Sharp) made some comments not too long ago that one would have to define carefully the role of such a member, the principle he would apply and the course of conduct he would have to follow. It has been alleged there would be a conflict of interest. I cannot buy the conflict of interest argument. The man or woman elected to this House does not serve anywhere else. The problem is that he or she does not have an opportunity to gain access to information that is essential to serve the public interest and on which judgments are based. This is where the gap lies.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
As far as I am aware, the system in the province of Ontario has worked tolerably well. I am one of those who believe that if we were to adopt this procedure, no additional pay should be given members serving on such a board. This would be contrary to the practice in the province of Ontario. I believe that the pay, allowances and pensions of the members of this House should be decided here. There should be a uniform practice. However, additional responsibilities could be placed on members, based on their own experience, which would give them encouragement to specialize in areas in which they are most competent.
I believe that a very useful principle of public administration could be developed by the adoption of this motion. Individual members could be encouraged and trained to seek out those areas in which they are competent. When members are named to board of directors, I hope it will be on the basis of more than one political persuasion: I hope members from the opposition parties in this House would be named in order to give a balance in

making reviews and in trying to determine how the public interest is involved.
I think that anyone who has studied the change in the concept of corporate directors- the province of Ontario recently had occasion to change the law in this regard-will admit there is a much greater degree of responsibility thrust upon those who accept directorships of corporations. Such appointments are not always a bed of roses. However, I think anyone chosen for such task will find a great challenge, an opportunity to contribute in breaking new ground in public administration. Members of Parliament would be able to develop a relationship between the committees of this House and that body which has been referred to by such groups as the Canadian Tax Foundation and others as the lesser public service of Canada, a growing number of people whose accountability to those who established them, at least in regard to some nominal ownership of the operation, is a rather tenuous one in many instances.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Roy-al: Mr. Speaker, I am participating in this debate as a result of popular demand, because there will be very few opportunities for my colleagues to hear what I have to say on this matter between now and Easter. I have become interested in taking part principally because the Notice of Motion of the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) has been on the Order Paper for some time and resulted from an initiative of mine. I did not mean to detract from anything that he was doing, but I was able to persuade my colleagues in the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, when the committee was discussing the International Development Research Centre, that it might be very useful to have a Member of Parliament serve on the board.
This, as the hon. member who has just spoken said, caused some consternation on the part of the minister concerned and I thought for a moment he was going to tear the purple off the cloths. However, the minister was faced with a substantial majority in favour, and after entering several caveats about having members on boards he graciously allowed the committee report to be adopted by Parliament.
My feeling about this matter is not totally in accord with that of the hon. member for Cochrane. I do not want members appointed to boards and commissions merely to act as a brake on or a watchdog over federal spending. There are many avenues, though perhaps
March 23, 1970	COMMONS
they need updating, through which Parliament can check spending. Rather, I looked upon this hopefully as a very useful opportunity to provide the benefit of what might be called a rather more sensitive antenna, if I may use that expression, of boards and commissions. Let me give an example. When the B and B Commission was issuing questionnaires, without wanting in any way to be boastful I felt it would have been useful had they consulted the Member of Parliament concerned-namely myself-before asking high school students in the largest community in my riding to find out, among other things, how their parents voted at the last general election.
Research was undertaken without any consultation with the sitting member and the commission itself was embarrassed about this. Nothing partisan was involved, but had they had the courtesy to seek advice from the incumbent member, a little more groundwork could have been done, a little more educating or preparing, if that is a better word, in the community for the type of research questionnaire that was distributed, as I say, without notice. The riding of Fundy-Royal survived this questionnaire but I think it would have been far more productive had this opportunity been afforded.
Another committee that I think would have served this Parliament immeasurably better is the committee dealing with drugs. I say this without detracting one bit from the quality of people who served on the Le Dane Committee on Drugs. However, Members of Parliament could have been provided with a great opportunity to travel across the country seeking information on what is a major social problem facing us today in this particular field. I get carried away and regard certain things as major problems, and I presume others would pick different aspects of social malaise as being more pressing than the drug problem. However, I happen to think that the drug problem is a matter of very grave concern.
When a committee or commission was set up in the United Kingdom to study this matter, a couple of Members of Parliament were appointed to it. I do not know whether they were government members, but I do not think that matters. What is important is to have an avenue of communication, to be in touch with parliamentary thinking, and to havje some degree of liaison as such bodies move around the country. To carry this to its logical conclusion, I think that in many cases commissions made up of members, or com-
DEBATES	5365
Appointments to Crown Corporations mittees made up of parliamentarians, could serve the public just as usefully as the well-established technique of a royal commission.
e (5:40 p.m.)
Another problem faced by the federal administration is that of centralism of decision-making. This, again, is not to criticize what I believe to be the finest public service serving any government in the western world. I believe, because of the huge area of this country and the regional problems, in too many instances decisions are made in the central capital without sufficient sensitivity to conditions in what I might call the edges, if you like-certainly the economic edges of the country.
Last December the Film Board made a stupid decision about user fees for films. There was no way, it seemed to me, that ordinary Members of Parliament could get across to the Film Board that it might be fine to make that decision for Montreal or Toronto, but that the imposition of user fees in the province of New Brunswick would be disastrous. I might say this decision has been rescinded, and I think that is the proper course for the government to have taken. There was no way we could get this point across to the board itself. It seemed quite insensitive to the fact that in provinces other than Quebec and Ontario, in many instances the National Film Board is the only way for the public and for school children, and so on, to obtain any cultural experience whatsoever.
Had that decision not been rescinded, I am told by the provincial department of education it would have meant the end of audiovisual education in New Brunswick for this year. I am satisfied that had the Film Board had a Member of Parliament or two on its board, no such insensitive decision would have been made. This is not a matter of a policy measure; it is one of people really understanding the prime, or core issue. So I am glad to have been importuned to take part in this debate.
I congratulate the hon. member for having introduced this motion. I am a little disturbed by one phrase in his Notice of Motion, that is, "control of the legislative power over the executive power." I am not going to quibble about semantics in this regard, but I do not think we are legislators any more. We could have lots of speeches on this matter, but I think the way for control by Parliament over the cabinet would be by a greatly beefed-up committees system with very much more
5366	COMMONS DEBATES	March 23, 1970
Appointments to Crown Corporations
independent advice for committees. Having support the principle proposed by the hon. made that little qualification, I think the hon. member, although I have some doubts about member showed good initiative in giving Par- the technique. I resume my seat now and liament this opportunity to get some things urge that a vote be taken so the matter can off its mind about boards and commissions. be further studied by the committee.


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I should first of all like to compliment the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) for putting forward this motion. I support the objectives contained in it. As I see the resolution, it is aimed at giving the public more control over public enterprises such as Crown corporations by the appointment of Members of Parliament to the boards of those corporations. I want the subject matter of this motion to go to the committee for detailed study, so I will confine my remarks to two or three minutes.
While I favour the principle the hon. member has advanced in his motion, I am rather dubious about some of the techniques which I understand would be involved. I wonder at the wisdom of appointing individual Members of Parliament-politicians-to boards of Crown corporations. Would this not tend to put additional powers and advantages into the hands of individual politicians, perhaps to the detriment of other members of the House? I do not know, but this is a criticism that I imagine might be raised in some quarters.
Second, is it altogether wise to put politicians in the position of being able to influence the operations of highly technical, in some areas, Crown businesses or public enterprises? Many Members of Parliament are already occupied with committee work, some members being on two or three important committees. They also have House business and constituency responsibilities. I think it would be very hard for them to find additional time in which to be effective members of boards of Crown corporations. Instead of placing Members of Parliament on the boards of Crown corporations, we would do better to consider sharpening up and adding considerably to the powers of committees of the House, enabling those committees to be much more searching and effective in dealing with ministers or those who report for Crown corporations.
I agree with what the hon. member on the government side said a short while ago, that there should and must be a closer relationship between the House of Commons and Crown corporations. As I wish to see this matter go to committee, let me summarize by saying I
[Mr. Fairweather.)


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia):: Mr. Speaker, I share the comments and the feelings of the hon. member who spoke before me in complimenting my colleague who moved this motion. It was not my intention to speak on the motion, but having seen that there is no shortage of speakers this afternoon, and the likelihood of the motion being talked out getting stronger and stronger, I felt I should speak on it.
I did not write to the hon. member and express my support, but I have spoken to him personally to indicate that this is the kind of matter to which we should give more consideration. I have indicated to him the frustrations that one feels when serving on the Public Accounts Committee, which is faced with a situation that of course occurs after the fact-after the money has been spent and after the mistake has been made. We as members of the Public Accounts Committee have to make searching inquiries. We often find how difficult it is to get the kind of information we want from Crown corporations.
I agree with my friend, the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis), who has indicated that on many occasions it is necessary to have Crown corporations perform particular services. I submit, in support of the hon. member who moved this motion that it is equally true that Members of Parliament should be sitting on these corporations, not with the view of providing more money but with the view of doing the job we are required to do here, that is, to serve the public interest.
I have found the Auditor General's report to be quite unfair. I have told him in person, and I intend to tell him again before he brings in his 1969 report, that his reports are unfair and one-sided because we hear only one side of the case when it comes before the committee. We do not hear the other side until two or three years later. In the meantime, the contents of such an unfair report are spread across the country.
Let me refer to a recent situation. We directed questions to officials of the Department of National Revenue on eight different points. There had been eight different criticisms made, and in respect of each of them the Department of National Revenue was able to give a satisfactory answer. For a
March 23, 1970
period of two years we had to sit back and observe the results of that report all across the country. We find the press leaping upon this kind of thing like over-zealous galloping gourmets. This is the kind of thing they want and the kind of thing they spread across the country. This might be fine, but I think it is unfair. To get that kind of fair information from Crown corporations, and to put that kind of defence before committees, I think it is necessary that we serve on these boards.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Let us not talk about semantics and the fact that we have committee work, work in the House of Commons and constituency mail to answer. The hon. member is simply suggesting a means of getting a point of view across. Let us study the question, and let somebody who perhaps has more time than hon. members to spend on this matter come up with a way in which such a system could be implemented so that the public interest could be best protected. It is for this reason I am speaking this afternoon. This is a matter which I think should be referred to a committee.


Mr. E. B. Osier (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to commend the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) for the idea behind this motion. I am afraid, however, that is as far as I can go. So far as I am concerned, he spoiled his motion when he added the words, "so as to assure a better and more direct control of the legislative power over the executive power", and so on. I disagree with the motive contained therein. Had he not included the second part of his motion, I would have agreed with it.
It seems to me directors are directors; it does not matter whether they are directors of a Crown corporation or of any other company. They have a job to do. That job is to run the company to the best of their ability in accordance with the objectives for which the company was established. In the case of a Crown corporation, the corporation is set up by an act of Parliament to achieve certain objectives. The directors should be left with the right to achieve those objectives. The matter of whether or not the directors should be Members of Parliament is irrelevant.
One of the best members of the board of the BBC in not so recent years was Sir Harold Nicholson. If one were to read his intensely interesting memoirs one would find he did immensely valuable work for the BBC as a
5367
Appointments to Crown Corporations director while he was a Member of Parliament. That affiliation did not necessarily play much part in his role because I believe he was sort of an independent quasi Labourite who was able to carry out this function during the coalition government of the war years. I do not know whether or not this would have been possible in peacetime.
However, he acted as an invaluable informal liaison between the cabinet and the BBC during all the war years when it was necessary that the BBC try to help reflect government policy. Above all, he was an independent director of the BBC chosen for his independence, ability and sense of judgment. So, while I am for Members of Parliament being allowed to be directors of Crown corporations, I am not for the suggestion, as I read it, contained in the motion which indicates that in some way these directors would still be responsible to the House of Commons. I do not think that should be the situation at all.
In the case of Crown corporations, I believe if Members of Parliament were directors they should, like any other directors, be responsible to Parliament under the terms of the act under which the particular Crown corporation was created. The objective, of course, should not be the control by legislative power over executive power. Executive power should have nothing to do with a Crown corporation other than to change the rules under which the Crown corporation functions or to suggest to Parliament that the act under which a Crown corporation operates should be changed from year to year.
But God help us if we allow the executive to dabble in Crown corporations, especially in more sensitive areas like the CBC and the National Film Board. We all know of too many instances where in some countries information services became disguised or undisguised propaganda machines for government. This has not happened here, and it would be a poor day if it did.


Ralph Wesley Stewart: How could one member have such an influence?


Edmund Boyd Osler: 5368	COMMONS
Appointments to Crown Corporations
As I understand it, the worst cross we had to bear was that a member of the executive attempted to meddle too much in internal matters of the CBC. I could give you a beautiful example. There was an occasion on which we had a most difficult situation. This matter was actually resolved by the board of directors at a moment when word was received that a member of the executive had acted over-zealously. It was necessary for us to react and forget our resolution of the problem in order to keep the corporation from being tampered with by government.
I have absolutely strong feelings about the executive meddling in the affairs of a Crown corporation. If the executive wished to change something in respect of a Crown corporation, the executive would have to bring the matter before Parliament and have Parliament make the change. If we were to allow the executive to meddle in the affairs of a Crown corporation, we would be treading on very dangerous ground which could become sinister ground if allowed to continue unchecked. This is the reason I cannot accept the motion, although I would welcome another motion by the hon. member if it were differently worded, because I believe the underlying idea has great merit.


Ralph Wesley Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a point of order. As I understand it, if a Notice of Motion is not talked out before six o'clock it can be voted on and passed; and if it is talked out, it dies. However, in the case of a bill, if the bill is not talked out it is referred to a committee. There is no provision for this matter to go to a committee. I have the feeling from the discussion which has taken place that members would like to have the matter discussed further in committee. Therefore I am prepared to move a motion to that effect, if it is in order.


Mr. Deachman:: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might say a word or two in this regard. This would be a motion to change the procedures of the House of Commons in respect of the method of handling motions before the House. Without a vote in the House I do not think we could change the procedures of the House of Commons. I believe there are other members here who wish to comment on the very interesting subject which the hon. member has raised.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private

DEBATES	March 23. 1970
members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
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. Pepin that Bill C-193, to amend the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on the bill before us this evening. It might afford a reasonable amount of pleasure to hon. members to know that I have a cold and that therefore my comments will be briefer than they otherwise would have been. I hope, however, that their substance will not have altered and that there might even be some improvement in it.
The minister has already referred to the undoubted benefits to any modern economy of a country having a sophisticated, imaginative and vigorously financed research and development program. I shall not add to these generally true observations except to say they are true. There can be no doubt that in any industrial country in the world research and development not only plays a leading role in establishing current levels of employment and economic well-being but is of crucial importance to future levels of economic development and well-being. That principle does not need further comment.
I would now like to pass on to three or four specific areas. First of all I would like the minister-I assume he will conclude with a few observations before we vote-to really try to justify the IRDIA program. The judgment of the members of my party is that the IRDIA program represents millions of dollars down the drain. In terms of government
March 23, 1970	COMMONS
finance there is not a great deal of money involved, but none the less these dollars are being wasted.
Why are they being wasted? In our judgment they are being wasted because they are being spent unnecessarily. Overwhelmingly, these funds are being spent to subsidize (research and development in the private sector of our economy which would have been undertaken in any case by private firms. This judgment is very serious in its implications. Whether or not it is completely right I am not sure, but to my knowledge at least the government has not presented to the House or elsewhere any argumentation justifying the funds spent.
What is required is not a general outlay of funds providing benefits to any firm that would have carried out research and development anyway, but to make a very careful diagnosis of the Canadian economy and its potential, then make specific grants, and rely on them only. This the government does do in its other programs, but it seems to consider that having a twofold approach is necessary; a broad, general, over-all approach plus a number of specific programs.
It is the judgment of many economists that the general approach is a waste of public funds. It really amounts to the public subsidizing a private industry for what it would have done on its own. Although this program represents a small amount of money in terms of government spending-$30 million-it is no small sum to the average Canadian in terms of what the same amount of money might have been used for in alternative programs such as housing or a number of other socially meaningful uses.
As an example of this I should like to refer to the question that I put on the Order Paper in this session and to which I received an answer from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. My question concerned last year's and the present year's expenditure of funds on this program. For 1968-69 the expenditure forecast by the department was $31,300,000, and the actual expenditure was $19,592,000. For the current year there is a slight increase in what the government intends to spend, but I suspect a greater percentage of the funds will not have been used when the year concludes. My point is that this is a relatively small amount of money going into research and development in the yearly program, and to say the least it is not a major source of inspiration for research and development in this country.
DEBATES	5369
Industrial Research Incentives Act a (8:10 p.m.)
I would think that if a careful look were taken at the companies which actually used these funds last year, it would probably be seen that about two-thirds of this $19 million going out from the federal treasury went to firms that would have spent that amount of money on their own without any encouragement by the government. Therefore, my conclusion is that this public money was wasted. However, the minister might be able to reply to that point and show us, in some fashion that has not yet been made apparent, that the funds were necessary to get research and development under way.
On this same point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a specific request of the minister. About a month ago he tabled a document which was really a summary of a research group's analysis of the government's research and development programs, which consisted of four pages plus a one-page abbreviation of what the government has done since in terms of that study's findings. Would the minister consider tabling the whole study so that the people of Canada, and more particularly the members of this House, would have an opportunity to take a serious look at what was presumably a serious study into the efficacy of the federal government's research and development programs?
The next point I would like to make is related to the first general observation about the need for significant capital investment in research and development and the overwhelming lack of success on the part of industry in Canada in doing research and development-and when I say industry I mean both foreign-owned and Canadian-owned industry. I suspect that at this point the minister might be jotting down the fact that if we look at the foreign-owned sector of the economy and compare it with Canadian-owned industry, we will find that it does more research and development than Canadian firms. This simply attests to a fact mentioned by many economists, that the main fault of Canadian capitalism is Canadian capitalists, who have been quite negligent in striving to become vigorous entrepreneurs able to face international competition.
We simply cannot go on talking about the present and the past: we must be concerned about the future. I suggest the minister should indulge in some serious thinking about one of the reports put out by his department which shows that American-owned subsidiar-
5370	COMMONS
Industrial Research Incentives Act ies in this country do much less research and development than their parent firms in the United States. I refer specifically to the report entitled, "Statistical Data on Research and Development in Canada," compiled by the former Department of Industry in 1967. The pages are not numbered, but I refer in particular to table 13. This table shows conclusively that American-owned industry in Canada-as an example, the petroleum industry-does considerably less research and development here compared with that industry in the United States, but even so it does much more here than is done by its lazy competitors in Canadian-owned firms.
The important point, in my judgment and the judgment of my party, is that it is essential for the survival of this country that not only do we get more control of the Canadian economy as such, but that we begin to get control in the crucial new areas of industrial development in which research and development programs play such an important role. We need a Canada Development Corporation that will mobilize Canadian capital to invest in new and growing sectors of the economy, which will provide a foundation for Canada from which it can launch into meaningful, successful competition in the international market and get us beyond the old, traditional branch plant structure.
One of the most important aspects of the Canada Development Corporation's activity would be to mobilize teams of experts for research and development programs. So far the minister has not had anything to say about this. Perhaps he is waiting for the cabinet report on what the government intends to do about the general problem of foreign investment. If he does not comment on this matter tonight, I look forward to his comments on it in the not too distant future. It is a serious point on which the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) and other members of this party have spoken at length.
Dealing specifically with resource industry,
I ask the minister this question: If it is the case, and I think it is, that one of the most exciting and interesting developments in modern industry is that which is taking place in the petro-chemical field, and if it is also the case that we have substantial amounts of petroleum in Canada, and further, if it is also the case that most of this industry happens to be foreign-owned, would the minister and the government give serious consideration to bringing the industry within public ownership?
[Mr. Broadbent.l
DEBATES	March 23, 1970
I ask the minister to consider this question and forget for the moment all the ideological implications, all the serious kinds of moral and socialistic arguments that could be made on the subject of public ownership. I ask him to forget these entirely and to deal solely with the question of an independent Canadian economy and the need to provide meaningful research and development programs that could stimulate real economic growth for Canada in the expanding international market.
In other words, instead of having an industry, in this case the petroleum industry, which is foreign-owned, which does the bulk of its research and development south of the border, would it not be desirable at this time to think not about nationalizing all Canadian industry but bringing this important, modern industry within public ownership and providing substantial funds to do research and development in the petro-chemical field? It is not just gas stations that are involved with petroleum; they are a very minor aspect of the industry. If publicly owned, I suggest we should provide millions of dollars for research and development in this industry and see where we can go as a country in the international field. This suggestion is being very seriously considered by my party.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that I am not asking the minister an ideological question about the merits of public ownership as opposed to private ownership in general, but specifically at this time when the horn- is late, to say the least, in terms of maintaining Canadian economic independence, whether he thinks this might be one area in which public ownership might be precisely the answer. I am asking whether this might not be the best means to regain Canadian independence and to provide research and development leading to real economic growth for Canada in one sector of our economy. To repeat the point I made earlier, most of the research and development in this industry is being done south of the border. Because it is foreign-owned there is always a net outflow of capital south of the border as well. Public ownership could be the answer, both to getting more research and retaining profits.
I am pleased to note one improvement in the government's research and development program. For the past couple of years our party has been critical of the net financial advantage the government was giving to mili-
March 23. 1970	COMMONS
tary research and development. This has been redressed and what we have now is equality of condition between research and development in the military and non-military sectors. We no longer give the military an advantage or encourage more money to go into it and I compliment the minister and the government on this change.
The only further step to be taken is for the government to get out of the whole business of military research and development. It seems to me it is about time our country joined with others in taking this imaginative step. Let us say to the world that we shall cease this bloody activity and apply all our financial resources in research and development to the non-military sector. That is all, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to the minister's reply.


Mr. Bruce Howard (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a few remarks to the changes proposed to the Industrial Research Development Incentives Act in the bill before us this evening because I consider it an extremely important measure so far as business development in Canada is concerned. I listened to the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) and was rather surprised at some of his circular arguments.


John Edward Broadbent: Like what?


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: in research and development. While no changes are proposed to IRDIA at the present time, certain technical amendments are required to prevent problems that have been noted as a result of experience to date.
Although no changes are proposed to IRDIA at the present time, nevertheless certain technical amendments are being presented today for consideration. I wish to remind the House that the basic provisions for this bill are to increase research and development work in Canada. It is not always possible to measure the exact results of the IRDIA program. This is easier under a program such as PAIT, where successes have been counted over failures at the rate of two to one.
All in all, in Canada during the current year Canadians will spend about $952 million on research and development programs. This may sound like a lot of money, but the United States will spend $25 billion under this heading, more than 25 times what we in Canada will spend. But we can say that the Canadian program is growing and we can see that our research and development assistance is producing results. In particular, we can see substantial growth in Canadian companies that are investing heavily in research and development programs.
A recent review, Mr. Speaker, of federal government programs to encourage research development and innovation in Canadian manufacturing industries was undertaken by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The review states in part:
The need to achieve a satisfactory rate of economic growth in an increasingly competitive environment makes it essential that Canadian government policies and programs encourage increased innovation by Canadian industry.
This will require improved incentives to encourage a greater readiness in Canadian industry to change established patterns of operation, to introduce new marketable products and to specialize and rationalize. Experience over the past ten years with the various government and incentive support programs indicates that improved production and marketing performance can be achieved through incentive programs extending over the entire product cycle, that is, in research, development, preproduction and marketing. The changes in the bill before us will contribute to the development of Canada's economy and deserve the support of members on all sides of this House.
Industrial Research Incentives Act


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, may I say a few words in closing the debate?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I remind the House that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Mr. Speaker, may I make a brief comment? I believe Canada is spending less money on research and development than some of our industrial competitors are spending. I suggest that in some areas we could well afford to spend more. For example, let us consider atomic energy plants. We have, for better or worse, opted for a particular type of atomic energy plant in Canada. It is obvious that the rest of the world has decided to adopt another method of producing atomic energy. Not being in a position to utilize the technical innovations of other countries, we have of necessity had to develop our own system. Nevertheless, I suggest we have been somewhat lax in this field because we ought to have been spending more money on it. I am therefore glad to see introduced a bill which will encourage industrial research and make more money available for it.
A short while ago the cabinet decided that we should not in this country build an intense neutron generator. Whether that was a correct decision remains to be seen. I have the distinct impression that if we are to remain leaders in the field we have chosen, a field we have made especially our own, we shall have to undertake special research. If we wish to sell to other countries plants of the type we have developed, we must be prepared to undertake more research to keep those plants in the forefront of development.
As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, Canada has sold some Canadian-style atomic energy plants to Pakistan and India. It now appears that Belgium is to build a second atomic energy plant in Pakistan. May I ask why we were not invited to build it? Why are we not selling that second plant? Is something wrong with the first one, or do those who bought our original plants feel they must use plants of the type used by the rest of the world? If we wish to remain in the forefront of this field and sell our atomic energy plants and expertise abroad, we shall have to undertake more research. Pakistan's first nuclear power plant with a capacity of 137 megawatts is nearing completion in Karachi, West Pakistan. Built with Canadian aid, the Karachi atomic power station will swing into commer-
5374	COMMONS
Industrial Research Incentives Act cial power production early in the autumn of this year. Belgium is building the second plant.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
Is our Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce not on the job, attempting to sell this country another plant, or do they have some doubts about our capacity to build these plants, keep them up-to-date and equal to atomic energy plants in the rest of the world?
As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, there are some theoretical possibilities for increasing the efficiency of the type of atomic energy plant which we have in Canada. We must do more in a practical sense, to develop these methods. I would not like to think that we have chosen wrongly in this regard. A lot of Canadian money has been invested in this field. Having chosen this field and having invested a lot of Canadian money, talent and expertise, and having committed our industry to this particular line, we should be spending a great deal more in this area so that these possibilities may be developed in future Canadian atomic energy plants.
As a further illustration I wish to refer to a booklet dealing with the study of intense neutron generators. I believe this study was carried out with encouragement from the present Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) when he was Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It is suggested in this study that if we are to keep our engineers in Canada, we must provide them with jobs and a certain volume of business. This would keep them occupied and carry the industry, if you will. If we do not sell plants abroad, the volume in Canada will not be sufficient to do this. It is a similar situation to the chicken and the egg. I suggest it is necessary to obtain orders from other countries. To do this we must spend more money on research and development. I hope the minister will comment on this aspect of the matter.


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew North):: There are a few comments which I wish to make, Mr. Speaker. I was pleased with the way the hon. member for Battleford-Kinders-ley (Mr. Thomson) spoke about what has been done in Canada in the field of nuclear energy. When speaking in the budget debate last week I did not get entirely on the record the fact that certain individuals in Canada are attacking our scientific community in the field of nuclear reactors and hydro power. I feel that Canadians working in atomic energy are top scientists and are doing an excellent job.

DEBATES	March 23, 1970
Per capita we have many good scientists compared with other countries. I think it is time all hon. members backed our Canadian scientific community instead of permitting individuals to tear it apart.
I have a great personal interest in this matter. At Chalk River and Deep River, both of which are in my riding, there are a large number of top-notch technical and scientific men. They have done a great deal to advise industry and hydro companies when building nuclear power plants. There has been much inaccurate information spread across this country about some of these nuclear power plants. I stand in their defence tonight, not just because they are in my constituency; there are many more in the same class across Canada. Canada is at a stage in scientific development today where we have to start thinking positively instead of negatively.
We must stop criticizing every little thing that goes wrong in the nuclear power and atomic energy field. This is a large field. Canada was one of the forerunners in the world in nuclear power. Canadians should be proud of this fact. As in any new field, small errors and mistakes are made. When Members of Parliament are elected to this House they make mistakes the first few times. They may make mistakes at the end of their time here: some hon. members never become total professionals. The same can be expected of our scientific community.
One thing we can expect is that our scientific community will be dedicated to its job. Our scientists do the best they can to keep Canada at the forefront in scientific development. If anything positive is to result from this debate tonight, it is that the Canadian scientific community deserves the praise of the Canadian people. Canadian scientists must be given leeway. If a few mistakes are made along the way, we must remember that we learn from our mistakes. Let us give them credit for the work they have done in this country, and encourage them to continue in this fashion.
I feel it is of great advantage if scientific help at the government level can be loaned to industry to help it develop, particularly in the nuclear field. This is the sort of thing we should be doing. There are many large industries in Canada which, because of their profit bases cannot afford to develop nuclear power to operate their plants on a more modern scale than is presently done in this or any other country in the western world. The Canadian government has a responsibility to
March 23. 1970	COMMONS
loan these people in order that they may advise Canadian industry. I compliment the minister and the government on this legislation. I hope all hon. members and all Canadians will support our scientific community and give it the due it deserves. Our scientists have worked hard for this country.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I wish to make just a few points, Mr. Speaker, not wanting to filibuster my own bill.
The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) seemed to think that because this IRDIA legislation on research and development is general, it may not be as useful as if it were specific. At least this is the way his argument sounded. In answer to that I might say that facts do not seem to give any credence to this line of reasoning. We have a growing number of applications for support under IRDIA. In 1967-68, 267 applications were received; in 1969-70, 623 applications were received, and in 1970-71 it is estimated there will be 704 applications. This does not appear to give credence to the argument that because it is general, it is not being used. That may not be the full purport of the argument, but that is what I understood.
Further proof to the contrary is the growing amount allocated to it-$19.6 million in 1968-69, $22.7 million in 1969-70 and $30 million estimated for the present year. Indeed, there has been some falling short, mostly because of delayed applications and provisions for information. This is getting much better now. As a matter of fact, some of the amendments before the House this evening will lead to an improvement of procedures for acceptance of applications.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
The information I have is that the review committee found that all programs were popular with industry, both the general and the specific ones. A few days ago I took part in a little ceremony at the Chateau where the department explained to a number of businessmen and provincial government officials the changes that were taking place. Although I had already left-I am never present when things like this happen-apparently at the end of the meeting the department was given a standing ovation. All programs seem most popular with industry, so much so that even though the general programs do not hit the point as well as others do, they nevertheless have been very well used.
DEBATES	5375
Industrial Research Incentives Act


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question on this point? He dealt with one question that I raised concerning the general efficacy of the programs in terms of enticing firms to do research. The more serious point I wanted to raise was that the general programs serve as a means of publicly subsidizing private research that would have been conducted in any case. Has the minister access to any studies done either by his department or by others that would provide evidence one way or the other on this question?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not seen such analysis. However, as the hon. member for Okanagan-Boundary (Mr. Howard) said, this is the sort of research that would be most difficult to make, because obviously we are not there when the decision to use the program or not is made. But we are not taking chances. We believe very much in research and development. My department has tried to develop as wide a spectrum of programs as possible in order that no industry in Canada would be justified in saying that it was not conducting research and development because there was no program to suit its particular situation. We have tried to have variety in our programs, some are concerned with defence, others with the civilian sector. Some are specific, some general, in order to catch all possible flies.
Second, the hon. member asked me whether I should like to table the report of the committee that reviewed the different programs of research and development. There is a long debate going on now on the subject of the secrecy-as some points of view would allege-or the privacy of government operations. I have some very clear views on that matter. It should be obvious to everybody that industries which come to us for grants most of the time cannot afford the luxury of other companies knowing that they are going to conduct a particular type of research.
Thinking of it in terms of internal communication, if my department is to conduct research into the deficiencies of certain programs, and while doing so is led to think that those deficiencies are in part, for example, deficiencies of the minister, then I do not think anybody would accept the proposition that that kind of report should be tabled in the House!


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Well, not that particular one.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Thank you. I think that a department such as mine cannot afford to
5376	COMMONS
Industrial Research Incentives Act table here correspondence it has had with companies. In many cases this would mark the end of our communications with industry. These communications have to be protected.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt the minister again but he has been very cordial this evening and I hope he will continue to be so during a serious discussion of these points. If I understood him correctly, he was suggesting that what was being requested was correspondence and other matters referring to the performance of particular firms. It was not my understanding from the statement tabled by the minister about a month ago that this was what the study would consist of; rather, it was a comprehensive analysis of the efficacy of government programs in these areas. Am I correct in that understanding? If I am, would this not be precisely the kind of information that might raise the level of this debate if it were made available?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I confess I am, of course, looking at the matter from the point of view of the government. I might look at it a little differently were I to have the privilege of sitting on the other side of the House, which I have never had. The fact that changes are being introduced is an obvious admission that the programs were not perfect. The arguments that we are putting forward today are an indication that we ourselves were not entirely satisfied with the way the programs were being operated.


John Edward Broadbent: Perhaps they will be even less perfect now.


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is for you to judge. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby wanted to make a distinction between research and development done by foreign-owned companies and that done by Canadian-owned companies. The department makes no such distinction. We are looking for research done in Canada, be it by Canadian-owned or by foreign-owned companies. We are looking for results, not at the way and by whom they are achieved. As a matter of fact, any money provided through these research and development programs must be used in Canada; this is part and parcel of the philosophy and practice of the research and development programs. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby then tried to incite me into a discussion on ownership of industry. I will resist that temptation because this question will be brought to the attention of the House by the government as a whole in due course.
(Mr. Pepin.]
DEBATES	March 23, 1970
On the subject of resource industries he seemed to say there was not much research taking place. If that is what he had in mind, this would be the wrong impression to give. For example, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources of the government of Canada does a substantial amount of research in the petroleum industry. If my memory serves me well, in Edmonton there is an Institute of Petroleum Geology, a federal government research institute, that also does quite an amount of work in this field.
The hon. member also tried to interest me in that very old debate about expenditure on defence research and civilian research. I was pleased to hear him say that he had observed a certain movement in the expenditures of the department from defence to civilian research. I thank the hon. member for underlining that because it is something we have very much at heart. At the same time, I am not at all willing to concede that there should be no research for defence purposes. We dealt with this question at some length a year or so ago in a House of Commons committee.
My contention at that time was that it was very difficult to identify what is civilian and what is military research in many instances; that a lot of civilian research led to military innovation, and a lot of military research led to civilian innovation. I do not think any country in the world-certainly I could not mention one of any substance-can afford the luxury of not undertaking any military research. Although I agree that the emphasis should be put on civilian research, I do not think this country could gamble on not doing the kind of military research that in most instances leads to important civilian progress.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I think if my hon. friend were to cogitate and meditate on the subject for a few minutes, he would himself realize that a tremendous amount of technological progress has been made in recent years which is directly related to military research carried out in the past. It is unfortunate that governments and people seem to give more easily for military than for civilian research. Personally, and in my department, we are trying to emphasize the civilian side, but I do not think we can change history and human nature completely. We can try to improve upon it, and this is what we have been trying to do.
March 23, 1970	COMMONS


John Edward Broadbent: Before the minister
resumes his seat would he permit one further question? If I understood his last argument, he was saying there are certain spin-off benefits from military research which do have civilian benefits. If this is his argument, I completely agree with him; but that seems not to be his argument. If he were completely interested in the civilian benefits obtained as a result of this research, that should in fact be his initial object.
Does he not agree that if you are going to put so much money into "x" which is military, and so much into "y" which is civilian, your objectives would be best met if you put more money into civilian projects, and that the reasonable result would be that you would have more benefit from civilian than from military research? Is that not correct?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that people reading Hansard tomorrow will ask themselves why these two members argued when they seemed to agree on essentials.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, if I may I should like to announce a change in the business for this evening which has been discussed with all sides. It has been decided not to go ahead with Government Order No. 47 with regard to the Standards Council of Canada, but rather to proceed first with consideration of Government Order No. 65 with regard to television in the House, then with Government Order No. 83 in respect of the Representation Commission Act, and lastly with Government Order No. 85 in respect of the Transport and Communications Committee.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I just say that there have been discussions at the usual high level and we have computerized these three measures. We have come to the conclusion that they will be finished very close to ten o'clock, and that Your Honour might well then call it ten o'clock if we have completed them on the right side of that hour. Am I right in that?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Agreed.
DEBATES	5377
Broadcasting of House of Commons Debates HOUSE OF COMMONS



BROADCASTING OF DEBATES BY RADIO AND TELEVISION

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, March 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):
That the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, in consultation with Mr. Speaker, be directed to study the question of radio and television broadcasting of the proceedings of the House and its committees, including the legal, procedural and technical aspects thereof, and the question of arrangements made for reporters for the electronic media in the Parliament buildings.
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abiiibi):: Mr. Speaker, on March 11, before calling it ten o'clock, I was saying that I supported the recommendation of the government. It is obvious the government is seeking, by all possible means and as quickly as possible to reach the people and keep them in touch with what goes on in the House of Commons.
I also stated at the end of my speech, in connection with the broadcasting of information on radio and television and especially on television-if I refer to the resolution-that it was difficult for many people to sit in front of their T.V. set to watch the debates of the House.
Indeed, it is not always easy for someone who is working to see those programs. Nor is it easy for the housewife. On the other hand, it is said sometimes that housewives complain that they cannot do their ironing or their darning, because their T.V. set is out of order, but it is nevertheless the minority which is in such a situation.
In my opinion, to try to reach the people through this means would be costly in the first place for the taxpayer, because a sizeable investment would be needed to telecast the proceedings of the House, and it would be undoubtedly necessary to telecast the proceedings of the Senate as long as it lasts. It would also be needed to telecast the committee proceedings, so that the population could be fully informed of what goes on in Parliament.
I would like at this time to offer a suggestion, which I would ask the government to consider.
All those of my electors who have the chance to read the official report of the debates of the House are most happy to do so, and I suggest that the government should offer a free copy to all those who request one this could also apply to the report of the

March 23, 1970
Privileges and Elections proceedings of the committees, which could be saved and read at a later date if it is not possible to do so immediately.
This would be of great help to Canadian taxpayers who are interested in public affairs, because if they miss the proceedings when they are televised, such programs cannot be repeated the way, for instance, hockey games are. It does happen also that we miss some comments on a program, even on television.
The advantage of the report is that it can be kept for future reference.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
I feel this would be a much cheaper way to inform Canadians and they would all be satisfied. Some advertising might be required at certain times, at the beginning of each session, for instance, when people might be invited to ask for their copies of Hansard.
This is the suggestion I wanted to make in connection with the resolution moved by the government.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That in relation to S.22 of the Representation Commissioner Act, Statutes of Canada 1963, C.40, the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections be empowered to review the provisions of the Representation Commissioner Act and recommend to the House any amendments, alterations or modifications thereto that to the said committee shall appear to be necessary or desirable.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few words of explanation in respect of the background of this motion. Perhaps I might refer hon. members to the Statutes of Canada for 1963, chapter 40. Hon. members will note in the statute which created the role of Representation Commissioner the following provision is contained which I shall set out in full to the House. It is section 22, which reads as follows:
The Prime Minister shall, at the earliest convenient opportunity after the commencement of the first session of Parliament after 1968, propose to the House of Commons that an order be made and referred to the appropriate committee of the House of Commons for the review by such committee of the provisions of this act and for the recommendations of such committee with respect to any amendments, alterations or modifications
[Mr. Laprise.l
thereto that appear to the committee then to be necessary or desirable, and upon such order being referred to it the committee shall consider the matter of the order and report to the House its recommendations with respect thereto.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) I am moving this motion at the present time. This session which commenced in October, 1969, is the first session after the year 1968, and in relation to the business of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections this is the earliest convenient opportunity at which the matter can be dealt with.
The House will recall in a timetable which I think has been generally agreed to by the House that it was recognized that the first item of business to be dealt with by the House should be the general changes to the Elections Act. They are the most pressing in terms of time because, as hon. members will have noted from the report of that committee, they involve a substantial expansion of the electorate which will have to be taken into account by each returning officer in each of the ridings and by the Chief Electoral Officer in re-drawing each poll division. At the same time the changes discussed will involve an extensive change in the election procedure generally.
If the Chief Electoral Officer is to be prepared in 1972 or thereafter for the next general election, it would be necessary that these changes be dealt with by the House and enacted into law by the end of the present session. I am pleased that the committee has now reported on detailed recommendations or changes in respect of the Elections Act. Early in the next part of the session the government will be bringing forward a bill based on those changes and we would hope, in order to meet the timetable of the Chief Electoral Officer, it would be dealt with before the House rises in June. The way is now clear in the committee for this reference.
The terms of the present motion invite the committee to consider the institution of the Representation Commissioner, which was set up for the first time at the federal level in 1963, in light of the experience that gentleman has had in dealing with redistribution following the 1961 census. Now that the commissioner has had experience in dealing with the structure of redistribution set up by this Parliament, it is appropriate to make some decisions in respect of how his office should continue and in what manner he should carry on his operation.
March 23. 1970

I might mention a number of questions and invite the committee's consideration of them because I know they have been of concern to the Representation Commissioner and to the people who have been considering his role. The first is whether the office should continue to be separate from the general electoral system or-and I say this by way of a suggestion-perhaps it might be desirable to have the office of the Chief Electoral Officer with over-all jurisdiction, and have the Representation Commissioner as an autonomous division under the general jurisdiction of the Chief Electoral Officer.
Under the provisions of the redistribution legislation the Representation Commissioner is required to prepare preliminary maps on the basis of which the various provincial commissions set about carrying out their particular studies. Some question has been raised as to whether this role has been a useful one. Perhaps it has been useful in some provinces, and in the larger provinces like Ontario and Quebec it may have made a significant contribution to the job done there.
The question has also been raised as to whether it is useful for the Representation Commissioner to continue to be ex officio a member of each provincial commission, and whether in fact in order to carry out the functions of each commission it is necessary that he work along with them. A response to that argument might be an affirmative one, that in a sense the Representation Commissioner provides a continuity between all the representation commissions and brings to them some of the general consideration and experience gained across the country. On the other hand, however, it must be borne in mind that the provincial commissions are independent, and the provincial representatives are in a majority and are not bound to accept the recommendations of the Representation Commissioner.
Having set out these points, I shall go no further. I hope the committee will look fully into this matter. I think it is valuable to have the committee examine at this time the role which has been discharged in a particularly distinguished way by Mr. Castonguay. The committee will have the opportunity to hear Mr. Castonguay and other interested persons. Then we would hope the committee will make a recommendation to the House in time for it to be included as part of the Elections Act amendments, or perhaps in time for it to be dealt with in the latter part of this session or early in the next session.
Privileges and Elections


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have very little to say on this question. As the minister has pointed out, what we are doing now is what is mandatory under the provisions of the act. I only hope the committee will take a fair, honest and objective look at the act and its operations as a result of the last election.
I would urge the government to struggle desperately against its natural inclinations and be equally objective. Hon. members will recall that under the act as it was originally passed, after the various provincial commissions had made their inquiries there was an examination and discussion in the House. One or two fairly technical changes were made, but if I recall correctly, some very genuine objections were voiced in this House by members and unfortunately nothing was done.
As I say, I hope the representations made in committee will be made honestly and seriously and that there will be the objective, nonpartisan approach by all hon. members that obtains when elections are involved.
When the results of the committee's considerations are brought to the House, if the proceedings are carried out in the way I have pointed out I hope the government will accept them. We will wait until the committee has had its deliberations and then we will probably make further comment on the matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to support this motion for a reference to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. As the previous speakers have indicated, we are only doing something we are called upon by statute to do. Indeed, I found interesting the way the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) was able to explain that when the statute says we should do something in the first session after 1968, even though we are in 1970 he can say that this is the first session after 1968. I suppose it is his legal training which makes it possible for him to put it in those terms. At any rate, it is being done and we are quite happy to support the motion.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
I think it has to be said that the three principal questions which the President of the Privy Council mentioned are serious questions that must be looked into by the committee. It may well be that in each of these three cases changes should be made. No one can deny the invaluable service of Mr. Nelson

March 23, 1970
Privileges and Elections Castonguay in this field, and I think that the members of the various provincial commissions would agree that he rendered a distinct service to them in the last redistribution.
However, I think there is some point to the suggestion that perhaps the provincial commissions should be given the greater sense of autonomy which they might feel they would have if they were entirely on their own. I may say that this fits in with the view that I hold very strongly, that we took the right step when we went in for redistribution by independent and impartial commissions and I hope that we will do nothing to withdraw from that position.
It is because of that that I think if we can give to the provincial commissions more autonomy and experience, we will be more satisfied with the job that they do. I know that in one or two provinces there are grievances about what was accomplished at the last redistribution but I think by and large we have to admit that across the country a fairly objective job was done, particularly bearing in mind the principles that we set down, namely, a much closer approach to representation by population than we had under the old regime.
I listened with interest to the remarks made by my friend, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), about the discussions that took place in the House of Commons during the course of the last map redrawing. I noted his reference to the fact that little attention was paid to those discussions. Speaking for myself, I hope the day will come when we do not have those discussions here at all, when sufficient confidence will have been built up in the independent commissions that we will not feel we have to have those discussions.
I am still of the view, as I know the majority of members are, that the drawing of the boundaries of our ridings is not our business, that it is the business of the people of Canada in some other way than through us, in view of our special interest. I recognize that it is difficult to make the shift, but I think we have taken the right step and I believe we can strengthen our confidence in this way of doing things.
I should like to conclude with a word of tribute to the decision that Parliament made back in 1963 after nearly 100 years of doing it the other way. I am glad to see this motion put before the House so that the committee can review some of the details of this operation. For my part, that is all I want to see, a

review of the details. I do not want to see any derogation from the principle of redistribution by an independent body.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Speaker, I have just two very brief suggestions to make. I hope I am not being irrelevant when I suggest there is a need to take a good look at the armed forces with regard to this whole question. At present they have a choice of voting, but as I understand it the big error is that the voting is not secret. Surely in this day and age we can devise some way in which the armed forces of our country can have a secret ballot the same as anyone else. I hope that the committee when they consider this matter will be given sufficiently broad terms of reference to look into the subject and recommend to the government some reform in the voting of our armed forces.
I am glad the committee members still have an open mind on the question of redistribution. I think some gross errors were made at the last redistribution due to the fact that the preliminary steps were not made soon enough and that the recommendations from the right people were not put before the commission. I do not think that anybody knows the local situation better than the member representing the area. Although the commission must be independent, or as independent as possible, I think that a sitting member who has spent 15 or 20 years representing a riding would be an invaluable witness before the commission.
It would be a perverse commission which did not want to have at least his opinion. The fact that the member has been the choice of
75,000	or 80,000 people for 20 years should in itself be a sufficiently high recommendation so that his opinion would be worth something and should certainly not be neglected. I know in my own case that when Athabasca was redistributed, I could have given them one, or two hints which, if applied, would have better served the people, on matters such as unmarked roads, impassable river barriers, community of interests, and so on. Doing this would not have made any difference to me one way or the other. I think that any member who made a good representation on behalf of his people in order to give them better access to the polls and a better opportunity to be represented by people with a community of interest would risk nothing when it came to election time.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few
March 23, 1970

remarks concerning the responsibility of not only members of the House and the commissioner, but the responsibility of the government about the constitution as it pertains to the borders of constituencies and the number of constituencies in a province. While it may not be within the purview of the Standing Committee to look into the number of ridings in any given province, it seems to me that it is within the purview of the House to remind the government, in the whole business of constitutional reform, of how many Members of Parliament shall represent any province.
It seems to me we have an increasing tendency toward having a smaller number of members representing a larger number of people in a larger geographical area, while in other parts of Canada an equivalent number of members represent a smaller population in smaller geographical areas.
I was a member of the group which presented a brief to the Representation Commission in my province a few years ago. The three gentlemen who constituted that committee were very knowledgeable about the law and about the doings of legislatures and of Parliament, but they did not know very much about politics or about politicking. I do not mean that in any critical sense, but I say it because certainly two of the three had never been involved in politics and had never done any campaigning.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
I hope that henceforth the Representation Commissioner will consider, when he is drafting or redrafting the boundaries of constituencies, what politicians of all political parties are faced with. The hon. Member who spoke just before me mentioned the geographical hazards. These have not only had to do with creeks, lakes, coulees, community pastures, sandhills and places which you have to go around, but in my constituency there is a lake which is one to three miles wide and 65 miles long. To get from one side of my riding to another I have to go around the lake. I am not complaining. It is a good constituency. It is one the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) used to hold, and I am determined that neither he nor anyone like him will get it back. But I know now the kind of problems he had in getting around the constituency.
It seems to me it is not enough just to consider the number of people in a constituency. It seems to me that the Representation Commissioner, within the legal limits to which he is confined, must consider how the
Privileges and Elections candidates of political parties are able to get around a constituency during the course of the electoral process and, once that process is terminated, how the elected member will be able to get around the constituency. Until such time as Parliament and the people of the country agree that it is more important that Members of Parliament get around their constituencies than how much they are paid, the Representation Commissioner will have some handicaps. But if the Representation Commissioner, with whatever commission he has in a province, considers the geographical limitations and the hazards that there are, there will be much more equity in terms of political parties presenting themselves to a maximum number of the electorate and in assuring that whoever is elected is able to do a much better job of getting around a constituency.
There is a further item which, though it may not be strictly in order in terms of the exact words of this motion, still has to do with the representation of Members of Parliament. It has to do with the ability of a Representation Commissioner to consider all aspects of the work of those who must represent the voters of the various constituencies. This concerns how much Members of Parliament are paid. I suspect, Mr. Speaker, you will be wondering how the devil I can connect that matter with the Representation Commissioner, but the cost of travelling and being in one's constituency has more to do with the whole problem than the actual amount of the indemnity. This, again, takes into account the geographical layout of any given constituency.
I feel that in 1965 and in 1966 there was insufficient opportunity for individual citizens and organizations of any kind, be they political or non-political, to make representations and express their views before the commissions in the provinces. I hope that the Committee on Privileges and Elections after considering this motion will recommend to the House that ample time and ample financing be given to the Representation Commissioner. He in turn can authorize the respective commissions in each province to go much more extensively into the matter of holding hearings and receiving the views, first of the political parties-because they are the ones who have to go where the action is and have to do the job-and, equally important, the views of any and all kinds of organizations and individuals who are interested in and concerned with constituencies.

March 23, 1970
Transport and Communications
In my province, the way the deck is stacked at the moment, and according to the formula that is laid down constitutionally, even if we gain another 50,000 population we will lose one Member of Parliament after the next census. I could say that as long as it is a Conservative member I will not object. But whatever constituency is lost, it will mean that although 13 of us in the House now represent some 940,000 people, we will end up with 12 representing the same or a larger number of people, and we will have larger geographical areas to cover. This is almost impossible for any member. I hope that the committee when it reports back to the House, and the government when it is considering constitutional matters both in this House and with representatives of the provinces, will consider including in whatever new constitution Canada might have, however long that may take, a much better and more equitable formula for the basis of representation in this chamber.
This is a large country, thinly populated. To keep on compounding the folly we have engaged in since 1953 inhibits the democratic process in large geographical areas and militates against the participation of voters and citizens in the electoral process. It also militates against those who are elected to this chamber-against their ability to do an adequate job in representing their constituencies. I put these remarks on the record if for no other reason than to serve a warning on my colleagues on the Committee on Privileges and Elections that at least some of these areas will be discussed in the committee, and that we hope to get representation from people in other parts of the country on these matters.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications he empowered, during its consideration of the subject matter of ground transportation at airports, to adjourn from place to place within Canada.


Mr. Warren Allmand (Nolre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I am a member of the Transport Committee and have been since 1966, and when this proposal was put to the committee I opposed it. I opposed it because it

is my feeling that too many committees of the House have been working outside Ottawa too often-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: -to the extent that I feel it is very difficult for many of us to do the work that we have to do in Parliament. I agree that parliamentary committees should travel in Canada when it is necessary for them to do so, that is, when there are people who have to be heard and who are not able to come to Ottawa to put forward their points of view, or when it is necessary for a committee, because of the issue, to go to the spot to study that issue. However, I feel that over the last year or two too many of our committees have been going away from Ottawa when for a lesser amount of money they could bring witnesses to Ottawa and pay their expenses. Members would then be able to carry on their work in this House and in other committees, in caucus and so forth.
Many of us now have a large amount of correspondence. We have to deal with correspondence in our offices. Most backbenchers are on two or three committees, and then of course we have to know what is going on in the House. I am not criticizing this committee alone, but I must point out that the committee which I am on travelled to Toronto and Montreal this year and Labrador and the Mari-times late last fall. In fact, this is the fifth time in less than 1| years that the committee will travel outside Ottawa. I reserve my judgment on several of the other trips that we made but I think we have been spending too much time away.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
I want to go on record as saying that I feel we should only take committees out of Ottawa as an exception rather than the rule. If it is possible to bring witnesses here, that should be done. In this particular study of ground transportation between city and airport we have already had hearings in Montreal and Toronto. If the argument is made that to be equitable we should have hearings in the west, I wonder whether we will learn much more by going out there. I understand the itinerary provides for visiting four cities in the west to study the same problem. Surely, one or two would be enough. The steering committee, which is representative of all parties, approved this particular motion. When it repported to the main committee I took exception to it, but I was voted down.
March 23, 1970	COMMONS


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!
Another hon. Member: I wonder why?


William Warren Allmand: Mr, Speaker, I still feel that we in the House should look at this matter a little closer in the future.


Thomas Miller Bell: Here we go. You started this.


Gerald William Baldwin: The particular problem which concerns this committee originated in Montreal. Mr. Speaker, if there ever was a good case to be made for bringing witnesses to Ottawa, that was it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: I never heard that the hon. member objected to the committee going to Montreal-


William Warren Allmand: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, I did object to the fact that we went to Montreal and I refused to stay there for the whole period and did not take up my full role on the committee.


Gerald William Baldwin: I am glad to hear that the hon. member did object. It was mooted, but we never heard it in this House. The issues were properly raised and the committee saw fit to go to Toronto subsequently.
This is a very good committee which has done an excellent job and learned a great deal during the course of its travels. In many respects I agree with the hon. member that the onus is upon the committee to satisfy members of the House that this journey is really necessary. But I think committees have become quite responsible. Certainly, the position taken by the official opposition in the early part of this session was along these lines. The members of the committee made a good case; they satisfied the House, and permission was granted.
At the present time people in this country are almost compelled to go to Montreal or Toronto in order to get to Ottawa. In my view, Mr. Speaker, some of the problems discovered as a result of the examination by the committee have now been found either to exist, or at least potentially exist elsewhere. In these circumstances, I think it is proper to allow the recommendation of the committee to stand. Although I do not deny his right, I am rather amazed at the hon. member objecting to the committee travelling elsewhere when it has virtually unanimously agreed to do so.
DEBATES	5383
Transport and Communications


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I agree only partly with the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand). If we found out anything at the hearings of the Transport and Communications Committee hearings in Montreal and Toronto, it was that the problems they are facing are the same as the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) mentioned as potential difficulties. I think the committee should be looking at these problems in the four cities named, if only to avoid the ground transportation difficulties experienced in Montreal and Toronto.
Before any committee of this House leaves Ottawa, I feel that much more preparation should be done and that people concerned with the problem in the areas to be visited should be notified and invited to appear at the hearings. Too often we arrive almost unannounced and the local people only find out afterwards. I do not think there is enough advance preparation and notification. It may well turn out that when the Transport and Communications Committee arrives in Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver and Winnipeg the taxi companies will not even know about it. It is possible that nobody will appear before the committee in any of these cities. I am prepared to overlook that, because at least the committee will receive some education in travelling to airports and its members will find out what the hon. member for Peace River referred to as potential problems as a result of some rather miserable experiences in larger cities. These four cities are growing and traffic will increase. Therefore, I hope there will be a better job done in regard to advance notice.
Some months ago, Mr. Speaker, I was on another committee of this House. We travelled to three cities and saw only one person in each, at a total cost in excess of $10,000. I am sure we could have brought those three people to Ottawa and given them a suite each in the Chateau Laurier for under $3,000. In committee I was shot down in flames when I suggested that we should advertise and notify organizations and individuals who would wish to appear before us on a matter that was fundamental to our whole society, the reform of our Elections Act. We did not do it, and I think we probably wasted $6,000, or $7,000 of the taxpayers' money. When we left, 24 of us travelled in a 96-seat passenger airplane. That was changed for the return journey because the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) and myself moved that after the first city part of the committee should return to
March 23, 1970

Transport and Communications Ottawa to save time and money. There was nothing wrong with the purpose and intent of the trip, but where we failed was in inadequate notification to the people concerned that we genuinely wanted to hear what their problems were.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
Frankly, I do not think we have done a good enough job even on the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, which is a pretty good committee. That committee did an insufficient job in giving advance notice of its sittings. It may well be that the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) is perfectly right; perhaps the committee should not have bothered sitting at one or two sites because there were, so few people to appear before it. But that is not the fault of the people there; a good deal of that is our fault. That is no reason for opposing the trip in the first place.
I say we should do a better job in getting ready for the trip, because only then will we have a better response from the people concerned. If we tell the taxpayers where we are going, they will be glad to see us and will not object to how much money the trip costs. Only then will parliamentary committees make heard their voice and play the proper role this chamber has given them.


Grant Deachman: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I do not find (myself in agreement with the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand). I find much good sense in what the hon. member for Regina Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) has just said about travelling committees. Perhaps one of the best things we have done in the House in recent years is evolve a new role for committees in which they carry the dialogue between the people and Parliament outside this chamber to the people, to where they can see us in action and talk to us while we are doing our work. I think the more we do of that, the better. I believe we have made mistakes and will make mistakes as we evolve this new role, as the hon. member for Regina Lake Centre said. He pointed out some of the mistakes we have made. But that should not deter us from carrying out this role and from learning to do it better.
One of the things we must learn to master is how not to proliferate those endless records which are ground to pulp, sent back to Hull, made into newsprint and utilized again in the printing of enormous records. We must learn

not to proliferate them; we must keep track of the enormous records produced when our committees travel. But, it is not right to say that in travelling our committees are not performing a significant function. I think it is one of the most vital things we have done and is one of the most lively things that the House, which is often considered dead in modern terms, is learning to do.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to hold up this measure because I feel that the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) is neither so Simon pure nor as sanctimonious as he tries to pretend. If we look at the record-and I have not had a chance to get in touch with our members on the appropriate committees-I think it will be found that the hon. member has taken a few trips himself. I know he was at the United Nations during the past session. I therefore do not think he is so pure as Simon that he can criticize hon. members on either side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Miller Bell: However, the House Leader has done a good job and for the first time in a long while there is a spirit of comradeship and well-being among the members of different parties. I should hate to spoil the government's program by holding up this legislation, even though tempted to do so.
The hon. member, for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has made clear our position. In that light perhaps in future we shall have to examine some proposed committee trips. I recall at one time the Committee on Privileges and Elections went off on a wild goose chase. Some members of our party objected to that. I understand the committee came back to Ottawa and did not complete the trip because it was felt the whole thing was useless and without purpose. With that reservation about the sanctimoniousness of the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, we give this motion our approval.


William Warren Allmand: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I want to make clear that I was not opposing in principle the idea that committees should travel. I merely felt that in some cases they are travelling a bit too much and I thought we should examine the matter more closely.
March 23, 1970


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: That is not a question of privilege; that is debate.


William Warren Allmand: As was said a moment ago-


An hon. Member:: The hon. member is out of order.


William Warren Allmand: -the question is, how much time have committees spent-


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


An hon. Member:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on March 3, as reported in Hansard at page 4310, I asked whether consideration was being given to arranging for a discussion of the conflict of interest problem either on the basis of my Bill C-188 or on the basis of some government initiative. As I recall, I was not given an answer on that occasion. I asked almost the same question on March 18, as recorded in Hansard at pages 5186 and 5187. On that occasion the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) was kind enough to answer, although all he did was indicate to me that no decision had yet been taken on this matter.
May I say that in raising this question tonight on the late show it is not my intention to talk about the substance of the problem, namely, the conflict of interest problem itself; nor am I trying to smuggle in a commercial for my Bill C-188. I am genuinely concerned and genuinely anxious to see this House come to grips with the problem of the conflict of interest, and that is my purpose tonight.
Perhaps I might take a moment to indicate at least part of the background to my question. On Friday, June 6, 1969, I asked a question about this measure of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). It is to be found on page 9823
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion of Hansard for that date. I should like, sir, to read the Prime Minister's reply, which was as follows:


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the importance of the question and I appreciate the way it was worded. To make sure that there will be no conflicts of interest in the exercise of the functions of members of the House of Commons or of the other place, I said a few months ago, either when answering a question in the house or at a press conference that the government has the whole question of conflicts of interest under study. During the course of the summer-
That being the summer of 1969.
-I think we will be able to arrive at some view as to what reforms might be made in the Senate and House of Commons Act and in other statutes to ensure that this problem is dealt with in a satisfactory manner.
Then the Prime Minister said:
In the meantime if members of the other parties in the house have constructive suggestions to make, I will be interested to hear them.
Naturally, Mr. Speaker, I welcomed most heartily the Prime Minister's reply and the spirit in which it was given. Because he asked for constructive suggestions that we might wish to make, and since nothing was placed on the Order Paper relating to this when we met in the fall, I introduced my Bill C-188 which suggests a way to cope with this problem. I have tried to make it clear that I wish to see the matter discussed. Since I am the proposer of the bill I should be glad to see it discussed at some special time which might be set aside for it or to have it referred to committee. But I should be just as happy to see the matter discussed under some government initiative.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
My purpose, therefore, in posting this question for the late show tonight-and I am glad to see the President of the Privy Council is here and will be responding to it-is not to raise an argument about the substance of the matter but to make my plea to him that some way be found to arrange for Parliament to come to grips with this issue at the earliest possible date.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As the hon. member has indicated, Mr. Speaker, this is a matter which the government has had under consideration for some time. The hon. member did not note this, but I remind the House that last summer a study was carried out the results of which
5386	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion were tabled in response to a Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers by the hon. gentleman.
While the study was prepared in a very scholarly fashion, it did not seem to certain members of the government and certain members of the opposition to provide a good response to a very awkward legislative problem, not only for this Parliament but for all democratic assemblies including the United States and the United Kingdom.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We
are agreed on that.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: To a degree we already have a conflict of interest statute, more particularly, the provisions of the Senate and House of Commons Act. It is recognized in certain respects that it is far more restrictive than is necessary. We had an instance last year with regard to certain members of this House who were covered by the sections of the Senate and House of Commons Act far beyond its original intention, and special legislative measures had to be taken in that regard.
The government is not seeking a restrictive measure but one that will give Members of Parliament and others related to government a clear set of rules so that in advance they may order their private affairs in such a way as to avoid conflict with their public duties. The question is still under study within the aegis of my office. I regret I am unable to state at the moment a specific timetable. I agree it would be desirable to try and resolve this particular question at the present time when there is no problem with regard to conflict of interest, and when the question is not one of active partisan dispute in the event that in future there may be an instance in which specific rules will be required.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-SHUTDOWN OF SOME STATIONS

Mr. Roland Godin (Porineuf):: Mr. Speaker,
I have already directed a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson), as to the shut-down of some railway stations. That question, which was considered as being of general interest, has to do nevertheless with an abnormal situation.
Favouritism has existed for a long time in the Canadian National and in the Canadian Pacific Railways and the patronage handlers as we call the railway officers who, through
[Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale)J
DEBATES	March 23, 1970
their inefficiency, dilapidate the companies' profits, are now going after the employees with 35 to 40 years of service and want to dismiss some of them.
The proper authorities should put a stop to such a situation that leads to the debasement of the human being and of the worker. As the Canadian Pacific have already enjoyed grants and various other benefits from the government, their moral duty towards the Canadian people is as great as that of the Canadian National.
Most of the employees affected by the changes contemplated by the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific are doubly qualified people, although they are 50 or older. It is obvious they have rightly deserved their present employment. I ask that all the positions filled by those gentlemen be maintained until their official retirement.
Can we allow people who have played an essential part in society, to be shunted in favour of a few technocrats who vote themselves salary increases? Can we, through a govenment organization, do everything possible to create jobs in so-called special areas, and at the same time order crown corporations to dismiss people in that same area?
Let us remember that for 20 years after the end of the last war, the government managed to finance the presence in Germany of thousands of soldiers. In my opinion, we should be able to find the financial means necessary to keep in their jobs some of those people whose health was ruined in the service of this Crown Corporation.
I have already emphasized, Mr. Speaker, the necessity of a royal inquiry into this matter. I am ever more convinced of the pressing need for such an inquiry. There may be a financial mess but there is also a mess of accidents which are endangering the safety of the public and cost the taxpayers millions of dollars.
Here is a striking example of how these changes are brought about in the administration. Eight years ago, in Quebec, there was a director, a certain Mr. Gauthier; today the director is still a Mr. Gauthier. Apparently, it is Mr. Gauthier's son, a tough man who makes it tough for the others. When a man who has done nothing to deserve it, is entrusted with such a position, we have some reason to believe that this high ranking official does not understand his mission too well. We may therefore ask Mr. MacMillan, president of the Canadian National, to reconsider the way promotion is granted in order to
March 23, 1970	COMMONS
encourage those who have deserved it and have the necessary qualifications to do an honest job.
In Quebec City, in the Canadian National offices, there is a swarm of employees whose work overlaps that of their counterparts in Montreal. Those employees go about in the parishes promising changes in the administration, the efficiency of which has not been proved. Through veiled threats against local authorities, those employees are trying to force municipal councils to accept changes the people do not want.
It seems those gentlemen could not care less. To my mind, it aould be better for the railways, the Canadian National as well as the Canadian Pacific, to get rid of those gentlemen who go about hypocritically. I am told that in Quebec there are ten employees, if not more, who make $15,000 to $20,000 annually; this amount could be used to pay at least 10 or 15 station masters who would serve the population directly.
It may be that some of these officials will try to convince me that certain jobs are no longer needed in view of the progress in electronics. As some of the retired employees of the Canadian National receive less per month than people on social welfare, we are opposed to the lay-offs proposed by this company.
In view of the fact that the pension fund has accumulated something like $1.5 billion and that 2,500 C.N. pensioners get only $25 a month, 7,325, $100 a month, and over 8,000 less than $200 a month, adjustments are obviously needed.
I therefore echo, Mr. Speaker, the recommendations at one of the locals of the Transportation Employees Union, and I quote:
1.	That a full inquiry be requested on the financial situation of the Canadian National pension plan.
2.	That the C.N. pension plan become negotiable and integrated in the labour agreement.
3 That the C.N. pension committee be composed of an equal number of representatives of the company and the unions, plus a retired member of the union and a chairman chosen by the members already mentioned.
4.	That the pension be computed as in the Civil Service of Canada, at the rate of 2 per cent per year of eligible employment, on the basis of the five best paid consecutive years, and that such pension be paid independently of the Canada or Quebec pension plans.
5.	That the allowance paid to widows and legal heirs of retired personnel be 75 per cent instead of 50 per cent.
DEBATES	5387
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
6.	That a cost of living bonus be paid to retired personnel in order to adjust their pension to the present cost of living and that later on this level be prorated to the cost of living for all retired personnel.
7.	That an employee may retire at 60 years of age with his employment years computed as if he had retired at 65.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that the minister will get the full impact of these recommendations which are simply intended to ensure the security and welfare of a class of workers who have paid for it for a long time, and who are not responsible for the increase in the cost of living.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister, and again in the unavoidable absence of his Parliamentary Secretary, I should like to reply to the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin). I must first of all say that he has raised questions this evening that are broader and more general, and in some cases more specific, than the question that was raised in Hansard for March 11, at page 4672. With respect to these questions, I will certainly draw them to the attention of the minister and trust that he will be making a reply to the hon. member.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
What I am authorized to say with respect to the question that was raised in Hansard in regard to the closing down of certain railway stations is that this issue concerns a proposal by the CNR to implement a master agency plan in the area of Quebec City. In order to facilitate this, and to ensure public understanding, a railway representative is visiting local authorities in the municipalities in order to provide a full explanation of their plans and seek the co-operation of all interested parties. The railway is also informing its customers in this area. I am told no threats have been made by any officer of the railway. That is in direct reference to a question in Hansard.
Mr. J. A. Gauthier is the manager of the railways head office in Quebec City. He has endeavoured to arrange a meeting with the hon. member for Portneuf and the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) to explain to them the company's proposal. I understand that this will be done as soon as possible.
March 23. 1970

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion RESEARCH-SUGGESTED GRANT TO CANADIAN PEACE RESEARCH INSTITUTE


Mr. Thomas S. Barneil (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, on March 13 I addressed a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in the following terms:
I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister about a matter in which I understand he demonstrated some interest as a private citizen before he assumed office. Does the government have under active or current consideration the question of granting some financial support to the Canadian Peace Research Institute, let us say, of the order of a quarter of one per cent of what we provide for the Department of National Defence?
Mr. Speaker then said:
I would suggest to the hon. member that although the question is an important one it is one which ought to be placed on the Order Paper.
I felt it was time the question of the Canadian Peace Research Institution had more airing in this chamber than it has had for some time, so I decided to raise the matter on the adjournment debate. I now have the opportunity to deal with this matter.
It might be appropriate if I were to call to the attention of members of the House some of the beginnings of the Canadian Peace Research Institute. I have in my hand an information report which was published in November of 1962, which sets out a little timetable. It says that in March, 1961, Dr. Alcock published 500 copies of "Bridge of Reason", which he sent to acquaintances in science, business and government in Canada, Britain and the United States. He has been the leading light in this organization.
It says that in August of 1961 Dr. Brock Chisholm, Dr. Hugh Keenleyside, Professor Kenneth Boulding and Right Reverend James Thomas joined Dr. Alcock to establish the initial plans. In November of that year the establishment of the Canadian Peace Research Institute was announced at a Montreal conference. Following, in January of 1962, the Department of National Revenue recognized the institute as a charitable organization for income tax purposes. On May 1 the first board of directors meeting authorized the initial operation of the institute.
I think it might be of interest to put on record the names of the early directors of the organization. They were Dr. Norman Alcock, Dr. Kenneth E. Boulding, Jacques Brillant, Dr. G. Brock Chisholm, Dr. Pierre Dansereau, Dr. Franc R. Joubin, Dr. Hugh Keenleyside, Walter C. Koemer, Right Reverend James S. Thomson, Mr. W. D. Tucker, Francis G. Wins-pear, Gerard Pelletier and Pierre Elliott Tru-

deau. So I think my reference to the fact that the Prime Minister showed an interest in this matter as a private citizen was warranted.
Actually, my raising of this question was prompted because several of my constituents had written to me enclosing a copy of an editorial which appeared in the Toronto Daily Star of Monday, February 2, 1970, which I feel is worth drawing to the attention of the House. I should like to mention that the editorial outlines some of the projects which the peace institute has undertaken in the last seven years. It states:
A study by Dr. Gideon Rosenbuth of the University of British Columbia which demonstrated that there was little foundation for the widely held fear that reductions in armaments would lead to a depression.
An international conference on means of improving United Nations peacekeeping methods, which was attended by representatives of 24 nations.
Publication of a regular series of papers and booklets on problems related to peace, which are widely used by governments and universities around the world.
A study of factors in the everyday life of societies-methods of child-raising for example- which favor the growth of militarism and totalitarianism.
Research on "indicators of tension," using data on arms expenditures to provide storm warnings of coming troubles in various areas-hopefully in time for preventive action to be taken before shooting actually starts.
The editorial continues to point out that all this has been carried out on a financial shoestring with an annual budget of around $60,000, and that in other countries such as Sweden and the Netherlands much larger grants are made to this type of organization by their governments. It is suggested this is an example Canada should follow.
I picked a figure out of the air in my question when I suggested one quarter of one per cent of our national defence budget. I might point out that in terms of the current estimates, where the figure is $1,591,776,000, this would work out to something like $3,979,440. In rounding out my argument I would like to suggest that if the government would consider even one-hundredth of one quarter of one per cent, this would work out to something like $39,794. I would suggest that if the government would be prepared to make a contribution to the budget of the Canadian Peace Research Institute on the basis of something like $40,000, this would be at least a commendable start.
I hope that whoever is to reply tonight for the Prime Minister, will indicate that the government under the Prime Minister's leadership agrees that my suggested figure of one
March 23. 1970	COMMONS
quarter of one per cent of our national defence budget would be an appropriate start for this government to make in the form of a grant to the operations of this body, which has performed such very useful work in leading to an understanding of the causes of war and the ways of promoting peace since its inception in 1962.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, this is a question on which the government has already received representations from the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik), the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Groos) and the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hogarth).
I can assure the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) that the government has nothing but the greatest respect for those persons who are involved with the Canadian Peace Research Institute.
DEBATES	5389
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
I recall when I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs I had the opportunity to meet Dr. Alcock and discuss with him a number of the projects. I regretted at that time that we could not be of more assistance to him. In the interval, of course, we have gone into a period of austerity in respect of the government's budget, and the government expresses regret that at the present time it is not in a position to contribute to very worth-while objectives such as those of the institute. I might say that basic research of the type advocated by the institute is now being indirectly supported by the government of Canada at Canadian universities.
As I have indicated I regret that at the present time the government is not in a position to assist the institute, although the government has great respect for its objectives.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.20 p.m.
5391

Tuesday. March 24, 1970