1970-01-14

PRIVILEGE


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasl-ings):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege to set the record straight on a matter of importance affecting the integrity of the government.
Yesterday I implied, by my question about who ordered the change in time for making public the monthly cost of living figures from 8 a.m. to half an hour after the House meets, that the government was employing some nefarious means of hiding the facts in an effort to blunt a possible attack on itself.
I have examined this situation carefully in the intervening 24 hours and I find that this variation in the time of release was made at the request of the Press Gallery to give the morning papers an even break on this important news each month. I also find to my great surprise that the minister who authorized this variation is none other than the present member for Prince Edward-Hastings.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Third report of Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs-Mr. Tolmie.

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the House would like to have the latest information we have received from Lagos. First, may I report to the House that the resolution passed last evening was forwarded within an hour to our High Commissioner in Lagos and delivered by him to the Nigerian authorities.
While we have not yet received the official report of the observer team, we have had a preliminary message from Brigadier General Drewry, who returned last night from the Third Division area. Major Bristoe, who went to the First Division area, is still in the field. Brigadier General Drewry visited Aba, Ikot-Ekpene, Umuahia and Owerri. He reports that the Biafran forces are surrendering en masse and discarding their uniforms and equipment. He found no evidence of any atrocities. The physical condition of the refugees is much better than was feared, and they are being fed by the army wherever possible.
Brigadier General Drewry reports that the military authorities in the area are confident that they can cope with the refugees and prisoners of war problems in their areas of responsibility, and that the Nigerians are determined to sort out their relief problems on their own. Brigadier General Drewry's message refers, however, to the shortage of trucks which is also underlined by the report we have today received from our High Commissioner in Lagos.
The problem of delivery of food and drugs has been greatly simplified by the Biafran collapse. Road and river routes are now open and delivery distances are much shorter.
Although there is reassurance in the reports I have received, no one would wish to underestimate the gravity of the problems in the battle area and Eastern Nigeria generally.
One of these problems appears to be the shortage of trucks. We have already made money available which can be used by the Nigerians to purchase trucks locally. The government has instructed CIDA to check urgently the availability of suitable trucks in Canada and is investigating means of delivery. As the House knows, our Hercules aircraft remain on the alert, and are available for delivery purposes to Nigeria or a neighbouring country if this proves to be feasible.
The House will also be interested to learn that we are contributing $200,000 to UNICEF to support its increased program in Nigeria.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the statement made by the Secretary
January 14, 1970

Canadian Action on Nigeria-Biafra of State for External Affairs was intended to give comfort, but it certainly does not do so.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
It is clear that the government has received no word from the government of Nigeria with respect to the approval of any plan to provide relief through Canairelief or any other agency. Indeed, to judge from the rebuff received by the British in their attempt to make arrangements to fly in a modest amount of medical and other supplies there is every reason to believe that the government of Nigeria does not intend to accept assistance from outside. This would not be a cause for concern if there were not widespread fear of genocide and if there were confidence that the government of Nigeria was sufficiently well organized and had the capacity to bring the massive relief to these areas which is necessary immediately. Some, at least, who are familiar with the area-and I understand this view was expressed to the committee last night-doubt very much that the Nigerian authorities, including the armed forces, are in a position to make this kind of relief available.
We are confronted here with a very serious situation. This government all along has pursued a policy the only justification for which was that it would enable the government to remain on friendly terms with the government of Nigeria and thus be in a position to be helpful after hostilities ceased. This attitude prevented the government from furnishing relief to starving Nigerians on a scale which would have been possible while the fighting was going on. It looks, now, as though it will produce nothing at all by way of results. Meanwhile, as far as one can judge the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the government are sitting quietly by, sending messages to Nigeria and getting a certain amount of information from our observer team but taking no steps at all to bring home to the government of Nigeria the concern of the civilized world, not about the intentions of the government of Nigeria, which we are not entitled to assume are ill, but about its capacity and ability to prevent massive starvation, as well as our concern that the civilized world should not be prevented at this time from affording the relief which it is in a position to supply.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: This situation, in which there are masses of people in danger of starvation

while outside countries are in a position to assure that this danger can be relieved if they are permitted to take action in co-operation with the constituted authorities, is surely absurd. I do not think the government is doing anything like enough to bring home to the government of Nigeria the concern felt about this situation by the people of Canada and, indeed, of the world. .


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The government has evidently indicated that it is prepared to make more observers available but we have not even yet received an assurance from the minister that he or any minister of the government has urged or, indeed, insisted that the international observer team be enlarged so that it can do a proper job.


Mitchell William Sharp: How do you insist?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You do so by making
representations directly-


Mitchell William Sharp: That is what I did.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -which the hon. gentleman did not do.


Mitchell William Sharp: Oh yes, I have.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Furthermore, you participate in organizing civilized opinion. Other countries are interested in this situation, and the United Nations is still in existence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The Secretary of State for External Affairs has the responsibility. If he wants us to exercise that responsibility we shall exercise it. I say to him that the kind of complacency indicated during recent days and in his statement today is unfortunate. The hon. gentleman refers to a shortage of trucks. I pointed out on Monday-it was not just my idea; it was recognized generally-that there would be a shortage of trucks and suggested that Hercules aircraft should be made available to fly them into the area of difficulty. The Secretary of State for External Affairs cavalierly dismissed this as an impractical suggestion. Yet today, two days later, he is bringing it forward as his own idea.
I urge the government, particularly the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, to exert pressure and influence upon the government of Nigeria, and I do this for two reasons.
January 14, 1970


Mitchell William Sharp: Patronize them; treat them as inferiors: that is the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The first reason is to make certain that a tragedy does not occur. The second is to ensure that other countries, such as Canada, are permitted by the government of Nigeria to co-operate with the Nigerian people in avoiding a great tragedy. There is no sign in the statement of the minister that the government is taking the necessary measures.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, in the face of the vast, unfolding tragedy which is taking place in Nigeria I can take no comfort from the statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I am glad that the message contained in the resolution unanimously passed by the House last night has been so quickly conveyed to our High Commissioner in Lagos. May I suggest that in order to underline it the government adopt a procedure which has been adopted before and send a special envoy to speak to the Nigerian head of state about this matter. We do not think that the normal diplomatic channels are adequate for the purpose of conveying the urgency of this message. Having unanimously passed the resolution we think it requires more immediate action than that available through the usual channels, which have not been too effective in the past.
We are not in the least bit reassured by the soothing words of the military observers. Often before they have issued soothing statements having had very little real opportunity for observation. The function they performed before was to blind the eyes of the people of the world to what was going on.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Francis Andrew Brewin: Hon. members say "shame", and I say shame too. Nevertheless the fact is, whether members of the government wish to acknowledge it or not, that these observers have issued soothing reports in the past which have turned out to be without foundation.


Mitchell William Sharp: These are Canadians you are talking about.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Let the government not shelter behind these people who, as I say, do not have adequate means or opportunity to observe what is going on.
Another part of the statement indicates the complacency of the government in that the
Canadian Action on Nigeria-Biafra minister said that the problem of food and drugs has been greatly simplified by the Bia-fran collapse. That is, of course, true if you look at the situation in the long term. However, the reason a committee of this House urged immediate action in regard to the supplies that are available in Sao Tome was that the committee knew that the ultimate solution of delivering food and drugs via land routes could not come about at once and that there was an immediate need for the supplies that were available. Somehow the urgency of this message of the committee has not registered itself on the government; if it had we would not have had the kind of complacent statement we have been given today.
I want to emphasize once again that in expressing itself through the resolution presented by the committee this House has said that the only immediate answer is to use the supplies in Sao Tome and to urge the Nigerian government to accept the offer of those personnel who can do what is required now. I believe that chaos and starvation, hardly paralleled in history, exist. I hope I am wrong in deducing from the statement of the minister that we are really having a continuation of the complacency to which we have become accustomed.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abilibi):: Mr. Speaker, in his statement, the minister informed us that following the resolution passed last evening concerning Canada's position on the Nigerian policy, a message was forwarded to our High Commissioner in Lagos. This is a commendable action, but it is practically the only thing to be learned from the minister's statement.
The minister states that he received reports from both Canadian observers in the field; those reports are quite at variance with those we heard last night during the session of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.
Last night, a representative of Canairelief actually told us that if major steps were not taken within 72 hours, most people located in the Biafran sector would die, and the statement had already been made several hours before.
It is therefore obvious today that nothing has yet been done to remedy the situation. The minister has merely forwarded to our High Commissioner in Lagos the motion passed unanimously last night. Considering

January 14, 1970
Questions
what the government is now doing, we can only admit that its policy copies much too closely that of Great Britain on the Nigerian-Biafran problem.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Gérard Laprise: We were informed last night that Britain had to order the unloading of an aircraft full of drugs which was ready to fly to Nigeria, because General Gowon refused to allow a military plane to fly over his country. Yet, when it was a matter of sending military planes to fight Biafra, General Gowon agreed, and Britain did not hesitate to send them. We were told, yesterday afternoon, that Canada is prepared at a few minutes' notice, to send by air to Nigeria, a portable hospital and that it is still awaiting General Gowon's permission.
In connection with this war which has been going on for three or four years in Nigeria, we see the wish of one tribe to annihilate another. In spite of the unconditional surrender made three or four days ago, we find that the same tribe still wants to destroy the Ibos.
I suggest, therefore, that strong measures be taken. If it is necessary to make General Gowon understand these things through force, or else if aristocracy can serve any purpose at the United Nations, it is time to see to it.



HARBOURS


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, because of the interest to all hon. members and the public, and in light of the commitment I made some time ago, I have the honour to submit a report intitled "Port of Churchill-Potential for Development" in the two official languages.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Harding: 1.	Has the Department of Fisheries and Forestry undertaken an investigation of the 3,000 to 10,000 seals which died in the Gulf of St. Lawrence last spring when they were caught in a vast oil slick near the Strait of Belle Isle and, if so, what are the results of this investigation?

2.	What action is contemplated by the Department to prevent further occurrences of oil pollution?


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: 1.
Yes. There was no oil slick in the Strait of Belle Isle. While a number of seals there were covered with oil in varying degree, some of these animals bore tags which were affixed about three weeks earlier off northwestern Prince Edward Island where there was an oily layer on the water at the time of tagging. This oil is presumed to have come from an accidental spill at Cape Tormentine, New Brunswick, on the night of January 30, 1969, which ran into the harbour and under the shore ice before corrective action could be taken. Some seals died from the oil pollution, but it is felt the numbers reported have been greatly exaggerated.
2.	Contingency plans for nullifying the adverse effects of oil spills have been developed. There is also a growing awareness amongst users of oil of the need to prevent occurrences of this nature.


RATE OF RETURN AND EARNINGS, BELL CANADA
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	For the years 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969, what was the permissible rate of return for Bell Canada under the regulation of the Canadian Transport Commission?
2.	For the same years what was Bell Canada's actual earnings on the rate of return?
3.	Will the Government of Canada rescind the September 29 ruling of the Canadian Transport Commission which allowed an assortment of increases of service charges?


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The Canadian Transport Commission advise as follows:
1.	No regulation was made. However, by Judgment dated May 4, 1966, the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada found the over-all rate structure of the Company to be just and reasonable at that time by reference to a permissive level of earning ranging from 6.2 per cent to 6.6 per cent on total average capitalization. By decision dated September 25, 1969, the Railway Transport Committee of the Canadian Transport Commission decided not to fix a permissive level of earnings at this time.
2.	1966, 6.5 per cent; 1967, 6.8 per cent; 1968, 6.9 per cent; 1969, not available.
3.	The matter of review and appeal of orders or decisions of the Canadian Transport Commission is governed by sections 52 and 53 of the Railway Act.
January 14, 1970


ESTIMATE RESPECTING ARCTIC SHIPPING
Mr. Skoberg: 1.	What is the breakdown of the one billion dollar estimate stated by the Minister of Transport if commercial shipping begins using Canada's Arctic?
2.	Is the above estimate based on any comprehensive study, and if so, who are the authors of this study?


Gérard Loiselle: 1. No firm estimate was given. Figure was used to represent order of magnitude that might be involved, having regard for the possible need for a few very large icebreakers, some aids to navigation and probable extensive harbour works at various points including dredging and protection from ice. The harbour component might well be provided by private enterprise.
2.	Answered by 1 above.
Questions


ROBBERY, VIOLENCE-PERSONS UNDER 25 ARRESTED
Mr. Mather: What percentage of persons arrested for robbery or crimes of violence are under 25 years of age?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports that: Information available in the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, for the years 1963 to 1967, is shown in the following table.
It should be pointed out, however, that not all persons arrested by the police appear in court; some are sent to mental hospitals and some have charges dropped before appearing in court. In addition, many Juveniles appear "informally" and these cases need not be reported to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.
Sources: Statistics of Criminal and Other Offences (DBS Pub. No. 85-201) Juvenile Delinquents (DBS Pub. No. 85-202).


PERSONS CHARGED AND CONVICTED FOR CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY WITH VIOLENCE
[Stage Direction]
1963	Breaking and entering a place	
Extortion	
Forcible entry and detainer	
Robbery	
Robbery while armed	
Crimes against property with violence
1964	Breaking and entering a place	
Extortion	
Forcible entry and detainer	
Robbery	
Robbery while armed	
Crimes against property with violence.
1965	Breaking and entering a place	
Extortion	
Forcible entry and detainer	
Robbery	
Robbery while armed	
Breaking and entering while armed__
Crimes against property with violence.
1966	Breaking and entering a place	
Extortion	
Forcible entry and detainer	
Robbery	
Robbery while armed	
Crimes against property with violence.
1967	Breaking and entering a place	
Extortion	
Forcible entry and detainer	
Robbery	
Robbery while armed	
Crimes against property with violence.
Persons charged	Persons convicted	Adults under 25 years of age	Percentage of persons charged were under 25	Juveniles Appeared before Found the court delinquent	Percentage of children who appeared before the Court8,081	7,655	5,524	68.4	4,230	3,817	90.238	32	14	36.8	17	14	82.453	39	14	26.4	-	870	763	476	54.7	32	28	87.5223	212	140	62.8	5	5	100.09,265	8,701	6,168	66.6	4,284	3,864	90.27,689	7,288	5,392	70.1	4,592	4,246	92.529	21	16	55.2	9	6	66.735	22	5	14.3	-	-	954	824	509	53.4	113	105	92.9271	244	143	52.8	5	4	80.08,978	8,399	6,065	67.6	4,719	4,361	92.47,351	6,950	5,091	69.3	4,521	4,037	89.336	31	20	55.6	6	6	100.040	22	8	20.0	-	941	798	469	49.9	88	80	90.9244	224	124	50.8	9	7	77.82	2	1	50.0	-	8,614	8,027	5,713	66.3	4,624	4,130	89.37,404	6,919	5,198	69.4	4,847	4,322	89.233	23	12	36.4	9	5	55.641	29	12	29.3	1,008	822	520	51.6	78	67	85.8190	172	88	46.3	9	9	100.08,676	7,965	5,830	67.2	4,943	4,403	89.17,749	7,165	5,330	68.8	5,309	4,775	89.937	28	15	40.5	12	12	100.021	16	7	33.3	5	1	20.0986	827	497	50.4	106	89	84.0162	143	81	50.0	4	4	100.08,955	8,179	5,930	66.2	5,436	4,881	89.82360	COMMONS DEBATES	January 14, 1970
Questions
January 14. 1970

Mr. Goode: What noise abatement procedures and rules are enforced and planned by the Department of Transport at the following international airports: Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal with regard to (a) take-off and landings of commercial aircraft (b) run-ups of jet aircraft engines on standing aircraft and (c) run-ups of jet aircraft engines being repaired after removal from aircraft?


Gérard Loiselle: Vancouver- (a) None; (b) None; (c) None.
Toronto and Montreal-Special procedures for the abatement of aircraft noise are applicable to all turbo-jet aircraft.
(a) Runways at these airports have been assessed from the viewpoint of noise abatement and an order of preference established for their operational use. Whenever practicable and considering wind and weather conditions, the most preferential runway will be used.
At Montreal, where residential development is close to the airport, departing jet aircraft follow a noise abatement climb technique until they are 2,000 feet above ground level. This procedure is no longer in effect at Toronto where it has been determined that most aircraft can attain 2,500 feet above ground level prior to overflying residential areas.
With respect to arriving jet aircraft every effort is made to ensure that: Turns on to final approach are completed at least six miles from the runway; the use of thrust, undercarriage and flaps shall, consistent with safety, give the best possible performance with respect to noise abatement; the aircraft maintains an altitude of 2,000 feet above ground level as long as practicable before commencing final descent to the runway, and when conditions permit, the aircraft remains on or slightly above the approach slope angle as projected by the landing aids in use for the runway, (b) None, (c) None.


C.N.R. PENSIONS
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg: North Centre):
1 How many retired employees of the Canadian National Railways are in receipt of pensions of less than $25.00 per month?
2.	How many are in receipt of a pension of $25.00 per month?
3.	How many are in receipt of pensions of (a) $25.01 to $29.99 per month (b) $30.00 to $39.99 per month (c) $40.00 to $49.99 per month (d) $50.00 to
Questions
$59.99 per month (e) $60.00 to $69.99 per month (f) $70.00 to $79.99 per month (g) $80.00 to $89.99 per month (h) $90.00 to $99.99 per month (i) $100.00 to $124.99 per month; (j) $125.00 to $149.99 per month (k)	$150.00 to $199.99 per month (1) $200.00 to
$299.99 per month (m) $300 per month or over?


Gérard Loiselle: The
management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: The information shown being as of December 31st, 1968. 1. 387.
2.	2,165.
3.	Amount of Pension	Number

25.01	to	29.99	a	month	59430.00	to	39.99	a	month	1,17840.00	to	49.99	a	month	95350.00	to	59.99	a	month	87460.00	to	69.99	a	month	77170.00	to	79.99	a	month	83380.00	to	89.99	a	month	86490.00	to	99.99	a	month	1,019100.00	to	124.99	a	month	2,421125.00	to	149.99	a	month	2,260150.00	to	199.99	a	month	3,694200.00	to	299.99	a	month	4,907300.00	and over	2,891
In a number of cases the amounts of pensions paid by Canadian National Railways do not represent the total pensions payable to employees for railway service. Pensions payable by the C.N.R. to international employees (service in both Canada and the United States) relate to their service in Canada only. Such employees also receive annuities payable under the U.S. Railroad Retirement Act or the Social Security Act for service performed in the United States. For example, in the group receiving pensions of under $25 from the C.N.R., there are sixty-three former international employees who also receive U.S. Railroad Retirement or Social Security annuities in respect of C.N.R. service rendered in the United States. The balance of this group consists of employees who elected early retirement (before age 65) with reduced basic ($25) pensions, and employees who had very short service and small contributions.
2362	COMMONS
Questions


C.N.R. PENSION FUNDS
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg: North Centre):
1.	What was the total amount of money on the books of the pension funds of the Canadian National Railways as at (a) December 31, 1964 (b) December 31, 1965 (c) December 31, 1966 (d) December 31, 1967 (e) December 31, 1968?
2.	What rate of interest does the C.N.R. pay on this money?
3.	What amount of interest was credited to the above noted pension funds during the year ending (a) December 31, 1964 (b) December 31, 1965 (c) December 31, 1966 (d) December 31, 1967 (e) December 31, 1968?
4.	What was the total amount paid out of the above noted funds in pensions during the years ending (a) December 31, 1964 (b) December 31, 1965 (c) December 31, 1966 (d) December 31, 1967 (e) December 31. 1968?


Gérard Loiselle: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. The total amounts of the investments, cash and other current assets on the books of the Pension Trust Funds were: As at 31 December 1964, $531,627,361; 31 December 1965, $575,887,009; 31 December 1966, $626,818,658; 31 December 1967,	$684,962,758;	31 December 1968,

2.	The C.N.R. does not pay interest on these assets which are held separately in the Pension Trust Funds.
3.	Net earnings on the investments of the
Pension Trust Funds were: Year ended 31 December 1964, $23,830,471; 31 December 1965, $25,932,593; 31 December 1966, $28,763,156;	31	December	1967,	$34,541,149;	31
December 1968, $39,214,027.
4.	Total amounts of the pensions paid out
of the Pension Trust Funds were: Year ended 31 December 1964, $32,145,649; 31 December 1965, $34,575,142; 31 December 1966, $37,595,615;	31	December	1967,	$40,688,714;	31
December 1968, $46,065,616.


INDUSTRY, TRADE AND COMMERCE-MARKET ANALYSIS BRANCH
Mr. Peiers: 1.	Who are the staff members of the Market Analysis Branch of the Office of Economics in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and what are their respective salaries and classifications?
2.	What specific studies have been undertaken by the Market Analysis Branch of the Office of Economics?


Jean-Luc Pepin: DEBATES	January 14, 1970
1. Name A. M. Coll	Classifi- cation ES5	Salary range: $19,GOO-23,500 Annual SalariesA. C. Kilbank	ES4	$ 22,522R. J. Konecny	ES3	19,781W. L. Posthumus	ES3	19,781J. T. B. Kingston	ES2	16,656H. D. Henderson	ES2	14,553J. W. Duncker	ES2	14,553W. P. K. Coffins	ES2	13,434N. S. St. Jacques	ESI	10,946M. K. McMullen	ESI	10,680D. J. Ireland	ESI	9,180C. H. Iwasaki (Miss)	ESI	9,180R. S. Foster	SI 2	9,408H. Scobie	SI 2	9,079E. Modler (Miss)	CR4	6,918E. M. Matheson (Miss)	CR4	6,918C. R. Gervais	CR4	6,502D. C. Duquette (Mrs.)	ST5	6,191P. M. Sibue (Mrs.)	CR3	5,818P. A. Chenier	CR3	5,632J. A. Dean (Miss)	CR3	5,632S. Noack (Miss)	ST3	4,806B. G. Armstrong (Mrs.)	ST3	4,6462. The resources of	the branches of the	
Office of Economics are directed primarily to the provision of analytical background, briefing and advice required for the development and implementation of Departmental policies and programs and for dealing with particular issues requiring the attention of the Department. Thus the output of the Office consists mainly of analytical material which comprises an integral part of departmental decisions and operations and does not take the form of independent, self-contained studies in published form.
The Market Analysis Branch maintains a continuous forward-looking analysis of significant developments in major farm, forest, mineral and energy sectors, and in the principal manufacturing industries. The branch also undertakes research into the economic aspects of industrial growth and organization, into the effects of tariffs and other factors affecting Canadian industries and into the structure and trend of foreign country markets and international commodity markets.
January 14, 1970


INDUSTRY, TRADE AND COMMERCE-GENERAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
Mr. Peters: 1.	Who are the staff members of the General An-analysis Branch of the Office of Economics in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and what are their respective classifications and annual salaries?
2.	What specific studies have been undertaken by the General Analysis Branch of the Office of Economics?


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1.
Classifi-
Name	cation	Salary RangeC. Schwartz	ES5	$19,000-23,500 Annual SalariesF. Piscopo	ES3	H. Smale	ES2	18,124D. F. McKinley	ES2	16,656M. Brennan (Mrs.)	ES2	14,553P. Johal	ESI	8,280M. Carlin (Miss)	S12	9,079D. Labelle (Mrs.)	S12	9,079W. Maloley (Miss)	ST5	6,191E. Love (Miss)	CR4	6,710N. Burroughs (Mrs.)	CR3	5,632M. Scharf (Mrs.)	CR2	4,8422. The resources	of the	branches of the
Office of Economics are directed primarily to the provision of analytical background, briefing and advice required for the development and implementation of departmental policies and programs and for dealing with particular issues requiring the attention of the department. Thus the output of the office consists mainly of analytical material which comprises an integral part of departmental decisions and operations and does not take the form of independent, self-contained studies in published form.
The work of the General Analysis Branch involves the continuing assessment of Canada's over-all economic and trade performance and related domestic and international developments.


INDUSTRY, TRADE AND COMMERCE-PRODUCTIVITY BRANCH
Mr. Peters: 1.	Who are the staff members of the Productivity Branch of the Office of Economics in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and what are their respective classifications and annual salaries?
2.	What specific studies have been undertaken by the Productivity Branch of the Office of Economics?
Questions


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1.
Classifi- '
Name I. Bernolak	cation ES5	Salary Range $19,000-23,500 Annual Salaries $ 22,522
G. G. McLeod	ES4	
J. G. Snaauw	ES3	20,523L. E. Drayton	ES3	20,523G. H. O. Dines	ES3	19,039L. E. Turner	ES3	18,294R. C. Gilstorf	ES2	18,124F. Mizerovsky	ES2	17,394F. Torontow (Miss)	CR4	6,918A. M. Connolly (Miss)	ST5	6,191I. Smith (Mrs.)	ST5	5,632C. Daniel (Mrs.)	ST4	5,2342.	The resources of the branches of the Office of Economics are directed primarily to the provision of analytical background, briefing and advice required for the development and implementation of departmental policies and programs and for dealing with particular issues requiring the attention of the Department. Thus the output of the office consists mainly of analytical material which comprises an integral part of Departmental decisions and operations and does not take the form of independent, self-contained studies in published form.
The work of the Productivity Branch involves the analysis of industrial productivity and the assessment of the significance of factors contributing to productivity changes and variations, such as technological progress, management performance, specialization, and size of plant including the development of measures to facilitate inter-industry, interfirm, international and trend 'comparisons'.


INDUSTRY, TRADE AND COMMERCE-INVESTMENT ANALYSIS BRANCH
Mr. Peters: 1.	What specific studies have been undertaken by the Investment Analysis Branch of the Office of Economics in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce on programs related to foreign investment in Canada, Canadian investment abroad and the operators of international companies?
2 Who are the staff members of the Investment Analysis Branch of the Office of Economics in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and what are their respective classifications and annual salaries?

January 14, 1970
Questions


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1. The Investment Analysis Branch is engaged in the following specific areas of work relating to foreign investment: (a) The implementation of follow-up action to the issuance of "Some Guiding Principles of Good Corporate Behaviour" including the collection, quarterly and annually, of data from the larger foreign-owned subsidiaries in Canada on various aspects of their operations and financing. The information is useful in assessing performance of foreign-owned subsidiaries in relation to objectives set out in the guiding principles and contributes to a better understanding of their role in the Canadian economy. An initial report on the results of these surveys was published in 1967 under the title "Foreign-owned Subsidiaries in Canada". An updated report is now nearing completion; (b) The monitoring of overseas capital transfers by non-financial companies in Canada which is necessary as part of an arrangement with the United States under which Canada is exempted from U.S. regulations affecting capital flows; (c) The maintenance of an intelligence system on the ownership and structure of international concerns operating in Canada and of Canadian companies with investments abroad; (d) The examination, as required for departmental purposes, of the impact and implications of various aspects of foreign investment in Canada; (e) The review as required for departmental purposes, of foreign government actions affecting international direct investment which may have an impact on Canada.
2.
	Classifi-	
Name	cation	Salary rangeJ. H. Latimer	ES5	$19,000-23,500 Annual Salaries $ 20,523R. J. Loosmore	ES3	A. N. Polianski	ES3	19,781N. S. Hutchinson	ES2	16,066T. R. Vout	ES2	18,124G. E. McKinley	ESI	12,049G. N. Grant	ESI	11,468G. H. Kitchen	ESI	10,140D. J. MacRae	ESI	9,360U. K. Feige	ESI	6,360E. M. Mulligan	SI.5	13,461J. B. Caluori	S1.3	10,128W. J. Charters	SI.2	9,079E. F. Edwards (Mrs.)	SI.2	8,420D. J. Sibue	SI.2	9,408J. P. Burant	CR4	6,294L. W. Kennedy	CR4	6,294R. O. Paquette 	CR4	6,294Name	Classifi- cation	Annual Salaries $C. S. Pearl (Mrs.)	CR4	6,294J. E. Mason	CR3	6,191D. M. Mantil (Mrs.)	CR2	4,543N. W. Charron (Mrs.) ST5	6,191C. T. Poole (Miss)	ST4	5,234I. Hoffman (Miss)	ST3	4,806J. A. Mullins (Miss)	ST3	4,806


BASLE CONFERENCE &quot;NUCLEX 69&quot;- PROMOTION EXPENSES
Mr. Gilbert: What is the breakdown in the sharing of promotion expenses between (a) Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (b) Eldorado Nuclear Limited and (c) private Canadian firms, regarding the triennial Basle Conference, called Nuclex 69, this year in Switzerland?


Jean-Luc Pepin: This exhibit was sponsored by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce as part of its 1969-70 Trade Fair Program.
There were nine participants whose contributions were based on the formula employed by the Department in all such events. This requires payment of a flat fee per square foot, the same for all participants, and a higher percentage of cost depending upon the number of occasions on which the same exhibitor has participated, (i.e. 25 per cent of cost of space for 1st time exhibitors, 50 per cent of space cost for second time exhibitors, 75 per cent of cost of space for 3rd time exhibitors and 100 per cent of space cost for fourth time exhibitors.)
On this basis charges were made to: (a) Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (1st time exhibitor), $1,750.00; (b) Eldorado Nuclear Limited (2nd time exhibitor), $576.00; (c) Seven private Canadian firms (1st and 2nd time exhibitors), $2,794.50; Total $5,120.50.
In addition, contributions for an official reception were made by participants on a voluntary basis in the following amounts: (a) Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, $300; (b) Eldorado Nuclear Limited, $200; (c) Seven private Canadian firms, $659; Total $1,159.


QUALIFICATIONS OF UNEMPLOYED
Mr. Stewari (Marquette): 1.	For the years 1961, 1963, 1965 and 1968, of the total number of unemployed in Canada, how many had (a) some elementary schooling or less (b)
January 14, 1970

completed elementary schooling (c) some high school (d) completed high school (e) some university (f) University degree?
2.	For the years 1961, 1963, 1965 and 1968, of the total number of unemployed in Canada, how many last worked in (a) agriculture (b) primary industries (c) manufacturing (d) construction (e) services (f) transportation and communications?
3.	For the years 1961, 1963, 1965 and 1968, of the total number of unemployed in Canada, how many in their last employment were employed in the following occupations (a) managerial (b) professional and technical (c) clerical (d) sales (e) farm
Questions
workers (f) fishermen, trappers and hunters (g) miners and quarrymen (h) skilled tradesmen (i) semi-skilled tradesmen (j) labourers?


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1, 2 and 3. The Dominion Bureau of Statistics does not have this information for all the years requested or by each of the levels of education, the industries or occupation groups specified. However, the following tables compiled from available data may be helpful:


TABLE I
[Stage Direction]
Unemployed persons, 14 years of age and over, by level of education, Canada February 1960,<« 1965 and 1967 (estimates in thousands)
1967	1965	1960®Total	396	397	553Some elementary school education or less*2*	141	148	242Completed elementary school education	90	96	145Some high school education	118	116	124Completed high school education or more	47	37	42(1* Excludes persons on temporary lay-off up to 30 days, estimated at 44,000 in February Includes persons with "no schooling".	1960.	Source: DBS Labour Force Survey.	TABLE II	Unemployed by industry group®, Canada 12-month averages 1961, 1963, 1965 and 1968 (estimates in thousands)	1968	1965	1963	1961All Industries	382	280	374	466Primary industries®	38	36	51	67Manufacturing	85	57	78	104Construction	68	53	73	99Transportation and other utilities*3*	31	25	35	44Trade	44	30	42	52Service®	76	53	64	68Never worked*5*	40	26	31	32
(*) Classified by industry of last employment.
(2>
Includes agriculture, forestry, fishing and trapping, and mines, quarries, oil wells.
(3) Includes transportation, storage, communication, and electric power, gas and water utilities.
® Includes community, business and personal service, public administration, and finance, insurance, real estate. <6) Comprises unemployed persons who never had a full-time civilian job lasting two weeks or more.
Source: DBS Labour Force Survey.
236S
Questions
[Stage Direction]
January 14. 1970

[Stage Direction]
Unemployed by occupation group'1 2', Canada 12-month averages 1961, 1963, 1965 and 1968
(estimates in thousands)
1968	1965	1963	1961
All Occupations	
Office and professional'0	
Transportation	
Service and recreation	
Primary'3'	
Craftsmen, production process and related workers
Labourers'4 5'	
Never worked'0	
382	280
66	40
21	20
40	29
34	31
125	82
54	52
40	20
374	466
55	64
30	40
35	39
46	59
113	148
64	84
31	32
d) Classified by occupation of last employment.	.	.
(2) Includes managerial, professional and technical, clerical, sales, and communication occupations.
(° Includes farming, fishing, trapping, logging, and mining occupations.
<4>
Includes labourers and unskilled workers not farming, fishing, logging, or mining.
(5) Comprises unemployed persons who never had a full-time civilian job lasting two weeks or more.
Source: DBS Labour Force Survey.

Mr. Crouse: 1.	Has the government offered for sale the 22,000 ton aircraft carrier HMCS Bonaventure and, if so, what are the terms of sale and the asking price?
2.	Have bids been invited from other countries on this ship?
3.	Will bids from other countries on this ship be acceptable to Canada and, if not, what are the names of countries whose bids are unacceptable to Canada?
4.	Will the bill of sale on the Bonaventure be conditional, so that it cannot be resold to any country unacceptable to the Canadian Government?


Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1. Yes. The terms of sale and asking price are subject to negotiation.
2.	Yes.
3.	Bids from foreign governments would be assessed relative to established Canadian Government policy and regulations regarding the export of military equipment.
4.	Yes. Conditions of sale would include this provision.


FUNDS FOB LEVEL RAILWAY CROSSING ELIMINATION
Mr. Harkness: 1.	How much money has been made available in each of the past ten years for the purpose of eliminating level railway crossings on the Trans-Canada and other main highways?
2.	How much money is it planned to be made available for this purpose during each of the coming five years?


Gérard Loiselle: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows:	1. The records of the Canadian
Transport Commission and the former Board of Transport Commissioners have not been maintained in a manner to differentiate between the Trans-Canada and other main highways, or other designated types of thoroughfares, where money has been applied from the Railway Grade Crossing Fund for the elimination of level crossings. In the past 10 years contributions from the Railway Grade Crossing Fund have been authorized in the following amounts towards the cost of construction of new grade separations and/or highway or railway diversions for the purpose of eliminating existing level highway railway crossings: 1959, $11,121,399.03; 1960, $10,084,244.96; 1961, $8,870,527.43; 1962, $10,909,940.99; 1963, $6,439,091.99; 1964, $10,672,076.28; 1965, $9,708,350.12; 1966, $13,301,414.06; 1967,	$14,707,363.98;	1968,	$12,859,896.51;
Total $108,674,305.35.
2.	The amount to be made available will be determined by the appropriation voted annually by Parliament.


SALE OF HMCS &quot;BONAVENTURE&quot;
Mr. Lambert (Edmonton: West):
1.	Are efforts being made to sell the HMCS Bon-aventure and on what terms?
2.	What agency or agencies of the government are pursuing enquiries as to potential buyers?
January 14. 1970

3.	What would be any restrictions or conditions which might be applicable to such a sale?
4.	In the event of no satisfactory buyer being available, would it be proposed to scrap the Bon-aventure?


David Walter Groos: 1. Yes. The terms of sale and asking price are subject to negotiation.
2.	The Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Department of Supply and Services.
3.	Apart from normal commercial conditions, bids would be assessed relative to established Canadian government policy and regulations regarding the export of military equipment.
4.	Yes, after having removed all equipment of any value.


RAILWAY CAR CONSTRUCTION FOR CNR
Mr. Lalulippe: 1.	Has the C.N.R. awarded an exclusive contract amounting to $10,000,000 to the National Steel Car of Montreal for the construction of railway cars?
2.	Did the National Steel Car have all the ears built in Hamilton, Ontario and, if so, why was part of the work not carried out in the Province of Quebec?


Gérard Loiselle: The Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. Following an invitation to tender sent to five firms and pursuant to the Company's policy respecting awarding of contracts an order was placed with National Steel Car Corporation, the low bidder, for the construction of 500 box cars at a total cost of approximately $10,000,000.
2.	The information requested is not within the knowledge of the Railway.


SECURITY PERSONNEL, PORT OF VANCOUVER
Mr. Winch: 1.	Was a recommendation made by National Harbours Board Security Director, Donald Cassidy of Ottawa, that the security personnel in the Port of Vancouver should be changed to a dockyard police force?
2.	Was the reason for this recommendation that it was felt necessary to introduce an experienced force of qualified policemen to ensure that Vancouver's reputation of having a low pilferage and damage rate was maintained and, if so, was any provision made for former personnel to receive special training in order to be accepted on the new police force?
Questions
3.	Were any accepted and, if not, were they given alternative employment?
4.	Was a decision made by the National Harbours Board for a similar change in Halifax and, if so (a) are former personnel being given the opportunity of training in order to qualify for the change-over (b) was the procedure similar to that followed in Vancouver and, if not, for what reason?


Gérard Loiselle: The National Harbours Board advises as follows:
1.	Yes, as part of the reorganization of the N.H.B. Police along professional lines comparable to other major police forces in Canada.
2.	Yes. Security personnel were invited to make application for employment on the new police force.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes.


SASKATCHEWAN EMERGENCY MEASURES ORGANIZATION
Mr. Skoberg: What agreement has the Saskatchewan Emergency Measures Organization entered into with the State of Montana, U.S.A., in so far as the co-operative emergency arrangements and civil planning is concerned?


Mitchell William Sharp: No agreement has as yet been entered into between Saskatchewan and the State of Montana concerning cooperative emergency planning arrangements.


DC-3 AIRCRAFT CRASH-ALTIMETER SETTING GIVEN BY TIMMINS AERADIO STATION
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What was the altimeter setting given to the pilots of the DC-3 aircraft by the Aeradio Station operators at Timmins, Ontario, before it crashed on November 10, killing its crew of two?
2.	Did the Aeradio Station operators at Timmins, Ontario, receive confirmation from the crew of the DC-3 that the altimeter setting information was received?
3.	When was the barometric pressure recording instrument, that was used by the Aeradio Station operators at Timmins to ascertain the current altimeter setting, last checked or calibrated to prove its accuracy?
4.	Was the DC-3 aircraft carrying a Radar Altimeter and, if so, was it functioning at the time of the crash?


Gérard Loiselle: 1. The
accident of the DC-3 aircraft at Timmins, Ontario, is under investigation and it is normal practice not to release any part of the investigation until the complete report is. available.
2,	3 and 4. See 1 above.
21611-11;

January 14, 1970
Questions


DH-125 AIRCRAFT CRASH-INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY WABUSH GROUND PERSONNEL
Mr. Forresfall: 1.	What was the altimeter setting given to the pilots of the DH-125 jet by ground personnel at Wabush, Newfoundland, prior to its crash on November 11?
2.	When was it relayed to the crew?
3.	What party or what authority gave the altimeter setting to the crew?
4.	When was the barometric pressure recording instrument that was used by personnel on the ground to ascertain the current altimeter setting at Wabush, last checked or calibrated to prove its accuracy?
5.	Was the jet aircraft concerned carying a Radar Altimeter and, if so, was it functioning at the time of the crash?
6.	What weather reporting information as to ceiling and visibility was relayed to the crew just prior to its crash?
7.	What are the qualifications or what experience did the observer have who informed the crew of the jet as to weather conditions that existed at the time the aircraft made its approach?


Gérard Loiselle: 1. The
accident of the DH-125 at Wabush, Newfoundland, is under investigation and it is normal practice not to release any part of the investigation until the complete report is available.
2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. See 1 above.


PROJECTS UNDERTAKEN, SOUTH SHORE RIDING
Mr. Crouse: 1.	What projects have been carried out by the federal Department of Public Works in the present fiscal year in the constituency of South Shore and what has been the cost of each project undertaken?
2.	How many projects will be undertaken in the constituency of South Shore before the end of the present fiscal year that have not as yet been either started or completed and what is the estimated cost of each?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: 1.
Location	Description	CostAllendale	Wharf approach repairs	$ 700.Bayport	Wharf repair	400.Blockhouse	Post Office-Ground improvements	2,386.Brooklyn	Post Office-Exterior painting	200.Carleton Village	Dredging	2,300.Chester Basin	Construction of Post Office	47,034.East Ironbound	Fender repair	1,000.East Ironbound	Dredging by D.P.W. Plant	3,000.East Port LeHebert	Haulout repairs	500.East Port Medway	Block and tackle	90.Gunning Cove	Breakwater repairs-floating	500.Hunt's Point	Skidway repairs	400.Hunt's Point	Dredging by D.P.W. Plant	6,000.Jones Harbour	Breakwater and wharf repairs	2,500.Kraut Point	Fender repair	3,200.Liverpool	Dredging	4,000.Liverpool	Federal building-Relighting	7,672.Liverpool	Federal building-Alterations and additions to Lock Boxes 3,500.	Lockeport	Derrick repair	400.Lockeport	Federal building-Alterations	2,000.Lower Sandy Point	Skidway repairs	50.Lunenburg Battery Point	Fender repair	4,800.Lunenburg-R.R. Wharf	Fender repair	700.Lunenburg	Federal building-Lighting Postal working area	6,757.Mahone Bay	Federal building-Replacement of boiler	3,475.Mill Cove	Repairs	1,000.Mill Village	Post Office-Painting	2,668.Milton	Post Office-Painting	200.New Harbour	Breakwater	79,000.Northwest Cove	Wharf repairs	27,000.Osborne	Skid and derrick repairs	400.Port Medway	Haulout repairs	300.
[Mr. Loiselle.)
January 14, 1970

Location
Description
Questions
Cost
Port Medway Port Mouton Port Mouton Head Riverport Roseway Roseway
St. Catherine's River Shelburne Shelburne Stokes Head South Brookfield South West Port Mouton West Berlin West Green Harbour (The Blazes)
Willow Cove
Barricade
Post Office-Ground improvements Skidway repairs
Federal building-Ground improvements
Breakwater repairs
Dredging by D.P.W. Plant
Dredging
Wharf repairs
Electric repairs
Skidway repairs
Post Office-Painting
Haulout repairs
Haulout repairs
Crib
Dredging
2.
Location
Aspotagan Barss Corner Bridgewater Caledonia Ingomar Little Tancook Little Tancook Lockeport
Petite Riviere Bridge Riverport
St. Catherine's River
It is not customary to reveal estimated
Description
Wharf repairs Post Office-Minor repairs Federal building-Minor repairs Federal building-Minor repairs Dredging Repairs
Wave Deflector Wharf lighting Post Office-Minor repairs Federal building-Minor repairs Dredging
costs before tenders are called.
200.
1,900.
10,000.
4,142.
2,200.
8,000.
1,200.
9.000.
7.000. 50.
211.
600.
150.
600.
600.


ANTI-SMOKING ADVERTISING
Mr. Knowles (Norfolk-: Haldimand):
1.	How often does the Department of National Health and Welfare broadcast anti-smoking advertising on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation television stations?
2.	What has been the cost of such advertising per week, per month or per year?
3.	What is the total cost of this program to date?
4.	What steps has the Department taken to ensure that these advertisements observe the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. The Department of National Health and Welfare does not control the number of occasions a public service announcement appears on television. Scheduling public service announcements is the concern of the broadcasting industry.
2. No cost. Public service announcements are made free of charge.
3.	The cost of producing public service announcements since the inception of the program in 1967 is approximately $120,000.
4.	Public Service announcements are produced in consultation with broadcast organizations and the National Film Board, all of whom subscribe to the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards.


TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY
Mr. Comeau: 1.	Is the Trans-Canada Highway now completed and, if not, what parts are still incomplete?
2.	Are funds available under the Trans-Canada Highway Act for the construction of highways?


Arthur Laing: 1. The Trans-Canada Highway is now completed within the terms of the Agreement, except sections at present under construction. The mileage under construction in each province: Newfoundland, 75.1 miles; Prince

January 14,. 1970
Questions
Edward Island, Nil; Nova Scotia, 0.8 mile; New Brunswick, 5.3 miles; Quebec, 74.9 miles; Ontario, 37.9 miles; Manitoba, 10.0 miles; Saskatchewan, Nil (Interchange construction only); Alberta, Nil (Interchange construction only); British Columbia, 4.7 miles.
2. Funds are available for Canada's share on the designated route of the Trans-Canada Highway.


THANS-CANADA HIGHWAY, ALGOMA
Mr. Foster: 1.	How many miles of Trans-Canada Highway are located in the Constituency of Algoma?
2.	How many of these miles of highway have reached Trans-Canada specifications?
3.	At what stage of construction are those miles of highway which have not reached Trans-Canada specifications?
4.	What is the total cost to date of Trans-Canada Highway construction in the Constituency of Algoma?
5.	How much of it was paid for by the federal government and how much by the provincial government?


Arthur Laing: 1. 261.6 miles.
2.	252.1 miles.
3.	On 9.5 miles grading and paving are in progress.
4.	The total value of work approved to date is $39.1 million.
5.	The estimated amount of the Federal Government's share for this approved work is $22.8 million and the provincial share is $16.3 million. Canada's contribution to date in respect of the approved work is $20.6 million.


SAFETY STANDARDS FOR BOATS
Mr. Mather: 1.	What federal regulations are in effect establishing safety standards over boats and associated equipment?
2.	Are federal funds available to encourage provinces to increase their boating safety program?


Gérard Loiselle: 1. The
Small Vessel Regulations, P.C. 1967-436, made under the Canada Shipping Act, set safety standards for boats and associated equipment.
2. No federal funds are available to encourage provinces to increase their boating safety programs; but provincial and municipal forces are encouraged to enforce the safety requirements by Section 707 of the Canada Shipping Act which provides in some cases for fines to be paid to provincial or municipal authorities.


CANADIAN MILITIA STRENGTH
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Is it the intention of the federal government to further reduce the numbers in the Canadian Militia and, if so, by what number?
2.	Will any presently existing units and/or formations be disbanded on the reduction of the Canadian Militia and, if so, which ones?


David Walter Groos: 1. Yes, as announced on* 19 December, 1969, it is intended to reduce the reserves by approximately 4,000.
2. Yes, some existing units will be disbanded, and those affected are shown in Sessional Papers 7/4 tabled in the House of Commons Friday, 19 December, 1969.


BUILDING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING DIVISION, PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. McIntosh: 1.	Is the Building Structural Engineering Division of the Department of Public Works to be abolished, or has this already been carried out?
2.	In brief, what work was carried out by this particular Division?
3.	What was the annual cost of operating that Division?
4.	What was the staff of the Division?
5.	What are the names of the staff last employed and their professional or technical qualifications?
6.	If this Division has been or is to be abolished, for what reason?
7.	By what means will the work done by this Division be carried out if it has been or is to be abolished?
8.	What is the estimated cost to the Department of an alternative to the work formerly done by this Division?


Arthur Laing: 1. The function is continuing.
2.	This Division provides advice on structural engineering matters to client departments; is engaged in the preparation of structural engineering design standards; rep-recents the Department on sub-committees of the Canadian Standards Association, the Treasury Board, and the Canadian National Committee on Earthquake Engineering.
3.	$74,913 for salaries at headquarters for the fiscal year 1969-70.
4.	One Engineer 7, one Engineer 5, one Engineer 4, one EG-ESS 9, one EG-ESS 7.
5.	The staff now employed are: W. A. Ward -Certificate of Merit-Diesel Engineering; P.Eng N.S. M.E.I.C.; P. Daunius-Lithuania- Civil Engineering & Architecture, Diploma Engineer equivalent M. See; C. Vilcinskas-
January 14, 1970

Lithuania-Civil Engineering-Diploma equal Master Degree; J. D. Carleton-Ireland-4 years Technological Institute-National Certificate; H. D Ewanchook-Bachelor of Science Degree-Civil Engineering, Indiana Institute of Technology (equivalent of Engineering Technician Degree).
6.	The function is being carried out in a different manner.
7.	By the optimum utilization of Regional capabilities.
8.	Not know. The bulk will be absorbed in the Regional Office budgets.


LUNENBURG HARBOUR DREDGING SURVEY
Mr. Crouse: 1.	Has the government undertaken a complete dredging survey of Lunenburg Harbour in Nova Scotia?
2.	What is the extent of this survey and to what depth will dredging be carried out?
3.	When does the government anticipate actual dredging operations in this harbour and what is the amount of funds allocated for this project?
Hon Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works): 1. Yes, to the limits outlined in Part 2.
2.	Areas sounded included: (a) Main approach channel from opposite Battery Point into railway wharf for a width of 600 feet, (b) Access channel from main channel westward to Lunenburg Foundry and Engineering Company Limited wharf for widths 300 to 600 feet, (c) Access channel from main channel eastward to Scotia Trawler Equipment wharf for a width of 300 feet.
It is proposed to dredge main channel for a length of 3200 feet by 200 feet and access channel to westward for a length of 2700 feet and a width of 150 feet to 21 feet below L.W.O.S.T. and access channel eastward from inner end of main channel for a length of 850 feet and a width of 100 feet to a depth of 18 feet below L.W.O.S.T.
3.	Summer 1970, if necessary funds provided. An item for dredging in amount of $180,000 is being considered for inclusion in program for 1970-71.


SECOND NATIONAL PARK, P.E.I.
Mr. McQuaid: 1.	What is the agreed location of a second National Park for Prince Edward Island and how many acres of land are involved?
2.	What steps are actively being taken by the federal government to acquire the required land?
3.	Has a survey of the proposed site yet been made?
Questions
4.	Have any of the land owners within the proposed site yet been contacted with a view to making their land available for park purposes and with what results?


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. Discussions have been held with the Provincial Government with regard to establishing a second National Park in the Eastern portion of the Province namely, Kings County. No firm boundaries have been determined as yet but both governments are looking for an area of approximately 8,000 acres.
2.	The acquisition of land is a provincial responsibility, however, there has been active discussion respecting land acquisition between the two governments.
3.	Aerial and ground reconnaissance surveys have been carried out in co-operation with Provincial Officials, but no legal surveys have been made in any special areas.
4.	The Federal Government is not involved in negotiations with individual land owners as this is a provincial responsibility.


WHEAT EXPORTS
Mr. Korchinski: 1.	What was the amount of wheat exported in each month during the crop year 1968-1969?
2.	What was the corresponding export of wheat in the present crop year?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports that: 1 and 2. Exports of wheat, by month, for crop years:
	1968-69	1969-70
	bushels	
August	31,127,124	13,011,762September	30,019,121	20,949,890October	25,995,342	18,838,083November	23,338,070	not yet availableDecember	16,061,318	January	18,843,486	February	24,149,343	March	19,856,601	April	10,278,328	May	30,350,441	June	24,016,288	July	26,505,570	Total	280,541,032	
January 14, 1970
Questions


POSTAL SERVICES-HALIFAX-EAST HANTS
Mr. McCleave: 1.	What post offices have been closed down since June 25, 1968 or are proposed to be closed down in the federal Constituency of Halifax-East Hants, in each case with the cost of operation and revenue over the latest available 12-month period?
2.	What substitute service was provided or will be provided in each case?
3.	What are the nearest outlets to the closed post offices providing stamps and/or money orders?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General and Minister of Communications):: 1 (c)	1 (d)	2.	3.
	Cost of			Neighbouring Post
	Operation	Revenue	Alternate Service	Office*
1 (a) Post Offices Closed				
Rawdon, N.S		.... $ 770	$321	Upper Rawdon R.R.	West Gore, N.S.
			No. 1	
1 (b) Proposed Closings				
East Dover, N.S	.... $1,200	$332	West Dover R.R. No. 1	West Dover, N.S.Gormanville, N.S	.... $2,000	$434	Kennetcook R.R. No. 2	Noel, N.S.Latties Brook, N.S	.... $1,800	$399	Upper Kennetcook	R.R. No. 1	Upper Kennetcook N.S.Noel Road, N.S	.... $2,400	$800	Kennetcook R.R. No. 2	Kennetcook, N.S.North Noei Road, N.S	.... $2,000	$423	Kennetcook R.R. No. 2	Kennetcook, N.S.Pennant, N.S	.... $ 800	$141	Herring Cove	R.R. No. 1	Sambro, N.S.Portuguese Cove, N.S	.... $1,000	$349	Herring Cove	R.R. No. 1	Ketch Harbour, N.S.
'Stamps and money orders may also be obtained from the rural courier.


SAMBRO WHARF-LANDING OF FISHERMEN'S CATCHES
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Are fishermen of Sambro able to land all their catches at the Sambro wharf, or do some have to land their catches elsewhere?
2.	When was the Sambro wharf built and what was the cost?
3.	What amount has been spent on repairs?
4.	Was a new Sambro wharf included in Estimates since 1965 and, if so, for what reason was such not proceeded with?


Arthur Laing: 1. Yes, however, as larger buyers are located at other ports, most of catch is unloaded at those ports.
2.	1935-36 at a cost of $9,080.
3.	$65,000.
4.	Yes, not proceeded with because of limited funds.


POST OFFICE DIRECT LINE TELEPHONE INSTALLATIONS
Mr. Coates: 1. Has the Post Office Department installed direct line telephone service in post offices in Canada to accommodate patrons who do not speak or wish to speak the language of the clerk serving the

public and, if so, how many such direct line telephones have been installed in post offices, to date, and how many will be installed when the program has been completed?
2.	What has been the cost, to date, of the installation of direct line telephones in post offices and what will be the estimated final cost of the program?
3.	What will be the annual charge for the service in question?
4.	What post offices in Canada will have this service available?


Eric William Kierans: 1. (a) Yes. (b) In the City of Ottawa a system known as Private Line-Intercom-Automatic Ring-One Way has been installed in 23 offices. Outside the City of Ottawa, within the National Capital Region, 15 telephone lines have been installed, three lines have been relocated and three extensions of personal telephone lines have been provided, (c) See answer to (b) above.
2.	(a) In the City of Ottawa, $442.50; outside the City of Ottawa, $286.28. (b) See answer to (a) above.
3.	In the City of Ottawa, $4,197.60; outside the City of Ottawa, $1,528.80.
January 14, 1970

In the City of Ottawa: Postal Station "B", Sparks and Elgin Sts.; Postal Station "C", 409 Parkdale Ave.; Postal Station "E", 99 Fourth Ave.; Postal Station "J", 285 Wood-roffe Ave.; Postal Station "F", 1339 Baseline Rd.; Bells Corners Sub P.O., 28B Northside Rd.; Carling Sub Post Office, 1036 Merivale Rd.; City View Sub Post Office, 1523 Merivale Rd.; Stewarton Sub Post Office, 434 Bank St.; Sub No. 4, 350 Elgin St.; Sub No. 23, 580 Rideau St.; Sub No. 27, 260 Elgin St.; Sub No. 29, 444 Hinton St.; Sub No. 37, 1314 Wellington St.; Sub No. 38, 118 Sparks St.; Sub No. 44, 320 McArthur Rd.; Sub No. 55, Confederation Heights; Sub No. 61, 3 Croil Ave.; Sub No. 62, 1908 St. Laurent Blvd.; Sub No. 63, 354 Slater St.; Sub No. 75, 1989 Merivale Rd.; Sub No. 77, 1581 Bank St.; Sub No. 80, 1200 St. Laurent Blvd.
Outside the City of Ottawa: Alcove, P.Q.; Almonte, Ont.; Ashton, Ont.; Blossom Park, Ont.; Carp, Ont.; Chelsea, P.Q.; Cumberland, Ont.; Dunrobin, Ont.; Edwards, Ont.; Fitzroy Harbour, Ont.; Gloucester, Ont.; Hazeldean, Ont.; Hull, P.Q.; Kanata, Ont.; Kars, Ont.; Kenmore, Ont.; Kinburn, Ont.; Kirks Ferry, P.Q.; Manotick, Ont.; Metcalfe, Ont.; Navan, Ont.; North Gower, Ont.; Osgoode, Ont.; Pakenham, Ont.; Poltimore, P.Q.; Quyon, P.Q.; Ramsayville, Ont.; Richmond, Ont.; Russell, Ont.; South March, Ont.; Wakefield, P.Q.; Woodlawn, Ont.; Wyman, P.Q.


MOTOR VEHICLE THEFTS, ALBERTA, SASKATCHEWAN AND MANITOBA
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	How many motor vehicle thefts were reported to the RCMP in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba during (a) the first half of 1969, 1968 and
1967	(b) the total year 1968, 1967 and 1966?
2.	How many stolen vehicles were recovered in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba by the RCMP during (a) the first half of 1969, 1968 and 1967 (b) the total year 1968, 1967 and 1966?
3.	How many charges of theft of motor vehicles were laid by the RCMP in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba during (a) the first half of 1969,
1968	and 1967 (b) the total year 1968, 1967 and 1966?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Solicitor General):: 1. (a)	1969	1968	1967Alberta	433	392	339Saskatchewan	249	326	241Manitoba	212	232	1441. (b)	1968	1967	1966Alberta	771	663	476Saskatchewan	546	464	441Manitoba	459	383	302
Questions
2. (a)	1969	1968	1967Alberta	327	347	267Saskatchewan	253	256	171Manitoba	146	171	1122. (b)	1968	1967	1966Alberta	768	653	465Saskatchewan	541	453	432Manitoba	448	374	3003. (a)	1969	1968	1967Alberta	130	140	113Saskatchewan	107	125	85Manitoba	106	108	603. (b)	1968	1967	*1966Alberta	320	297	189Saskatchewan	266	211	190Manitoba	251	190	131
*Data for last nine months only available.


CHARGES OF TRAFFICKING IN &quot;SPEED&quot;
Mr. Mazankowski: How many charges of trafficking in "Speed" were laid by the RCMP, in Canada, in the first half of 1969 and for the year 1968?


George James McIlraith: 1969 (First half), 48; 1969, 64.
Note: "Speed" or Methamphetamine is not segregated from other controlled drugs, i.e. Barbiturates and Amphetamines.


BREAKING AND ENTERING, ALBERTA, SASKATCHEWAN AND MANITOBA
Mr. Mazankowski: 1. How many cases of breaking and entering were reported by the RCMP in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba during (a) the first half of 1969, 1968
and 1967 (b) the	: total year	1968, 1967	and 1966?2. How many	charges were laid in	connectionwith the above	in	Alberta, Saskatchewan and	Manitoba during	(a)	the first half of 1969, 1968 and	1967 (b) the total year 1968,	1967 and	1966?


George James McIlraith: l.(a)	1969	1968	1967Alberta	1588	1403	1173Saskatchewan	1210	1444	1089Manitoba	1119	1070	823l.(b)	1968	1967	*1966Alberta	3004	2517	1841Saskatchewan	3258	2756	1855Manitoba	2401	1940	14682.(a)	1969	1968	1967Alberta	288	314	275Saskatchewan	281	311	233Manitoba	295	265	213
2374

January 14,. 1970
2.(b)	Questions 1968	1967	*1966Alberta	619	573	376Saskatchewan	653	586	393Manitoba	615	543	355*Data for last	9 months only	available.


MARIJUANA AND HASHISH TRAFFICKING CHARGES
Mr. Mazankowski: How many charges of trafficking in marijuana and hashish were laid by the RCMP, in Canada, in the first half of 1969 and for the year 1968?


George James McIlraith: 1969, first half, 423 charges; 1968, 544 charges.


DIVORCE RATE
Mr. Mather: 1.	In 1958, what was the Canadian divorce rate per 100 marriages?
2.	In 1968, what was the same rate?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports that: 1. In 1958, the Canadian divorce rate per 100 marriages was 4.8.
2. In 1968, the Canadian divorce rate per 100 marriages was 6.2.
Note: Both these figures exclude Yukon and Northwest Territories for which data are not available for 1958. If Yukon and Northwest Territories are included for 1968, the divorce rate per 100 marriages would be 6.3.


REPAIRS TO SAULNIERVILLE WHARF
Mr. Comeau: 1.	When were the first estimates for repairs to the Saulnierville wharf brought before Parliament and voted upon?
2.	For how many years has money been allocated for this project?
3.	What are the reasons for not having this project approved?
4.	To where have the monies allocated for this project been diverted?


Arthur Laing: 1. 1968-69 Estimates.
2.	Two years.
3.	It was found necessary to allocate funds to other marine works with higher priorities.
4.	Answered in Part 3.


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


Russell Clayton Honey: 1. None.
2. N/A.


COST OF PURPLE CHAIRS, FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE ROOM
Mr. Crouse: 1.	What was the total cost of the purple chairs purchased for the 1969 Federal-Provincial Conference, used by the Prime Minister and the Premiers sitting at the conference table?
2.	Were these chairs purchased directly by the government, or were competitive bids obtained prior to their purchase?
3.	If bids were called, what are the names and addresses of the companies invited to tender, the amounts of their bid, and the name of the successful bidder?


Arthur Laing: 1. The cost of the purple chairs purchased for the Canadian Government Conference Centre which were used at the 1969 Federal-Provincial Conference by the Prime Minister and Premiers sitting at the conference table was $105.50 each for a total cost of $2,637.50.
2.	The chairs were purchased directly by the Government from the manufacturing firm of Henderson Furniture Limited, St. Lambert, Que. Other capable firms were approached and their chairs reviewed, however, delivery requirement could not be met.
3.	Not applicable.


VALCARTIER ARMED FORCES BASE DEVELOPMENT PLANS
Mr. McCleave: 1.	What projects are included in development plans for the Canadian Armed Forces base at Val-cartier and, what is the expected total cost?
2.	Are a ski chalet and golf course included in the development plan, and, if so, what is the estimated cost?


David Walter Groos: 1. The
overall development plan for the Canadian Forces Base Valcartier will not be completed before spring 1970, and it is not possible at this time to identify and cost specific projects. The first phase of this program, to provide
January 14, 1970


ARMED FORCES ADVERTISING FOR RECRUITS
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	What has been the total cost of the advertising for recruits for the Canadian Armed Forces since the first of July 1969 to date?
2.	As a result of said advertising campaign, how many recruits have been secured since the said date?


David Walter Groos: 1. Accounting records are based on a complete fiscal year and as a result it is not possible to isolate costs from July 1, 1966, to November
Orders for Returns
30, 1969. However, expenditures in each fiscal year are as follows: 1966-67, $841,000; 1967-68, $665,500; 1968-69, $515,000; 1969-70 (Estimated), $886,500.
2. Since 1 July, 1966, recruiting statistics show that approximately one out of every four applicants have been accepted for training as men and one out of every six applicants for officer training for a total enrolment up to 30 November, 1969, of 5,281 officers and 28,859 men.


ARMED FORCES RETIREMENTS AND DISCHARGES
Mr. Diefenbaker: How many members of the Canadian Armed Forces have (a) retired voluntarily (b) been discharged by reason of health (c) been compulsorily removed, month by month, since the 1st of January?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: (a) Voluntary	(b)	(c) Compulsory1969	4A	4B	4C	Total Medical	1	2	5A	5C	5D	5E	0	Tot alJanuary	
136	163	216	515	91	11	9	179	30	152	7	25	413February	
112	153	193	458	66	5	10	144	30	188	7	17	401March	
112	182	220	514	74	7	10	151	28	176	14	17	403April	
68	126	261	455	69	3	5	106	28	182	11	5	340May	
71	107	372	550	65	2	9	103	18	214	17	8	371June	
41	102	393	536	68	4	5	90	19	297	9	13	437July	
38	102	324	464	74	7	3	93	29	276	8	19	435August	
40	108	213	361	64	1	5	105	44	258	8	17	438September	
41	112	613	766	65	1	7	104	61	240	5	14	432October.	
100	131	450	681	90	5	5	123	38	256	11	26	464November	
Ill	112	423	646	81	3	8	142	32	231	9	16	441
Note: December release figures will not be available until 20 January, 1970.
Definitions-Voluntary- 4A-Voluntarily retired entitled to pension.
4B-Did not re-engage.
4C-Voluntary release-no pension entitlement.
Compulsory-1-Misconduct.
2-Unsatisfactory service.
5A-Compulsory retirement age.
5C-Completed service for which required. 5D-Unsuitable for further service.
5E-Irregular enrolment.
Other-Deaths and miscellaneous releases.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Broadbenl: 1. What federal government departments, Crown corporations and agencies have their head offices located outside the Ottawa-Hull area?
2. For each of the above departments, Crown corporations and agencies, what is the number of employees as of the last government fiscal year?
Return tabled.


FISHERIES AND FORESTRY RESEARCH STUDIES
Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1. For the fiscal years 1968-69 and 1969-70, what specific research studies have been undertaken by

January 14, 1970
Orders for Returns
the Economic Service Branch of the Department of Fisheries and Forestry?
2. Who are the individuals involved in these studies and when is it anticipated that these studies will be completed?
Return tabled.


ARRANGEMENTS FOR TRANSLATING DOCUMENTS
Mr. Benjamin: 1.	What arrangements are made for the translation of white papers, task force studies and Royal Commission Reports?
2.	Are they translated by the department in question or by a special group?
3.	If a special translation bureau exists, what is its manpower at present, and is it fully staffed?
4.	Can any approximate measure be given of the capabilities of this group in terms of output?
5.	How many pages are there in each and how many man-hours were required for the translation on Security (Public Version) (b) Report of Woods Task Force on Labour Relations (c) Report of Woods Task Force on Veterans' Affairs (d) Report of the Task Force on Sports (e) The White Paper on Veterans' Affairs (f) The White Paper on Indian Policy (g) The Task Force on Housing and Urban Development?
6.	What was the elapsed time required for the translation of each of the above? (i.e. How many days was the document in translator's hands?)
Return tabled.


STUDENT SUMMER EMPLOYMENT-EARLY RELEASE
Mr. Rose: 1.	How many students employed by the federal government during the past summer were released prior to their original understanding of their terms of employment?
2.	How were these students notified and how many days notice were given to these students?
Return tabled.


SUBSTITUTES FOR DDT
Mr. Nesbitt: 1.	Has the government any plans for lowering the cost of DDT substitutes to farmers and farm organizations and, if so, what are the details of such plans?
2.	How many suitable substitutes for DDT are available as insecticides?
3.	What are the names of these substitutes?
4.	Are these substitutes readily available in Canada?
5.	What are the costs per appropriate commercial unit for each of these substitutes?
6.	How does the cost of these substitutes compare with the present cost of DDT?
7.	Are any or all of the substitutes for DDT as effective as DDT for insecticide purposes if used in the same quantities as DDT?

8 If the answer to part 7 above, in whole or in part, is in the negative, what quantities of DDT substitutes must be used to produce the same satisfactory effect as DDT?
9. Are any substitutes for DDT effective against the corn ear worm and, if so, what is the name of the substitute or substitutes, and in what quantity as compared to DDT must such substitutes be used, and what is the comparative price of such substitute or substitutes as related to DDT?
Return tabled.


PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS, SOUTH WESTERN NOVA
Mr. Comeau: 1.	What projects have been carried out by the federal Department of Public Works in the present fiscal year in the Constituency of South Western Nova and what has been the cost of each project undertaken?
2.	How many projects will be undertaken in the Constituency of South Western Nova before the end of the present fiscal year that have not as yet been either started or completed and what is the estimated cost of each?
Return tabled.


GRAIN EXPORTS BY PORTS
Mr. Korchinski: What amounts of (a) wheat (b) other grains have been exported from each of the Canadian ports in the past three years to date?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 39, 56, 279 and 283 are acceptable to the government.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE INVOLVING INDIANS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 39-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the correspondence between the Prime Minister of Canada and the North American Indian Unity Conference regarding an investigation of the administration of justice by police and the courts involving Canadian Indians.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 56-Mr. Thomson:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the studies on the environmental effects of oil
January 14, 1970
[Stage Direction]
pollution in Canada by Professor R. E. Warner of Memorial University and sponsored by the Fisheries Board of Canada.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 279-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all available research studies undertaken by the Research Branch of the Department of Manpower and Immigration mentioned in answer to Question Number 1 as reported in Hansard of November 24, 1969.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 283-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of any descriptive material concerning the New Jersey guaranteed annual income plan obtained by officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare, as indicated on page 1260 of Hansard for November 26, 1969, and of any notes prepared on the basis of the conversations referred to on the same page.
Motion agreed to.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions Nos. 29, 160, 200, 210, 212, 230, 231, 255, 280 and 294?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.



SOCIAL WELFARE LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 29-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the Willard reports and reviews on social welfare legislation in Canada.
Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, motion No. 29 and motion No. 160, both in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), may most conveniently be dealt with together.
The report of the special committee referred to in motion 160 deals with costs and benefits involved in the whole of the social security system, including the issue of pensions of retired civil servants. The Willard Report, referred to in motion 29, deals with the entire field of social welfare. These
Motions for Papers
reports form the basis of reappraisals of government policy in their respective areas. As such, they are part of the internal function of government and their release is not in the public interest. In view of this perhaps the hon. member would agree to withdraw motions Nos. 29 and 160.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre);: First, Mr. Speaker, may I raise a point of order. 1 am not willing that the two be dealt with at the same time. I think Your Honour will see they are different matters. It so happens I am prepared to agree to the request that has been made in respect of one but not the other. I suggest they be called separately.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion called now is No. 29 which is the motion before the House.


James Edgar Walker: Is it agreed that motion No. 29 be withdrawn?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



RETIRED PUBLIC SERVANTS' PENSIONS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 160-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg
North Centre):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the report of the special committee on increasing the pensions of retired public servants referred to by the President of the Treasury Board in his speech on May 8, 1969, to the Canadian Pension Conference, and noted in Hansard on May 16, 1969, at page 8782.
James Edgar Walker: I have just read the answer to motion No. 160, and I wonder if the hon. member will agree to withdraw it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that it was within my rights to ask that these motions be dealt with separately. I was not willing to withdraw the other motion. In this case the announcement made on December 19 that something will be done about the pensions of retired civil servants is worth a million times more getting a copy of this report. Therefore I am happy to withdraw the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.

January 14, 1970
Motions for Papers



SUMMER JOBS FOR STUDENTS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 200-Mr. Broadbent:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the plan of the Special Task Force to study the question of summer jobs for students as stated by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration in his address to the Canadian Vocational Association on May 23, 1969.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion stands.



COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 210-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report by Strathmere Associates on a survey of community development projects in all ten provinces, the Northwest and Yukon Territories understaken in the fiscal year 1965-66 for the Privy Council Office, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the past Session.
James Edgar Walker: Again we have the problem of double motions, Nos. 210 and 212. The reports requested by motions Nos. 210 and 212 were intended for use-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I respectfully suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that perhaps it would be better if these motions were dealt with separately because at the present time there is only one motion before the House, motion No. 210. It does cause confusion when a reply is made on two motions when only one is before the House.


James Edgar Walker: I see my efforts to save time had the reverse effect. In connection with motion No. 210, the report requested by the motion was intended for use only by government officials and is not in a form suitable for other than internal use. The firms acted collectively as a staff extension of the special planning secretariat, supplying an expertise that was not available internally at that time. For these reasons, perhaps the hon. member will agree to withdraw motion No. 210.


Mr. Skoberg:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



INFORMATION MEDIA AND WAR ON POVERTY

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 212-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report by Heward, Newman and Associates and Julian, Hebert and Associates,
[Mr. Speaker.)
Montreal, regarding information media relative to the war on poverty updertaken in the year 1967-68, for the Privy Council Office, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the past Session.
James Edgar Walker: The report requested by motion No. 212 was intended for use only by government officials and is not in a form suitable for other than internal use. The firms acted collectively as a staff extension of the special planning secretariat, supplying an expertise that was not available internally at that time. For these reasons perhaps the hon. member will agree to withdraw motion No. 212.


John Leroy Skoberg: I would like to call for a vote on this motion.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



MANPOWER MOBILITY PROGRAM-STUDY OF THOSE RECEIVING GRANTS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 230-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report by Kates, Peat and Marwick, Company, a study of persons and families who have moved and received grants under the Manpower Mobility Program, undertaken for the Department of Manpower and Immigration, in the fiscal year 1967-68, as mentioned in Question Number 1,323 of the past Session.
Mr. Rosaire Gendron (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking for the copy of a report prepared for the department by a private firm of business consultants. The report deals with confidential matters of exclusive interest to the department and, consequently, I regret being unable to table them. I therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


John Leroy Skoberg: I call for a vote.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION-DESIGN OF MANAGEMENT-INFORMATION SYSTEM

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 231-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report by Operations Research
January 14, 1970
[Stage Direction]


Industries, a study and recommendation on the design of a management-information system supporting the departmental planning, programming and budgeting system, undertaken for the Department of Manpower and Immigration in the fiscal year 1967-68, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the past Session.
Rosaire Gendron: Mr. Speaker, for the same reasons the answer is the same.


John Leroy Skoberg: I call for a vote.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



REPORT ON UNIVERSITY RESEARCH LABORATORIES

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 255-Mrs. Maclnnis:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the Report of the findings of the survey team which, under the direction of Dr. H. C. Rowsell, inspected university research laboratories across the country earlier this year and made an assessment of the conditions surrounding the use of animals for experimental purposes.
Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare wishes to advise the hon. member that although the Canadian Council on Animal Care receives support from the National Research Council and the Medical Research Council, it is a totally independent body and is not in any sense an agency of the government. Furthermore, the report prepared by the Canadian Council on Animal Care is confidential.
For these reasons, my minister regrets that he is unable to produce the information requested and asks the hon. member to withdraw her motion.


Mrs. Maclnnis:: I am afraid I cannot agree that the taxpayers do not have the right to receive this report.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Transfer for debate.
Motions for Papers



PRICES AND INCOMES COMMISSION RESTRAINT GUIDELINES

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 280-Mr. Saltsman:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence, memoranda, etc., between the Prices and Incomes Commission and the Government of Canada in which the Commission suggested guide-lines for restraint that the federal government might follow referred to by the Prime Minister as reported in Hansard of November 25, 1969 on page 1201.
Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have been informed by the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission that exploratory consultations between the Prices and Incomes Commission and governments have been held on a confidential basis. The commission does not believe that it would be in the public interest to divulge the contents of any written material concerning these consultations at this time. In view of this I ask the hon. member to withdraw the motion.


Mr. Saltsman:: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion transferred for debate.



CONSUMER COUNCIL FUNCTIONS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 294-Mrs. Maclnnis:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence between the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and members of the Consumer Council of Canada regarding the functions of the Council, as mentioned by the Minister and reported in Hansard of December 3, 1969.
['The hon. member is only asking the question he already asked a moment ago and, to me, the supplementary is not acceptable.']
Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the correspondence which was exchanged between myself and the members of the Consumer Council of Canada regarding the functions of the council and which is mentioned in this motion is of a confidential nature and therefore it would not be in the public interest to release it.


Mr. Lewis:: Is the council a secret body?


Stanley Ronald Basford: No, it is not.


Donald MacInnis: In view of the fact that about half of the report has already been made public, I would now like to see the other half.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.

January 14, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD	Mr. Stanfield: I am attacking and I will

 continue to attack until the minister does
something.



George Harris Hees: Sock it to him.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in view of the fact that a request has been made to Nigeria with regard to Canairelief and Joint Church Aid transport and inasmuch I judge from his statement that no response was received by the government of Canada, whether he proposes to take any further steps with regard to this matter, or does he intend to sit by and await a response from the government of Nigeria?


Mitchell William Sharp: We have been in touch with the Nigerian authorities and we have made our offers of assistance known. We have made representations that food on Sao Tome should be made available as quickly as possible if this food is required by the Nigerian authorities. So far the results of the representations we have made and that have been made by other governments confirm what I have said earlier in the House, that it is very doubtful whether Canairelief and Joint Church Aid will be acceptable instruments for this purpose. The question of how the supplies can be moved is one on which we are awaiting word from the Nigerian authorities. We are ready to provide any assistance we can. I should add, however, that one of the real difficulties that we have is represented by the attitude taken by the Leader of the Opposition in the statement he made today. He represents the superior and condescending attitude that is taken by some with regard to the Nigerian authorities.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, if it gives the Secretary of State for External Affairs any relief in his predicament to attack me, that is all right.


Mitchell William Sharp: It is not I but you who are attacking.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether any consideration has been given, for example, to sending a personal message from the Prime Minister of this country or to flying a special representative of the Prime Minister directly to Lagos to bring home to the Nigerian government the very genuine concern of the people of this country in this matter?


Mitchell William Sharp: The Prime Minister is today sending a message to General Gowon on a number of subjects, including this subject.


George Harris Hees: By regular mail?


Mitchell William Sharp: And the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition toward these matters, whereby he is attempting to preach to the Nigerian government regarding their responsibilities, is not acceptable.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am sure-


Mr. Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: You
should take some lessons from Paul Martin. He is a good guy.


George Harris Hees: He sounded better, anyway.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs has to find some scapegoat for his failure. I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs, with all his claque behind him, whether, in view of the urgency of the situation, if there is no early response-and I mean a response in a matter of hours-from the government of Nigeria, he is giving any consideration to seeking the cooperation of the Secretary General of the United Nations, not from the point of view of imposing anything on the government of Nigeria but from the point of view of bringing home to that government the well-based concern about what may happen, and this not through any deliberate intent on the part of the government of Nigeria? Has the Secretary of State for External Affairs taken any initiative in this connection?
January 14, 1970


Francis Andrew Brewin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the deep concern of members of all parties in this House, will the Secretary of State for External Affairs undertake that as soon as any message is received from the Nigerian authorities, in response to the resolution passed unanimously by this House, he will convey it to the House just as quickly as possible?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I share the very deep concern of all members of the House and I undertake to see that any response is conveyed immediately to the House.


Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Can he tell the House whether the Canadian government intends to protest against the statement of the Secretary General of the United Nations who has condemned the secession of Biafra?


Mr. Laniel:: Mr. Speaker-


Bernard Dumont: If I may rephrase my question, Mr. Speaker, I believe the minister did not get it.
I would ask the minister to tell us if, in his opinion, the Secretary General of the United Nations can establish the boundaries of a country?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think that the question as asked should be allowed.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Roy-al: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of reports that the war zone has been closed to outsiders, has the minister assured himself that this interdiction does not apply to the observer force and, if he has not, will he do so soon?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I received the same message this morning about the closing of this area, and it is one of the problems I hope to be able to discuss with our High Commissioner and through him with the observers.


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Inquiries of the Ministry
In view of the difficulties relating to the use of available food and medical supplies, would the minister consider the suggestion that General Wrinch, a member of the special team sent to Lagos and national commissioner of the Red Cross, who is due to leave tonight at eight o'clock, be instructed to negotiate with the Nigerian government the accreditation of some international agency, such as the Red Cross for example, to take care of the transportation and distribution of food and medical supplies, given precisely the functions that he holds within the Red Cross?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the House will remember that in the first statement the government made on this subject we urged that all international efforts should be co-ordinated through the International Red Cross. I would hope that Canairelief and other organizations will now co-operate with that agency.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonl):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question related to the functions of the observer team. In view of the fact, as the minister himself indicated yesterday, that the nature of the situation has changed with respect to the observers, in view of the importance of having direct and accurate information from the area, and also in view of his remarks today with respect to information coming primarily from the military, has the minister taken steps, in concert with those countries that are contributing to the observer team, to request the government of Nigeria to allow the observer team to look at the relief and refugee question now as well as the question of genocide and atrocities?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We have opened discussions with the Nigerian government. General Gowon, I am informed, is looking sympathetically at the whole problem, and I hope he will give a favourable answer.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the urgency of the problem, will the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Prime Minister consider sending a special representative to Lagos immediately to help clarify the situation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yesterday I announced the sending of four people to Nigeria and I think that the quality of these people is quite sufficient for the purpose. In particular, I think it is valuable that General Wrinch, who is the head of the Canadian Red Cross, should be there to give an impartial and objective view.

January 14, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


Mr, Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: I would like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
On Monday, January 12 th, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs the following question:
Has the minister had any assurance that General Gowon will agree to relief from outside?
The minister answered and I quote:
Not yet. Reports have been coming from representatives of the Nigerian government which seem to point to that conclusion.
I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he is willing to produce copies of the reports pointing to acceptance of outside relief by the Nigerian government?


Mitchell William Sharp: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am very hopeful, contrary to the view of the Leader of the Opposition, that the government of Nigeria will accept international aid. It is a matter only of the form.


Mr. Fortin:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I would like to remind the Secretary of State for External Affairs that I am not the leader of the opposition but the member for Lotbiniere and that I am the one who asked the question.
The minister said that he had received reports that gave him to understand that Nigeria would accept outside aid. Is he in a position to give hon. members copies of the reports that gave him to understand, at that time, that Nigeria would accept aid from outside?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is only asking the question he already asked a moment ago and, to me, the supplementary is not acceptable.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport regarding the decision of the Canadian Transport Commission to allow the takeover of Canadian Coachways Limited by Greyhound Lines of Canada, which is a subsidiary of Greyhound

Corporation of Chicago. Would he look into this application by Greyhound and the decision of the Transport Commission to allow it, and would he say whether or not he intends to use his powers under the act to recommend to the Governor in Council the disallowance of this takeover?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, to this moment the Canadian Transport Commission has been going through regular processes. I have asked for a copy of the decision, and I will consider it and the representations that have been made by the hon. member.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister if he has read or if he will read the transcript of representations of those who have intervened, who claim that Canadian Coachways Limited is the third largest line in Canada and that its elimination will lead to a lack of competition and be prejudicial to the public interest? Would the minister undertake to look into the representations of those who intervened before he makes a final decision?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will read the entire transcript.



INFLATION-MEASURES TO COMBAT INCREASE IN CONSUMER PRICE INDEX

George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. As the consumer price index, which as we know indicates the cost of living, has risen by a further four-tenths of one per cent during the month of December, or at an annual rate of increase of 5 per cent a year, indicating that the increase in the cost of living and inflation have not slowed down at all-


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


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker. My question is: Would the government, in view of these facts, agree to give consideration to adopting the positive measures for controlling inflation which were presented to the government in the House by the Official Opposition on December 15 last, inasmuch as the government's policies for controlling inflation have proven to be complete failures?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: would love to answer the hon. member.
January 14. 1970


George Harris Hees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister rose exactly at the moment I sat down. Could he be given a chance to answer this important question?


Mr. Speaker:: I realize that the question asked by the hon. member is important, but I respectfully suggest to him it was not quite a question he posed but perhaps a statement he made. This being so, I did not feel the hon. member should be allowed to ask a question in that way. If the hon. member would kindly ask a question in the proper way, of course it would be allowed.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am more than happy to abide by Your Honour's ruling-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: -because the government obviously, has no policies or suggestions to offer for controlling inflation in this country.


Edgar John Benson: Neither has the opposition.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I think I am safe in directing a question to the Minister of Justice about the hate bill because it does not apply to members of the House of Commons or even to the Secretary of State for External Affairs who made an improper attack on the Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Since the Drybones case was decided by the Supreme Court of Canada after the hate bill received second reading, would the minister secure the opinion of the law officers of the Crown on whether the hate bill contravenes the Bill of Rights?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minisier of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the bill was drafted by the law officers of the Crown and in accordance with the usual practice they would, as they are bound to do, have cleared the matter so far as the Canadian Bill of Rights was concerned. However, I would not think that the Dry-bones case would have had any bearing on that situation.


John George Diefenbaker: The bill was drafted before the case was heard. Will the minister
Inquiries of the Ministry secure the opinion of the law officers of the Crown regarding what apparently is a direct contravention of the Bill of Rights?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept the preamble but I will accept the right hon. gentleman's suggestion.



INFORMATION


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of his undertaking, given before the House adjourned for the Christmas recess, that he would make a statement to the House either before the Christmas recess or immediately after on government policy relating to Information Canada. He has not yet done so. When may we expect such statement?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for reminding me. I have reminded myself and my staff about this matter several times in the last few days.


An hon. Member:: Get some more staff.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, I must get some more staff. I hope to be able to live up to that declaration and make a statement soon.


David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the Prime Minister requires more staff in the Privy Council office before he can make that statement, I would sooner he did not make it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member cannot make a statement. He must ask a question.


David Lewis: I merely wanted to preserve the austerity program, Mr. Speaker. Will the Prime Minister say whether there is already existing and operating an Information Canada staff, with an office? If so, are the staff in that office concerned about planning the future of Information Canada, or is it already acting as an information centre?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there are a very small number of officials who are perhaps calling themselves "Information Canada", but they are not actually Information Canada because the government has not yet taken a policy decision on the matter. This small

January 14, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry number of officials is working on the precise statement that I hope to make in the very near future.


David Lewis: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Inasmuch as the Prime Minister has just said that the government has not taken a policy decision on the matter, will he explain to the House by what right this small group of officials calls itself "Information Canada", as appears on the door of their office? They are acting as the centre for information even now.


Mr. Baldwin:: Especially for a government which gives no information.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There's the answer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: You admit it.


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


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to take too much of the time of the House. Like most other members, I prefer the Prime Minister when he is in a mood of humour rather than in a mood of scholastic obfuscation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I remind hon. members that more than half the question period has already elapsed and we should get on with our business as quickly as possible.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the matter is serious. I have asked the Prime Minister whether there is an office called "Information Canada." As a member of the House I am entitled to receive an answer from the Prime Minister instead of seeing him give a flippant turn of the hand toward a member of the opposition.



POLLUTION


Mr. Gerald Richard Cobbe (Portage):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to put to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Can your department stop, now, the mercury poisoning from entering Manitoba and destroying our fishing industry?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member knows he must address his question

to the Chair. I do not think the question has been asked in an appropriate way and I doubt that it is in order. Perhaps the hon. member may wish to give advice about the matter to the Chair so that it may be considered at the time of adjournment.


Mr. Jerry Pringle (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. Has the source of the mercury pollution on the prairies been located and identified?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Our fisheries task force on the prairies has visited the plant of the Interprovincial Cooperative just downstream from Saskatoon and is now of the opinion that this Chlor Alkali plant is the principal, if not the only, source of mercury pollution on the prairies. I should like to add that all the fish which were contaminated in any way are being paid for by the Freshwater Fish Corporation and destroyed.


Gerald Richard Cobbe: Will the fishermen suffer by having deducted from their final payments the amount of money spent on destroying these fish?


John (Jack) Davis: The fishermen are being paid what would have been the going market price had the pollution not occurred.



AIR TRANSPORT


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and arises from the application of Transair to discontinue class 1 air service into western Manitoba. Will the minister give assurances that a regional air policy will be implemented that will be in harmony with the government's regional development program and adequately meet the growing air transport needs of the prairie region?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that the hon. member is asking for a policy statement which ought to be made on motions.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, may I rephrase the question. The matter is of great urgency because of the imminence of the decision. Will present services be continued until such time as a regional policy is implemented?
January 14, 1970


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the regional policy is in operation at the present time. Regarding the matter of specific concern to the hon. member, discussions are going on today between the airlines that are involved. I believe the hon. member who asked the question has received reports directly, at my request, from the Canadian Transport Commission. I believe that the ultimate solution now being discussed with the CTC will be entirely satisfactory to the hon. member and those he represents.



PENSIONS


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the very welcome announcement of December 19 that the pensions of federal superannuates are to be increased in April, will the minister discuss with the officials of the Canadian National Railways the possibility of the same thing being done with respect to CNR pensions, also in April of this year?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to do that. I understand that the matter of pensions of retired CNR employees is one that will be considered by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport and Communications and officials of CNR in the near future. I will be glad to ask those in the House who will be party to that consideration to speed up consultations.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Does the government intend to reallocate overseas air routes between Canadian Pacific Airlines and Air Canada in the near future?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, Mr. Speaker.



BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM


Mr. Patrick J. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the
Inquiries of the Ministry Prime Minister. It is succinct and in three parts, and I ask it that way for purposes of clarity and to avoid the necessity of supplementary questions. In light of the third report of the B and B Commission, has the government decided that it is necessary to review its policy with regard to bilingualism? If so, has it, and when will the Prime Minister make a statement?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, no, and never, Mr. Speaker.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In his absence perhaps I could direct it to his Parliamentary Secretary or the acting minister. In view of the fact that the cost of domiciliary care at Deer Lodge Hospital in Winnipeg has been raised to $300 a month from $120, an increase of 150 per cent, effective January 1, 1970, will the minister explain to the House why such a great increase was felt necessary?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question should be placed on the Order Paper.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. It arises out of his statement yesterday and particularly the government's attitude to proposals to raise prices between now and March 1. Does the minister see any connection between this policy, the announced intention of the Toronto Star to raise the price of its weekend edition from 15 cents to 20 cents or 33J per cent, effective next Saturday, and the editorial page headline in Monday's Star, "Pierre Trudeau's inhuman campaign to halt inflation"?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. What kind of a settlement is the minister recommending in regard to actions commenced in the Exchequer Court by members of the Public Service respecting their long-awaited retroactive pay cheques?

January 14, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Napier Turner: Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member will External Affairs): I will take the question as appreciate that the actions he refers to are notice, Mr. Speaker. I would like to give a before the courts and in accordance with the completely accurate reply to such an impor-usual practice I should not comment on them. tant question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Are the minister or officials in his department negotiating a settlement of these actions regarding retroactive salary increases that should have been paid and have not been because of the ineptness of the President of the Treasury Board?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



BIOLOGY


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries. Was Dr. Peter Larkin, Director of the Federal Fisheries Institute in Vancouver, stating government or departmental policy when he said that federal legislation should be adopted to ensure that new chemicals are not used until their ecological consequences have been researched adequately?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member will appreciate that the question as asked is not in order.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister inform the House whether it is a fact that the cost of the military observers operating in Nigeria is being paid by the Nigerian government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order,	please.	The	hon.
member cannot ask the minister to confirm or deny a statement.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order,	please.	The	hon.
member cannot ask a question supplementary to one which is not in order. Perhaps he could ask a new question.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I will rephrase the question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister in a position to inform the House who is paying the cost of military observers in Nigeria?
(Mr. Woolliams.]


Mr. Percy V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Owing to the concern of our society about the health problems being created by the adulteration and contamination of food, will the minister assist in the process of eliminating this contamination by banning the use of di-ethylstilbestrol in the production of meat?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the impression that this is a rather technical question, and I am not sure to what extent it is urgent. If it is urgent, the minister will have recognized that fact and might want to reply.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Food and Drug Directorate is looking into the very matter to which the hon. member is referring. I hope to be able to give a more definitive answer later.


Percy Verner Noble: This material has already been banned in the poultry industry and I am wondering why there is an inconsistency in the policy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The supplementary question is argumentative.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. As a result of the great inconvenience caused employees and the travelling public by Canadian National Railways in the Atlantic region as a result of rescheduling trains and also changes in work methods, which I am informed will cause still further lay-offs, will the minister ask the vice-president, Mr. MacDougall, and other top-level officials to meet with representatives at Sydney, where the effects of this rescheduling will be most serious?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I will be glad to convey that
January 14, 1970

representation to the representatives of the CNR, who have usually co-operated with me in complying with such requests.


Robert Muir: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In the minister's promised conversation with Mr. MacDougall and other officials, will he ascertain whether it is the continuing policy of the CNR to discourage the public from using trains?



JUVENILE DELINQUENTS ACT


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. Have the minister and his officials completed negotiations with the Attorneys General of the provinces with regard to amendments to the Juvenile Delinquents Act, and is it his intention to bring forth legislation in the near future?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is no, and the answer to the second part is yes.



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Now that the Treasury Board has approved the pension paid to coal miners formerly employed by Dosco, will this pension be made retroactive to the date on which Devco took over from Dosco?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the
agreement took place between Devco and the miners' union and we will simply abide by it. We are not prepared to negotiate the miners' working conditions with the hon. member.


Donald MacInnis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister reviewed the legislation setting up Devco which was passed by this House and makes the payment of this pension mandatory? Has he ascertained from
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Blackmore why this was a negotiated part of the contract and whether he intends to use the contract as a threat to carry the one that has just been put over?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, it
seems to me that the miners are very well represented by their union which discharges its obligations properly.


Donald MacInnis: A further supplementary,
Mr. Speaker. I again ask the minister responsible to explain how something that was made mandatory by legislation passed by this House can become part of a negotiation, when these men are not even employed at the present time.


Jean Marchand: That is your opinion.



POLLUTION


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the absence of a statement on government policy regarding the Brussels conference on oil pollution of the high seas, and in view of the debate which is to take place shortly on second reading of the Canada Water Act, is the minister prepared to make known to members of the House Canada's position at that conference?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. While I am on my feet I should explain that I have received a detailed report from our ambassador, who was the head of our delegation. I will look it over. I do not see any reason why it should not be made available to the committee. I wiil certainly do so unless there is some restriction. I also hope to make a statement.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In view of the considerable increase in unemployment in industrial areas of Ontario and Quebec, will the minister bring forth as soon as possible long-awaited, appropriate amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act in order to clear up many of the difficulties in

January 14, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry obtaining unemployment insurance experienced by those presently becoming unemployed?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion is useful. Happily, it does not require legislation but perhaps more efficiency on the part of the administration. I am pleased to say that despite the fact that more and more people are applying for unemployment insurance, we are able, with rare exceptions, to process their claims more efficiently than ever before.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that contractors who have claims against Canadian National Railways have recommended the appointment of Mr. Justice Samuel Freedman to head a one-man inquiry, will the minister say when he is prepared to accept the report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications recommending this one-man inquiry?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: As soon as I get the letter which reached the hon. member before it did me.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the minister ask the government of Nigeria whether Canada can make available volunteer medical doctors and nurses?


Mitchell William Sharp: As the House knows, one of its distinguished members went to Nigeria yesterday on just such a mission. I would encourage all voluntary agencies to work with their counterparts in Nigeria, because I think these voluntary workers would be welcome.


Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: I wish to direct a question to the
[Mr. Nesbitt.J
Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. Has the recently appointed co-ordinator of grain movement through the port of Vancouver been given the power to resolve fundamental conflicts in this area of transportation?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: This question should more properly have been directed to the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon, but I will undertake to bring it to his attention.


Richard Russell Southam: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would direct this question to him also. Is it the policy of the government that in situations where fundamental conflicts cannot be resolved between the participants the government should give the co-ordinator power to impose an arbitrated solution?



POLLUTION


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darimoulh-Halifax Easi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Transport whether his departmental officials have discovered the source of the most recent, serious oil pollution in Halifax harbour. If so, what remedial action is being taken, and is consideration being given to the payment of compensation?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take that question as notice. I shall try to answer it as soon as possible.



SCIENCE SERVICES


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. On December 19 I asked whether he would make a statement regarding government policy for the rationalization of the Research Councils and he said he would do so in the new year. I am wondering whether we can expect action soon.


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



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: have a question for the Minister of Transport.
January 14, 1970

Mr. Speaker. Having regard to the completely unsuitable and costly passenger air transport system now serving the West Kootenays, which was forced upon us last June by the Canadian Transport Commission, will the minister personally look into the matter and try to resolve the problems which have been upsetting this whole area?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has made a representation and he must assume the minister will take it into account.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolieite):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Referring to an answer that he gave some time ago according to which he was to meet with the leaders of the opposition parties about a debate to be held on constitutional matters, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he did meet with the leaders of the parties and whether he can still assure us that this debate is going to take place during the present session?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I shall answer yes to the last part of the question. As the hon. member said, it ought to have taken place before the Christmas recess but the leaders of the parties represented in the House agreed to postpone it. I think that other negotiations will take place with the leaders of the opposition parties in order to set the date.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-Sl. George's-Si.
Bar be): My question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister indicate when he expects an agreement to be signed between the province of Newfoundland and the federal government in connection with handing over the land necessary to establish the proposed national park at Bonne Bay?
Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I met the minister responsible for the implementation of this project in New-
Canada Corporations Act foundland in December. Progress has been made as regards negotiations but I cannot say at this time when an agreement can be signed.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: I direct this question to the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. Since a spokesman for the CNR announced yesterday that a new series of tests on the turbine-powered train is beginning, and since the modification program will increase the cost orginally estimated by several million dollars, will the minister assure the House that these additional costs will be borne by the prime contractor and not by the railway?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question should be placed on the Order Paper.



NATIONAL REVENUE


Mr. Rod Thomson (Ballleford-Kindersley):: have a question for the Minister of National Revenue, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister received representations from farmers who applied for the 11 per cent sales tax refund on grain storage but were refused because it had been paid to the manufacturers of the storage equipment? If so, is he considering taking any action?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister of National Revenue):: I do not recall having received such representations, Mr. Speaker, but I will look into it.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, January 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. Basford that Bill C-4, to amend the Canada Corporations Act and other statutory provisions related to the subject matter of certain of those amendments, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
[Stage Direction]
January 14, 1970
Canada Corporations Act
John Gilbert: You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that last night I was finding difficulty in giving an appropriate name to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford). During the debate on this bill earlier I called him the shadow-boxing champion of Canada. I thought this was an appropriate name at the time. But he has been making a great deal of noise with regard to consumer prices, and some people want to change the title of his ministry to the ministry of high prices. It seems to me he is making so much noise with regard to high prices that he should really be called a tinpot dictator. He is making a great deal of noise, but when it comes to action it is simply ineffective action.
I heard the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) talk yesterday about the results he had achieved in combating inflation in cooperation with the corporations, about the tenderness and kindness of the copper companies in agreeing to withhold price increases until March 1. He also told us that the banks had agreed not to increase their rate of interest on mortgage loans. Taking into account the fact that the copper companies had benefited from a 26 per cent increase before attempting to make the last increase, I must conclude that the minister is a man who makes a great noise but is capable only of ineffective action.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
Bill C-4 is an 83-page bill which proposes to deal with 17,500 federal companies, of which 2,350 are public corporations. In introducing the bill the minister said that the bill would tend to modernize the laws governing financial statements, insider trading, takeover bids, proxy solicitation, inspection and investigation, and would otherwise conform with the standards and practices of other jurisdictions. Second, the bill would require the filing of financial statements each year by private companies of economic significance, defined as companies with either assets or gross annual revenue greater than $3 million. The bill would also require companies conducting more than one class of business to disclose the volume and profitability of each class.
This measure is designed to shed new light on conglomerates, but due to its complexity it will not be proclaimed for some time. In his eloquent and persuasive opening, the minister said that the bill had been brought forward to meet the recommendations of the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of

Commons on Consumer Credit, and that it was the first legislative step taken as a result of the disclosure recommendations of the Watkins inquiry into foreign ownership and the structure of Canadian industry.
Reviewing the bill, it seems to me that these measures are an attempt to block sophisticated financial fleecing of shareholders, thereby giving them some protection against white-collar fraud and malpractice. This bill gives no protection to Canadian financial independence and Canadian sovereignty, and certainly offers no protection against foreign domination.
Our business structure has moved a great distance, from sole proprietorships and individual entrepreneurs to the complex industrial and corporate society that we have today. Most people are confused and bewildered by this complexity. When one speaks of mergers, conglomerates, horizontal integration, vertical integration, insider trading and proxy voting, most Canadians are left far behind in understanding the meaning and application of these terms within our society.
Our society has had within it the growth of a corporate elite that exercises an economic power far greater than any political power that is exercised by the government. This is why it is very important that we be protected. The government has a first responsibility to require corporations not to act to the detriment of society, to make them respond to our national independence and sovereignty, as well as to fulfil the consumer needs of all Canadians to the best possible advantage.
Bill C-4 does not attain these goals. We would be greatly impressed had the government brought forward legislation setting up a Canadian Development Corporation. I say that because it is necessary to assemble the savings of Canadians and to direct their investment into social needs and requirements; it is also necessary to help rationalize our industries and to make them more competitive in world markets. Canadians are excellent savers; the record has indicated that. Yet they are finding difficulty investing in Canadian equities, and Canadian manufacturers are losing ground in the field of research and development. In some instances Canadians are experiencing employment difficulties as a result of foreign takeovers.
There is a myth that we in Canada are dependent upon foreign capital to continue our economic growth, and this myth is having serious consequences. Sixty five per cent of Canada's economy is now owned by foreign
January 14, 1970

companies and that percentage is rapidly increasing. No halt has been called by the government, and one suspects there has been encouragement in certain instances.
Statements made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) have alarmed many Canadians. He appears to want to negotiate away our energy resources of oil, water and electricity without informing the Canadian people about our inventory of these resources, our present and future needs and what price or trade-off he is prepared to accept with regard to these very valuable resources.
Canadians should be aware that Canada is a greater exporter of investment capital to the United States than the United States has been to Canada. Canadians should realize that 15 per cent of U.S. foreign expansion and growth in Canada during the last ten years has been financed by new U.S. capital, and that 85 per cent of the capital has been generated from profits derived in Canada.
I cannot help but recall an experience I had last year when I boarded a plane from Ottawa and found myself beside a businessman, a complete stranger to me, who told me he operated a small manufacturing concern. He had been to his bank to ask for a loan of $50,000 for the purpose of expanding his business. His "friendly" bank manager said he could not lend him the money because of the tight money policy of his bank and of the government.
A week later he was invited to lunch by his bank manager, who informed him that he had had a meeting with the representatives of a United States company who wanted to purchase this man's business, and that the bank was prepared to finance the purchase. So here we have a Canadian bank that was not prepared to lend a Canadian businessman $50,000 so he could expand his business, yet wants this Canadian businessman to sell his business to a U.S. company on the assurance that the bank would stand behind the purchase.
Canadians should realize that foreign investment in Canada has, according to the Watkins report, reached $27 billion book value. The book value of shares is usually rated below market level, and if a market value were placed on the shares it has been stated that the shares would be worth between $55 million and $60 billion. Consequently, it would be impossible to use the Gordon technique of buying back Canada; it cannot be done. But we must find ways and
Canada Corporations Act means of restraining the intrusion or invasion of foreign capital into Canadian business.
When I heard the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) say last night that he approved of the millions of dollars that had been invested in Canada by our U.S. friends, and his opening assertion that he would rather see western Canada a colony of the United States than a colony of central Canada, I-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member is a reasonable person; he, like I, is a member of the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee. When I heard him make that statement last night I went and read my speech, and I challenge him to show me on Hansard where I made that statement. What I did say is recorded in Hansard. I was talking about U.S. investment in western Canada.
I have no intention of withdrawing anything that I said, but if the hon. member is going to quote me, let him at least use my words rather than putting words in my mouth. I know he has always been a fair member, but I have noticed that whenever these pseudo-socialists or Liberals get hit, as I hit them last night on the subject of unions, or whenever they are hit on economic matters, they just cannot take it; they try to misconstrue or misrepresent the facts.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I have not had an opportunity to read the speech that the hon. member made last night.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is obvious.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


John Gilbert: I was certain that he prefaced his remarks by saying he would rather western Canada were a colony of the United States than a colony of central Canada.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise again on a question of privilege. How can the hon. member make such a statement when he says he did not read and has no knowledge of what I said? What manner of nonsense is that?


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege and pleasure of listening to the hon. member last night.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You had better check the record.


John Gilbert: Then the hon. member quoted the Toronto Daily Star and the Telegram in

January 14, 1970
Canada Corporations Act relation to the millions of dollars invested in United States Companies operating in Canada. It seemed to me he was suggesting that Canada should become the 51st state of the United States. Surely, this is not what Canadians want.
Surely, Canadians want to retain our economic freedom, culture, sovereignty and political freedom. It has been said many times that once the economic freedom of a country is in the hands of another country, political freedom is lost shortly thereafter. We in Canada must export to survive. With the intrusion of foreign companies into Canada we have become a branch-plant economy, which does ensure our economic freedom. The intention of branch-plant companies is to serve the domestic market, not world markets.
I recall representatives appearing before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs in respect of the Kennedy Round. We had representatives of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and the president of Electrohome. He told us a story which I think is worth repeating. He said we had nine television manufacturers in Canada, seven being American firms and two being Canadian. He mentioned that the two Canadian firms were Electrohome, of which he is the president, and Clairtone, which has had limited success in Canada.
Without the help of the government of Nova Scotia the latter firm might have had serious difficulties. As a matter of fact, it is facing serious difficulties now. This project was an attempt by the government of Nova Scotia to invite United States firms to invest in eastern North America in order to provide more employment in that area. The president of Electrohome said that many people had suggested we should not complain about our position because we have in Canada a population of 20 million compared with a population of 200 million in the United States, and that this provides a vast opportunity for Canadian exporters.
He suggested that this situation reminded one of the father who bought his son a big dog. The son looked up at the dog and said, "Dad, is the dog for me, or am I for the dog?" He was attempting to illustrate that for Canadian manufacturers to intrude into United States markets is almost impossible. He suggested that the service requirements which agencies must meet and the response of United States T.V. representatives make it impossible for Canadian companies to com-

pete. He added that we are in a very disadvantageous position in respect of the development of our television and radio industries because of the vast financial and other resources of our United States friends. This makes it very difficult for small Canadian firms to compete. We find one of the two remaining T.V. firms in Canada trying to compete with United States firms which have set up branch offices in Canada, not to create markets for export but just to service the market here.
Representatives of the chemical industry appeared before the same standing committee. One of those representatives said that when an order is placed for a chemical, multinational corporations place the order in a computer which arrives at a price for labour, a price for materials, a price for transportation and a price for insurance. The computer then gives an answer in respect of which country can make the product at the lowest price. In other words, no consideration is given to developing Canadian markets as far as the chemical manufacturers are concerned.
These are some of the problems which small Canadian manufacturers face in respect of the growth and development of the Canadian economy. We should realize that we have no control over the automotive industry. As a matter of fact, this government encouraged the making of an auto pact with the United States. The result has been a lack of opportunity to compete in this industry. I was disappointed to learn that Canadians must depend upon United States know-how in the field of manufacturing, sales and promotion in the automotive field, particularly when small countries such as Sweden, France, Italy and Japan have developed their own automotive industries. We are at the mercy of our United States friends in this field.
If some of our Liberal friends on the other side had their way, we would have complete integration of United States and Canadian societies, not only in respect of the auto pact but in other areas. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has conducted with his United States counterpart negotiations regarding energy resources. I do not like this trend and I am sure many Canadians feel the same way. We should think of the significant control we have in the oil, rubber and chemical industries and the fact that at the moment our oil fields operate at only 35 per cent capacity. We are net importers of oil. This situation is not good. Let me hasten to add that we do not object to the co-operation of
January 14, 1970

our foreign friends in the development of this country, but we certainly do not want the integration which is beginning to take place.
The hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) seemed to express cynicism yesterday with regard to corporate entity. He said that some of the disclosure provisions of this bill were not necessary, and that the main purpose of a corporate entity was to make money rather than to satisfy the social and economic needs of Canadians. He has had experience in this field. I should think he would shudder at the trend that is developing in respect of the integration of our economy with that of another country. I have in mind integration of a nature which includes control and decisionmaking, rather than investment of equity capital.
The sophisticated measures adopted by corporations make it very difficult to trace or determine ownership. The leader of our party has set forth measures which should be taken by the government to protect Canadian industry. First he referred to takeovers. He talked about supervision of takeovers and determining whether they are in the best interests of Canadians. He also referred to a state trading agency to promote exports. We all recall the sad experience in respect of exporting trucks to China and wheat and flour to other countries.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
We realize that many United States branch-plant firms are contravening their own Trading with the Enemy Act. This should not be so. According to the Watkins recommendation, the establishment of a state trading agency would help solve this problem. I should like to see amendments to the Combines Investigation Act. When I read the report in the Globe and Mail yesterday or the day before about the $40,000 fine imposed on ERCO, I realized that the imposition of a fine on these companies is not sufficient because of their great financial strength; a $40,000 fine does little or nothing to prohibit their activities in Canada. The New Democratic Party has also suggested there should be a floating exchange rate, which would give Canada more flexibility in respect of foreign exchange and foreign reserves.
I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by reminding you of the great Canadian song, "This land is your land, this land is my land, from Bona-vista to Vancouver Island". I would prefer that we continue to sing this song rather than have the Americans sing that our land is
Canada Corporations Act their land, from the Arctic waters to the tip of Texas. Unless we have a government which takes immediate steps to implement some of the stronger recommendations of the Watkins report and some of the suggestions the leader of our party has made, I am afraid I will have to join in the song with the Americans that our land is their land, from the Arctic waters to the tip of Texas.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, when Bill C-4, to amend the Canada Corporations Act, was before the House on December 10 I did not have the opportunity to speak. Therefore, I appreciate this opportunity to make a few brief remarks. There has been a great free-wheeling debate on this subject. We have heard all about how to be good corporate citizens. We have heard about the control of our economy, the flow of United States capital, United States takeovers and many other subjects. I should like to confine my remarks under two headings; the first would include some of the practical applications and practical problems which will be involved if these amendments are instituted, and the second would include some of the principles involved in legislation of this type.
I say at the outset that so far as this legislation contributes to the protection of investors, creditors and the public generally, it has my support. However, I believe attention should be paid to the matters under the two headings which I have mentioned. Corporate businesses and the owners of big companies have been looked upon as the big, bad boys who cause all the trouble in this country. Let me remind the people who say these things that these companies provide jobs and make a useful contribution to the economy of our country. I do not think we should introduce legislation which would make it more difficult for large corporations to operate.
I turn to the heading of practical problems. Under this piece of legislation we are asking the companies to do more bookeeping and maintain more records. These are the firms which now collect Canada Pension Plan contributions, Unemployment Insurance contributions and money from the sale of Canada Savings Bonds. They also collect federal and provincial sales taxes. They do a great deal of the bookkeeping for the government. Now the minister would ask them to do even more; he would have them file more returns and perform additional functions for which there is no return or compensation.

January 14, 1970
Canada Corporations Act
Members on all sides of the House very often receive representations from companies who say that they are working overtime in order to provide statistics for the government and to fill government flies. They say they are continually being asked to file too many statistics. They find themselves working longer hours in order to provide this data. I believe it can be said that government curiosity quite often leads to government interference. This legislation will also mean an increase in the number of civil servants.
Many other practical problems will arise should this legislation come into force. I believe there should be unification in respect of legislation. The minister is asking for reports from corporate companies. We find that already our provincial governments have enacted legislation asking for similar information. Regrettably, however, the information asked for is not always the same. The requirements in respect of disclosure apply to many corporations governed by the Canada Corporations Act. In order to avoid confusion on the part of shareholders and the investing public in general, maintain administrative efficiency and avoid multiplicity and duplication of costly returns, I think the minister would be wise not to bring into force these particular amendments until the legislation respecting disclosure is uniform throughout Canada.
The provisions in clause 16 relating to section 120A of the act should not be proceeded with until similar provisions are in effect in all provinces and in respect of all companies doing business in any part of the western world; otherwise, a company falling under federal legislation would be placed in a most disadvantageous position vis-a-vis its competitors. If these companies were required to give such information, their foreign competitors would know a great deal about their business and there would be a tendency toward more takeovers of Canadian companies than has been the case in the past. These are some of the observations under the heading of practical problems as I see them.
There is also a principle involved here. I think this policy involves an invasion of privacy. I do not think the information being asked for is necessary in all cases. I realize the minister said that this provision would be applicable only with respect to companies with sales or assets in the amount of $3 million or over, but is there any guarantee that it will not be amended later to reduce the figure to $2 million and then to $1 million?

Is there any guarantee that in time the government will not choose to have the affairs of Joe Smith Limited published, and will later suggest the same thing for plain Joe Smith? In respect of private companies or businesses owned by members of a family or by an individual, where there is no prospect of extending share ownership to others, I suggest that if the act is amended to require this type of information to be filed it will constitute a gross invasion of privacy which in no way serves the public good. When the committee studies the bill it should look into this matter very thoroughly.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
This bill contains some drastic amendments. It must not be taken too lightly and skipped over. I hope that when it comes before the committee, many of these companies and corporations will appear before it and prove to the minister and the committee that some of the amendments are too drastic and are not in the best interests of ouf country.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, when the government house leader was speaking on the radio the other evening he said that it was the business of the government to bring forward legislation, and of the opposition to criticize and pass it. However, the government house leader left out the fact that if the government did not bring forward the legislation which seemed to the opposition to be important and of top priority, the opposition must speak about the legislation that should have been introduced and was not.
I think that perhaps the reason for a good many of the speeches on this bill on our side is that we feel that the type of thoroughgoing and strong legislation that should be introduced by the government in this session, dealing with problems affecting consumers, has not been introduced. Consequently, we have to deal with measures which are inadequate, and with the government's sins of omission rather than their sins of commission. Of course, we get a swipe at the sins of commission in passing, but their sins of omission are much greater.
I think when this legislation first appeared it came as a great shock to many people across our country to learn that under the Canada Corporations Act the only federally-incorporated companies required to file financial statements with the department are
January 14, 1970

public companies, those with at least 50 shareholders, offering shares to the public and placing no restrictions on the transfer of shares. I think that a great many people were astounded to learn that Canada was so far behind in this type of legislation.
Many people were shocked to learn that no Canadian government, before the passage of this legislation, had required private companies, no matter how large or influential, to file financial statements with the department. We welcome this legislation in so far as it will require all public and private companies with assets or gross annual revenue in excess of $3 million to file annual statements with the department.
Had this legislation been introduced half a century ago or even a quarter of a century ago, it might have been hailed with real enthusiasm by those who are concerned with protecting the consumer's interest. But this is not 1920 nor 1945. In view of the tremendous growth of corporate power, this legislation falls far short of what is required to protect the Canadian public and now it is largely irrelevant. It is all right so far as it goes, but it gives us an inch when we require miles. Consequently we have to point out what is needed and what should be done by the department at this time.
The reason that this legislation falls far short of what is needed-I do not intend to go into its good points because they have been outlined by various people-and has shortcomings is the rate at which the economy of this country has become the happy hunting-ground for large corporations and particularly huge, foreign firms with branch-plants in Canada.
I need only review very briefly what was put on the record yesterday by the leader of this party when he mentioned the latest release in response to a question asked by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman). He mentioned the acquisition of Canadian businesses by foreign corporations as reported annually by the Director of Investigation and Research under the Combines Investigation Act. In 1963 there were 35 takeovers of Canadian companies; in 1964 the number rose to 87; in 1965, 74; in 1966, 74; in 1967, 79; in 1968 there was a great jump to 155, and in 1969, there were 102 takeovers. It does not take great imagination, after watching the press these days, to see that the figure will jump up again.
While I am dealing with this matter I would like to finish setting the record
Canada Corporations Act straight. Whenever the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) is referred to, he seems to be out of the chamber. I will not run the risk of failing to set the record straight and will do so even in his absence. Here is exactly what he said, as reported in Hansard. Perhaps he will realize that the ears of my colleague, the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), were not at fault when he heard the following statement yesterday, as recorded at page 2339 of Hansard. The hon. member for Calgary North said:
At this time when the NDP has been making inroads in Saskatchewan, not only in the farm areas but in the cities, the people of western Canada are worried about becoming a colonial outpost, not of the United States but of central Canada.
Our genial and gallant friend from the prairies who was bent on carrying everything before him, like the great west wind, in his attack on the NDP made a beautiful frontal sortie but he did not realize that he left exposed a beautiful posterior and an extremely vulnerable one. In his anxiety to attack the NDP what he actually said was that the people of western Canada are worried about becoming a colonial outpost, not of the United States but of central Canada. Many of us from the west may be concerned about central Canada, but compared with the dangers of being taken over from outside the country the dangers of being taken over by central Canada are much less of a hazard.
The takeover of Canadian companies at the present time, and the galloping rate at which it is proceeding, has one serious effect which has already been mentioned but which I would like to again emphasize. The most serious aspect of these takeovers entailing the risk of Canada converting to a branch-plant economy, is that it is not Canadians who are making the big decisions for consumers in this country, but outsiders. The outsiders make the big decisions for the consumers of this country. As proof of this I will quote one excerpt of a statement made by someone who is in a good position to know the situation. This is taken from an article published in the Montreal Star late last year. It says in part:
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
-this week, an officer of one of the greatest international corporations, said with complete frankness:
"It is clear that our living standards depend upon the investment decisions made by those Who own our corporations."

January 14,. 1970
Canada Corporations Act
This was Frank S. Capon, Vice-President of Du Pont of Canada, and in his case the crucial decisions are made by the handful of men in the United States who control E. I. Dupont de Nemours and Co. Mr. Capon was speaking to the meeting in Montreal of the Society of the Chemical Industry and, entirely apart from his frankness, it was a meeting worthy of attention by the people of Canada.
The chemical industry is generally regarded as one of the main sources of rapid growth in an industrial society, yet the president of a Crown corporation, Dr. E. R. Rowzee of Polymer Corp., warned that in its present condition in Canada it may require old-fashioned subsidies to survive. Very quietly, the Department of Trade and Commerce has been studying the industry's problems and a confidential report has been drawn up.
I suppose this will mean that some member of the New Democratic Party will have to put a motion on the Order Paper seeking an order for return with respect to that confidential report, once again battling the secrecy of the government which uses the taxpayers' money to draw up such a report. Now I return to the article:
If one of the great growth industries of the industrial era is in difficulties in this country, one must begin by questioning the quality of the decision making that has been involved and we immediately encounter the fact that in this case we are not concerned with a decision making process that takes place in Canada. As Mr. Capon frankly admitted, it takes place elsewhere: so far as this particular industry in Canada is concerned, largely in Britain and the United States.
That the foreign decision making process can be questioned can be seen in the comment of a highly responsible, industry-oriented official in Otawa who was discussing the Rowzee and Capon speeches:
"The basic problem is that the units of production are not large enough, but one must say that the industry takes very surprising decisions at times -astonishing ones. Rivalry leads it to create overproduction and then the industry encounters difficulties which it foresaw in advance."
If we had overproduction and the decisions leading to it were made in Canada, that would be one thing; but when Canadian consumers find their hands tied because they have no control over decisions made in other countries, it is another thing. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Bas-ford) should introduce legislation to deal with this situation.
I well remember when the minister and I both sat on a joint committee of the House and Senate, a committee of which he was joint chairman, and the question of a great international cartel controlling quinine supplies, including the drug Quinidine,, was discussed. At that time men and women in this country who were heart sufferers needed this drug, but its price went up astronomically

due to the operations of this cartel in Britain, Holland and the United States. Nothing could be done about it in Canada because of the law that existed then, and nothing can be done about it today because of the law as it exists now. That is the indictment that can be laid against this legislation. In a way, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is motherhood. Most of us can agree with it, but motherhood resolutions are not sufficient to deal with the problems facing consumers.
Yesterday I was amazed to hear a prominent frontbench member of the official opposition worry about the civil liberties of corporations and the possible invasion of those liberties by this proposed legislation. If we have to choose between the civil liberties of corporations and the consumers' right to know, I am sure in the minds of most Canadians the top priority must be given to the consumers. The civil liberties of corporations effect a relatively small percentage of the population, and it seems to me we should at all costs be prepared to protect the interests of the majority of consumers.
I hope the minister will recall that he has another and a better half-and I am not referring to his wife. While he may be Minister of Corporate Affairs, he is also Minister of Consumer Affairs. I have always thought it was wrong to include a conflict of interest, such as between corporations and consumers, within one department. From past experience I know that in such a case the consumers get the short end of the stick.
Canadian consumers are looking to the minister to help them. They hope he will introduce legislation of a worth-while kind to protect their interests, interests that have been badly damaged in recent months by some takeovers and by the activities of certain huge corporations. As I say, Mr. Speaker, this legislation provides protection for shareholders and people connected with corporations. But many people are not shareholders and have nothing to do with corporations. The great majority of the Canadian people need protection provided by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The sooner we have a divorce in that department, the better I will like it.
I would like to see the minister emerge as the Minister of Consumer Affairs and leave the corporations to the tender mercy of somebody else. There is on the other side of the House a lot of tender mercy for corporations
January 14, 1970

and they would not have to look too far to get it, whereas consumers badly need a friend.
Although in some respects we agree with this legislation because it is long overdue and it is housekeeping legislation, and we are prepared to go along with it, we in this party know it is merely a sop. The affairs of the country should be organized in such a way as to protect the consumers. The minister should not be misled into thinking that we will accept this bill as a substitute for genuine legislation to put the affairs of the country into order so that consumers can have a fair show.


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, this legislation brings a very important subject before hon. members, and one that urgently requires debate. Corporations operating within the framework of our economic system are an important and essential instrument for carrying on economic activity and for carrying through our economic organization. They enjoy a special status in law, and their importance has grown with the evolution of our economic system.
The role and importance of corporations have changed throughout our economic history, particularly over the past 50 to 60 years. In many respects the role of the corporation and the power it enjoys has resulted in it becoming something of a monster, a monster which we have created and which in many respects is now beyond our control, particularly in view of the type of government we have, which fails to take any action to ensure that corporations operate in the public interest and that the public interest is adequately taken into account.
The situation necessitates very careful consideration of this legislation. It must be examined in a context far beyond the particular contents of the bill, far beyond the particular recommendations which the government is placing before us. This bill, Mr. Speaker, tinkers with the present structure of corporations and corporation law and it attempts to effect a number of repairs which, it is thought, will fix up the law, fix the system and make it work adequately.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
In themselves, some of these changes and recommendations are important and some of them are very useful. Provisions with respect to the handling of and requirement for financial statements, the whole situation with 21611-13
Canada Corporations Act respect to insider trading, takeover bids, proxy solicitation, inspection and investigation, are important matters in themselves. They require and deserve adequate consideration by this House and they do have a place in our corporate law. There is also a provision which is a rather weak, timid step along the lines that some of us have advocated. I refer to the provision to allow companies to restrict their shareholders to Canadian citizens. I hope that this weak, faltering step is only the first step among further measures that will be taken to ensure a greater degree of Canadian control over our economic activity.
I want to deal in particular with two features of this legislation. They refer to financial disclosure and with respect to the incorporation of certain types of companies and with changes that are made in the bill with respect to incorporation procedures. But first, Mr. Speaker, there is a basic comment that I think should be made. This bill, I suggest, by implication states the government's faith in the ability and willingness of corporations and of the entire economic system, as it is now structured and as it now operates, to respond adequately to the needs of the time.
In my view, Mr. Speaker, such faith is ill-founded. In fact, we have seen many examples of the degree of corporate control over our economy. Corporations do exert a control which ignores the public interest and which does not take into account the views of governments. Within the past couple of days there have been a couple of weak steps which the government will certainly play up in its favour; but I suggest that there are other, more ominous developments in the offing in that respect.
I also suggest that the faith exhibited by the government in the present corporate structure and in the operation of our economy is ill-founded, because of our present economic situation. We have seen many illustrations of corporations failing for the most part to respond to attempts made by government, however weak these attempts might be, to take action to hold off with price increases or to exercise some degree of restraint in order to ensure a measure of stability and balance in the economy.
Within the past couple of years in particular, corporations have completely ignored the public interest. They have carried on their programs with the sole thought of bettering

January 14, 1970
Canada Corporations Act their own operations and of bettering their profit and loss picture. They have ignored the well-being of the economy as a whole.
I think this is very well demonstrated by the fact that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) very recently in a year-end review indicated that a survey of major corporations in Canada indicated that their capital spending plans in 1970 would be 14 per cent higher than their capital spending in 1969. I think it is quite obvious that this is not in line with the policy of restraint which the government has been advocating and pleading with corporations to adopt. Certainly, I think this demonstrates a degree of irresponsibility on the part of the private, corporate sector of the economy.
Finally, of course, we have the fact that much of our economy has been sold to foreign interests. I will have more to say about that later in my address. Thus, Mr. Speaker, I feel that we need a much more fundamental consideration in dealing with this legislation than is evident in the bill now before us. The tinkering changes that are proposed by the minister will be of little value unless basic changes are effected and unless we consider some of the basic questions. Obviously, the government is unwilling to take any basic steps is order to deal with some of the problems of corporate operations.
As I indicated earlier, Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with two particular matters which are contained in this legislation. The first has to do with the question of financial disclosure. This is of particular interest to me because in some of my work over the past several years, prior to my entering the House of Commons, I had many occasions to look into the affairs of corporations and companies, as provided for under the laws of the province of Saskatchewan, where I live, and the laws of Canada.
Sometimes I was able to obtain the information I needed because the company involved was a public company and had to file certain information. But on many occasions I found that information I needed in order to adequately study questions of public interest could not be obtained because the companies in question were registered as private companies. Thus, information was denied to me and anybody else who might have been interested. Therefore, last year I introduced a private member's bill in the House of Commons, Bill C-61, which was an act to amend the Canada Corporations Act. It had to do with the filing of returns.
This bill provided that every company, whether or not it was a public or a private company, would be required to submit financial statements to the Secretary of State, with a further copy to be made available to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. This financial statement would be filed with the department and would be available for public inspection.
The bill that I proposed last year was entirely in line with the recommendations of the Watkins task force, which was commissioned by a Liberal government a number of years ago. The legislation now before us proposes some changes with respect to financial reporting on the part of private companies. It proposes that any company with a gross revenue of over $3 million a year or assets of over $3 million be required to submit financial returns which would be open for inspection. This is a step in the right direction. Indeed, it is obvious that the present law based on the classical capitalistic concept that businesses or individuals can do whatever they want, regardless of the effect on other people, is simply not good enough today.
I suggest that the proposal advanced by the minister in this bill is still not good enough. I suggest that there is a good case to be made for corporations under the $3 million level in revenue per year, or assets, being required to make available to the government and to the public information on their financial operations. I suggest that the minister should give consideration to a further amendment to his bill to provide that companies coming below the $3 million mark be also included. I have often found from my experience and studies that there are companies under the $3 million mark, either with respect to revenue or assets, which are operating in a way that would make adequate disclosure of information with respect to their financial operations a matter of public interest.
There is an old saying that big oaks from little acorns grow. Many big companies grow from very small businesses. Once they reach the $3 million level, information will have to be made available; but I suggest that it is important to secure information about some of them while they are still below the $3 million level of activity.
The importance of obtaining adequate information was highlighted in the Watkins

January 14, 1970

report on foreign ownership and the structure of Canadian industry. This report stated in part:
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
It is a prerequisite to public discussion of government policy and the formulation and implementation of actual policy that more information be available on the. activities of corporations, particularly large corporations, both Canadian-owned and foreign-owned. Information presently available is generally deficient, and in some respects grossly so, for meeting the three distinct purposes for which information is needed: public disclosure, economic analysis, and governmental surveillance of firms.
I would also draw to the attention of the House the recommendation of the Watkins task force on foreign ownership and the structure of Canadian industry. This report stated at page 398:
It is a prerequisite to public discussion of government policy and the formulation and implementation of actual policy that more information be available on the activities of corporations, particularly large corporations-
The report goes on to recommend that all private companies be required to submit information on their financial operations. I suggest that the government should give further consideration to this matter. There may be cases where it is not necessary, or even desirable, to reveal the financial situation of a particular corporation, but I suggest there are ways and means by which this could be taken into account.
I was interested to note that John Saunders, a staff writer of the Toronto Star, did some follow-up work after this bill was introduced last session. Mr. Saunders, who has written a thesis on the subject of financial disclosure and certainly knows what he is talking about in this respect, went to see some owners of large businesses about the question of financial disclosure. I would like to place on the record some of the comments he received when he interviewed some of the heads of large corporations. He went to see John David Eaton, the head of the T. Eaton Company. He had this to say about the interview:
John David Eaton was very much to the point before he hung up abruptly. The man who employs 50,000 people and reputedly sells $750 million worth of merchandise to Canadians each year made it clear he thinks the operations of his company are nobody's business but his own. Would you want to reveal your plans like a bankrupt in court? Eaton and many other executives of private firms may not be able to take this approach much longer. Amendments to the Corporations Act introduced by the federal govern-21611-131
Canada Corporations Act ment would force large private companies like his family-held department store chain to reveal as much to the public as other publicly incorporated competitors. As yet this idea of corporate disclosure cuts little ice in Eaton's Queen Street office. I had asked Eaton if he feels the affairs of the T. Eaton Company Limited are his personal private concern. "Naturally I do", was his reply. Seconds later a loud click ended our minute-long phone conversation.
This is an indication of the attitude of some businessmen. In all fairness, I should say that some of the other interviews which Mr. Saunders had demonstrated that some businessmen were prepared to meet this change in legislation. I indicated that Mr. Saunders of the Toronto Star wrote a thesis entitled, "The Politics and Practice of Corporate Disclosure in Canada". He went into the matter very thoroughly. Among other things, he discussed the evolution of the corporation and the whole question of public interest, the protection of the public, equality and fairness in disclosure and the value of disclosure to firms themselves.
He also noted there had been many recommendations throughout the years for changes in disclosure legislation, and that there was a good deal of pressure against any such change which involved a variety of factors such as interest groups, passive government and also business-government co-operation. Finally, I wish to place on the record Mr. Saunders' conclusion-after the study in relation to his thesis. He states:
The levels of corporate disclosure required in Canada are clearly inequitable in many cases, and almost as clearly insufficient in all cases. Extensive recommendations for reform have been made. The objections to reform which business is willing to raise in public are negligible. Yet the progress toward improved laws has been so gradual and halting that it's sometimes hard to discern movement at all-or to be sure that it's forward. Considering the obvious need, the indicated course is to enact legislation immediately to bring all firms up to the level of disclosure now required of public companies; and to follow this as quickly as possible with measures to increase the over-all level as far as is needed and to rationalize the methods of collecting and distributing the information.
But to accomplish these aims a number of other reforms would probably first have to be implemented-and these byproduct reforms could well be vastly more important for justice and social efficiency than the mere provision of information. They would, if fully put into effect, go a long way toward remedying the imbalance between the power of large corporations and that of individuals and between the political influence of wealthy, organized interests and of weak, diffuse ones.
The first necessary step would be to discredit once and for all the ersatz liberalism which endows corporations with such human rights as privacy.

January 14. 1970
Canada Corporations Act
This warping of a worthy philosophy will undoubtedly have to be eradicated eventually in any case if corporations-perhaps even private enterprise-are to be permitted to operate in a relatively unfettered manner.
He says later:
Disclosure remains corporations' most promising course. As Mill implied, secrecy-when combined with such other advantages as large size, permanence and limited liability-gives corporations an unacceptable edge over individuals in both financial and political transactions; without disclosure other methods must be found to even the odds. The acceptance of effective corporate reporting would be symbolic of rejection of the old, perverted liberalism and would create the possibility that a workable modern version of Mill's liberalism might be developed-
He suggests it is essential to effect a number of changes in order to ensure that such a change will be effective.
I would now like to discuss the amendments with respect to incorporation procedures. The bill provides that certain pipelines, oil and gas pipelines in particular, will no longer have to be incorporated by obtaining a charter from parliament. As a result of this legislation they will be able to obtain the necessary charter from the minister.
Various money lenders, with the exception of banks, insurance companies, trust and loan companies and certain railway companies, will also be able to obtain a charter without coming before Parliament. As a mechanical procedure, Mr. Speaker, I suggest this provision might make some sense. I also suggest that because of the importance of these institutions, this type of economic corporation to the Canadian economy, and the role that they play in the Canadian economy, it is very difficult and in fact impossible to go along with the provision contained within the framework of this bill.
If in fact the bill provided for adequate control or regulation of corporate activity as a whole, I think a good case could be made for changing the incorporation procedures. On the basis of the bill now before us, I feel it is essential for Canada's future economic welfare that Parliament retain some control over the manner in which this type of company is established and is able to carry on its activities and operations within Canada.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Turning to some of the important considerations involved in this bill, we have to ask ourselves why the government has not gone further in this legislation, why it has avoided some of the basic questions which a number
IMr. Burton.l
of my hon. friends have attempted to place before the House during this debate. There are probably a number of reasons. The timidity of the government in dealing with this issue is obvious. While the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and other ministers have promised hon. members from time to time that a clear enunciation of government policy would be made with respect to foreign ownership and other aspects of corporate activity, no such announcement has been forthcoming up to the present time.
The manner in which the government operates was made clear by an answer which I received to a question I placed on the order paper last year when it became evident that the government was considering certain changes to the Corporations Act. It had been made known that a number of panels had been set up to discuss those changes. I directed a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) on February 3, 1969, as follows:
What are the names, addresses and occupations of the team of experienced businessmen and lawyers who are being consulted respecting proposed changes in the Canada Corporations Act?
The answer was:
Three panels of lawyers, accountants and businessmen were formed and met early in 1968 to review and comment, in confidence, on the recommendations for changes which were made by the task force on the Canada Corporations Act. These individuals are not involved in the current drafting of the bill and will of course bear no responsibility for its contents.
There followed lists of businessmen, accountants and lawyers from across the country. I have no doubt that each of the individuals named to these panels was a competent and able person in a position to offer useful advice to the government. But I would also suggest that they were considering this legislation from their own points of view. No group of people was called upon by the minister to deal with this question of amendments to the act solely from the point of view of the public, one might say from the point of view of the layman, even-the average working man, farmer and small businessman.


An hon. Member:: What do you think the task force was doing?


John Stratford Burton: I think it important that the kind of consideration I have suggested should be given. I mentioned a few moments ago that there are certain fundamental considerations which ought to be taken into account. I have already referred to the role of the cor-
January 14, 1970

porations in the economy, the fact that corporations have a great deal of power within the framework of our economic structure. I noted, also, that we are talking about large corporations, not about small companies. Large corporations are able to exercise a great deal of control over the degree and circumstances of economic activity in Canada. Many of them have the size and power necessary to influence the course of economic activity and affairs. In addition, there is the factor of foreign ownership and control. This comes into the picture when we examine the performance of Canadian companies and corporations over the past number of years.
The fact is that the government has carefully avoided dealing with the issue. There is, really, no policy with regard to it and Canada is the only country without such a policy. This was made clear by Professor Melville Watkins when he spoke to the Montreal Society of Financial Analysts in January, 1969. He said at that time:
The current situation is well known to this audience: Canada is strong on foreign investment and weak on policy. The extent of foreign ownership of Canadian industry is unique among the industrialized nations of the world. We are also unique in the matter of policy by having the least. I note that only in Canada am I invited to speak on Canadian policy toward foreign ownership. In the United States, the invitation typically says "Canadian attitudes toward foreign investment". The Americans are more realistic; we don't have a policy, only an attitude.
He then went on to say that the absence of policy could not be attributed to the recentness of the problem, and outlined some of the history as it has developed. I am sure nobody will quarrel with Professor Watkins' words. Most hon. members are familiar with the history of these institutions, the history of economic development in Canada, and I believe an examination of our economic history gives cause for hesitancy in relying upon Canadian capitalists and Canadian corporations as guardians of the Canadian interest. We can see that at the time of confederation Canadian businessmen obtained a base for commercial expansion. The national economic structure was at that time protected by tariff walls and assured of captive markets, in many instances.
In the last quarter century we have witnessed a great sell-out. Many Canadian businesses and enterprises have sold out and opted to become junior partners of United States corporations. Not only United States companies have shown an interest. I have an article here which shows that a number of
Canada Corporations Act business interests in other nations are attempting to obtain a chunk or share of the Canadian economy.
For example, Algoma Steel Corporation is now 25 per cent owned by Mannesman International Corporation of West Germany; the Anglo-Canadian Pulp and Paper Mills is 96 per cent owned by the Reed Paper Group, London; B.P. Canada Limited is wholly owned by British Petroleum, London; Canadian Breweries is 49.5 per cent owned by Rembrandt Controlling Investments Limited of Stellenbosch, South Africa, through Rothmans Holdings, Canada Limited; and Canadian Industries Limited is 73.4 per cent owned by Imperial Chemical Industries of Canada Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of Imperial Chemical Industries Limited, London. Many other companies are also listed, including some which play an important role in the Canadian economy.
I also read with interest the statement by Professor Watkins in an article he wrote for the Montreal Star on May 16, 1969, analysing developments in recent years. Referring on that occasion to the spread of conglomerate firms not only in the United States but in Canada, he said:
There is more to it than that. If foreign investment, or foreign takeover, rests on the superiority of the foreign firm, its converse is the inferiority of the domestic firm. To be not only a giant company in its own right, but owned in turn by a giant holding company, was apparently not to gain immunity from takeover.
This, of course, refers to the Canadian Breweries case.
For those who believe that having Canadian-controlled firms was a protection against foreign ownership, without any additional government policy being necessary, the case of Canadian Breweries should have provided food for thought. This time there was no U.S. department of justice around to save the day.
That reference has to do with the attempted takeover of the Molson firm by the Schlitz Company in the United States. Later on, Professor Watkins had this to say:
E. P. Taylor can bask in the sun of a Caribbean tax haven. As John Porter observed in his book The Vertical Mosaic, Canadian capitalists have not been known for their willingness to put patriotism above dollars, or country above cash-a point which Labatts, that old establishment family, had already demonstrated so far as this industry was concerned.
Nor is that surprising; the nature of capitalism is to create an ethic that at best transcends, at worst erodes, nationalism. If there is a Canadian national interest then there has to be a government able and willing to formulate and exercise it.

January 14, 1970
Canada Corporations Act
I would ask the minister to note those words carefully. There is no question that Canadian corporations and financial institutions, with government acquiesence, have allowed large blocks of Canadian savings and capital to escape Canada unnecessarily in the past. This has increased our dependence upon foreign capital.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I think two questions need to be asked on the subject of importation of capital. The first is: In what form is capital imported? Is the capital imported as equity capital, or is it imported as debt capital? If it is equity capital, then the development is carried out and is owned by the foreigners who supplied the capital. On the other hand, if the capital is debt capital, when the debt is paid off Canadians own the development or industry concerned.
The second question is: Have Canadian capital resources been adequately mobilized? I think the very simple answer to that question is: No, much more could have been done throughout the years and could be done today to mobilize Canada's capital resources. For example, one thing that could be done is to establish the Canada Development Corporation, one of the promises of the present Liberal government.
This project has had a very interesting and rather speckled history. Some former Liberal cabinet ministers publicly advocated its establishment and made it quite clear that the legislation would be introduced in and passed by Parliament. That, of course, never happened. For several years in a row the legislation was promised in the Speech from the Throne at the beginning of each session. This year the proposal was not even included in the Speech from the Throne, which I suggest shows that this government is now even more at sea on this whole issue than it was last year and in previous years.
I suggest that at the present time the government is preparing to scrap the Canada Development Corporation as part of its program. I suggest the government wants to give it a burial of some sort in the near future. The fact is that the government is going to scuttle this proposal, and I do not think the Canadian people will in the long run accept this action.
At the recent federal New Democratic Party convention in Winnipeg, consideration was given to the proposal to establish a Canada Development Corporation, and a very

strongly-worded resolution was passed in this connection. It was pointed out that the people of a nation possess the right and the power to agree on the use of their human and material resources through political decision, that in this way they determine the nature and the purpose of their existence.
The resolution passed by the convention went on to state that our national goals have remained unfulfilled by governments traditionally allied to corporate interests and committed to continental integration of our society. The major conclusions affecting our lives are still being made on the basis of equating the profit of corporations with the good of humanity. This philosophy has been, and continues to be, challenged by democratic socialists.
It is clear that we cannot rely on private enterprise alone to give us an economy designed for Canadian needs. That is why our convention proposed the establishment of a Canada Development Corporation. We should bear in mind that it is very important to distinguish the type of Canada Development Corporation that we want-not just some sort of mutual fund, which has been the notion of some members opposite. I should like to set out what we feel should be contained within the framework of a Canada Development Corporation. I quote eight points set out in a resolution passed at our convention at Winnipeg:
(1)	To mobilize funds and to channel them into investment serving the public interest of Canada as a whole.
(2)	To expand the public sector of the economy where necessary for the growth of the economy, for national planning and for increasing Canada's independence. This will normally be done by the creation of crown corporations. However, the CDC may also enter into consortium arrangements with private concerns where it has or can acquire effective control.
(3)	To act always as an instrument of government planning and development policy and be directly responsible to Parliament through a Ministry.
(4)	To stimulate the rationalization and greater specialization of industry in Canada in order to create a more productive economy.
(5)	To be involved in regional development policies with provincial bodies and agencies in order to insure that every part of Canada capable of supporting viable development is extensively involved in the industrial future of this country.
(6)	To promote worker participation plans in enterprises established or assisted by the Corporation, as a model for such plans in industry generally.
(7)	To finance and develop new initiatives in research, scientific and technological developments which will increase the ability of Canadian industry to specialize and compete in world markets.
(8)	To assist companies and individuals to fashion economic opportunity out of inventions and to ensure that Canada derives the benefits therefrom.
January 14, 1970

The resolution then went on to point out:
As secondary objectives, the Canada Development Corporation would be involved in marketing services and the provision of entrepreneurial talents.
It would provide joint marketing arrangements with the private sector for export purposes. It would also enter into partnership with other groups in order to protect the public interest.
An important aspect of the Canada Development Corporation is that it will insure the benefits of competitive forces where they are desirable, through yardstick operations and the stimulation of new firms.
I think this would be a very worth-while course of action to follow, and I recommend this set of proposals for the consideration of the minister, though I am not too hopeful that he will give them much consideration. The New Democratic Party convention at Winnipeg also dealt with the issue of foreign ownership and came up with a very strong policy to deal with this very serious problem. I suggest we must regain mastery over our own economic destiny and be master of our own house.
Coming from the province of Saskatchewan, I was very interested to note some recent developments regarding potash operations in that province. These were reported in an article in the Globe and Mail of October 9, 1969, and reference was made to a somewhat curious situation. Anti-dumping hearings were being held in the United States at the time in connection with imports of potash from Canada, and the article asks the question:
Are U.S. potash producers setting the price at which some imports from Canada are being dumped to the alleged injury of the U.S. producers?
As I say, Mr. Speaker, we have a curious situation here. For the most part U.S. companies are shipping potash from Canada to the U.S. through their Canadian operations or subsidiaries at a price level which results in a finding of anti-dumping by the United States government. This is indicative of some of the problems we encounter when we have the degree of foreign ownership of our economy that we have at the present time. This is one of the many questions that requires consideration if we are to ensure that our economic development is for the benefit of Canada as a whole.
Finally, I suggest there is one other area that requires very serious consideration. I refer to the development of multi-national corporations. This is a new phenomenon in our society. Some people, like George Ball, the former Undersecretary of State in the
Canada Corporations Act Johnson administration in the United States, have stated that power in the world in the future will be held, not by national states but by multinational corporations.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired, unless unanimous consent is given to the hon. member to continue. Does the house give its unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Stratford Burton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have two or three more sentences to conclude my remarks. As I was pointing out, the Undersecretary of State, Mr. Ball, indicated that the economic power of the world in the future would be held, not by national states but by multinational corporations. I suggest this philosophy introduces an entirely new dimension in dealing with our economic problems. It is a problem in respect of which none of us has as yet come up with an adequate solution. We will have to look at this problem and find solutions, because multinational corporations will be with us for some time.
We can take into account the manner in which they operate under our laws, but technological developments have in many instances given them an advantage in carrying on operations. This is a matter to which the government should be paying considerable attention. How do we ensure that corporations operating on a world wide scale operate in the best interests of the people, whether in Canada or any other nation? In some instances we may have to look for international solutions to these problems, if we are to ensure that the predictions made by George Ball do not come true. Thus, I urge that this question and many others which have been outlined during this debate be taken into account by the minister.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take a few minutes this afternoon to deal with Bill C-4, to amend the Canada Corporations Act. It is a rather voluminous bill and I do not intend to deal with all its clauses. I should like to speak about the aspect of foreign ownership which has been touched upon by a number of the members of this group, and also with one or two of the main points of the bill.
There are some very interesting and acceptable amendments contained in the proposed legislation but the government, as

January 14, 1970
Canada Corporations Act usual, has Jailed to come to grips with one of the greatest problems and dangers facing Canadian sovereignty today. I refer to increasing ownership and control of the Canadian economy by foreign interests. An increasing loss of economic control will inevitably erode our political independence. This is resulting in an inadequate industrial structure in our country and threatens the very survival of a Canadian national entity. It does not meet in the aspirations and objectives of the Canadian people.
There has been a host of warnings from economists over the years which governments of the day have seen fit to ignore. As a result, the erosion of Canadian independence has continued. A previous speaker summed up this legislation very aptly when he said that after 34 years the cabinet had finally come to the conclusion that public investors are entitled to expect that there will be disclosure of business activities, that inside trading will be restricted and reported, and that proxy solicitation will be more restricted than in the past.
Apart from these rather interesting but relatively minor points, the bill has in my opinion failed to tackle the real problem facing the Canadian people today. The recent Watkins report on foreign ownership warned the government that Canada had a limited time in which to stop this trend toward foreign ownership. Only two years ago we were given from ten to 15 years at the most to stop the trend or forever lose the ability to stop it. That report pointed out that no other country in the world was prepared to tolerate the high degree of foreign ownership that there is in Canada.
Most countries in the world have laws limiting the extent of foreign equity investment and controlling investment. Countries with this type of legislation include the United Kingdom, France, Japan, Sweden, Denmark and practically all others in the western world. The way they have used their power has been to limit the control exercised by foreign investors. It is difficult to understand why Canada should not take a similar course.
The laws other countries have passed have not materially affected either their industrial growth or investment from outside. Their good relations with other countries have not been affected because of the desire to be master in their own house. Why cannot Canada follow a similar pattern and at least pass the legislation required to keep us

economically and politically independent? It seems to me that the old line parties are tied-in so tightly with the economic powers of this country that they are afraid to act or speak out against the controls which are slowly but surely strangling the economic independence of this nation. If thoughtful Canadians would only study and understand the extent of these takeovers and their eventual influence on Canadian independence, they would rise in wrath against those parties which have controlled the destiny of this nation for so many years.
A quick look at the economic control which Canada has lost to foreign ownership over the years is both upsetting and deeply disturbing. In 1968 alone, the Combines Investigation Committee reported 159 takeovers of Canadian firms. Many of these firms over which we have now lost effective control are among the most substantial in Canada. When the final list is out for 1969 we will find that a similar pattern of takeovers is evident.
Since 1962 more than 600 Canadian firms have passed into the control of foreign companies. This shows the extent to which we are rapidly trading away the future independence of our nation. The Watkins report on foreign ownership states that no other country seems prepared to tolerate the high degree of foreign ownership that exists in Canada. We cannot find this degree of ownership even in the so-called backward countries of Africa. This report confirms the fact that between 50 per cent and 80 per cent of our manufacturing, petroleum, natural gas, mining, smelting and other industries are owned by multinational corporations which have their headquarters in the United States. In some industries we find that foreign control is almost complete.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
The Watkins report points out that in 1963 foreigners controlled 97 per cent of the capital employed in the manufacture of automobiles and parts, 97 per cent in the manufacture of rubber, 78 per cent in the manufacture of chemicals and 77 per cent in the manufacture of electrical apparatus. It pointed out, also, that in 1963 there were in Canada 414 corporations with assets greater than $25 million each. The total value of these assets amounted to $37.9 billion. It was estimated that 53 per cent of the total assets of these firms were in companies more than 50 per cent owned by non-residents of Canada. The picture is more serious today.
January 14, 1970

I suggest we cannot long delay making those moves which will reclaim for Canada both her political and economic independence which the vast majority of Canadians desire. An hon. member has already quoted the late John Foster Dulles. When speaking about an Asian country he said, "There are two ways to conquer a foreign nation. One way is to gain control of its people by force of arms. The other is to gain control of its economy by financial means." This statement should be a warning to all Canadians that economic control of our country will be followed by political control. If this is undesirable, we have no option but to institute those counter measures which will stop the present trend of foreign ownership and eventually reverse it.
The present administration is receiving warnings from many people in its own ranks about the danger of excessive foreign ownership. Walter Gordon, a former Liberal cabinet minister, as recently as May, 1969, pointed out that the United States will dominate Canadian politics if we allow it to control our resources and public enterprises. He called for policies to counter this influence and to keep Canada a truly independent nation. As recently as two months ago, at the Liberal think-in at Harrison Hot Springs, we find that a number of delegates were interested in Canadian economic sovereignty and were desirous that this administration move to protect it. One of the panelists at the Liberal Party conference pointed out that much of the capital required to expand Canadian ownership of industries is already present. The only thing lacking is Canadian organization to bring these funds into the investment picture.
The New Democratic Party believes the answer to this problem is the establishment of a Canadian Development Corporation. In fact, the Liberals have been promising a development corporation for a number of years. We are hopeful that legislation along these lines will be introduced this session and that a start will be made along the arduous road of expanding Canadian ownership of industry and repatriating some of the industrial enterprises which have already been lost. The member who preceeded me dealt at some length with the Canadian Development Corporation. It is not my intention to repeat the points he made.
The first reason why this corporation has not been set up is that the old line parties are fearful of being tagged with the label of having at least some public participation in the area of resource development. This seems to 21611-14
Canada Corporations Act be a nonsensical position for any party to take. All we need do is look around us to see the grave disparities in many parts of Canada. Oftentimes we see areas in which industries could and should have been established. If these should be marginal operations, I can assure you that foreign-controlled companies would not be interested in coming in and setting up industry.
I urge this government to take another, close look at the question of a Canadian Development Corporation and see that legislation is initiated at this session of Parliament. When we consider the question of foreign ownership, I am always amazed to hear politicians both in the House and outside talk about the need for outside investment. They seem to think that Canada is a poverty-stricken nation with no money. On numerous occasions it has been pointed out that there are vast amounts of money available in this country for investment which could and should be used for the type of development foreign-controlled firms are taking over each and every day.
I note that in the speech of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) last night he was very critical of our party. That is his prerogative in this House. I have no objection to his attacking us on the stand we have taken. I am certain, however, that not for a long time has so much valuable ammunition come to hand as that contained in the speech of the hon. member for Calgary North last night. One statement he made is the following:
While we must make sure that the rights of our people are not usurped, at the same time we must realize that we need the investment of these corporations. We must all work together.
If the rights of the people are not to be usurped, how does he propose to protect the rights of Canadians? How does he propose to protect our independence economically and politically when control in the hands of big corporations can directly control the political direction of this nation?
There have been examples in Canada of firms from other countries dictating to their branch-plants and thereby stopping the sale of goods to other countries. An example is the automobile industry. The sale of trucks to mainland China was stopped because the parent company in the United States told its subsidiary in Canada it could not sell them. There are other examples. A recent example is the control of a flour mill establishment in respect of the sale of flour to Cuba. This sale

January 14, 1970
Canada Corporations Act was stopped by outside interests. I say, Mr. Speaker, that this is direct interference with the political life of this country. This picture cannot help but get worse as the economic control of some of the key sectors of our industry accelerates.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
There is another aspect of economic control which has worried me for many years. I want to say at this point that I am not anti-American or against any other country in this world. However, I am convinced as a Canadian that it is our duty, regardless of the party to which we belong, to see that we keep Canada a strong, independent nation both economically and politically. As soon as a move is made, whether it be for the control of our resources or of a key sector of our industry, which will upset this independence, it is up to members in the House to speak out against it. They should not only speak out but also take steps which will retain for us for all time the independence which we so proudly proclaim and which the vast majority of Canadians desire to retain. I see the independence of our nation gradually slipping away. I am astounded that more members on the government side of the House have not made very clear their position on this question.
I will refer to my own province of B.C. for a few moments and point to several resource acquisitions by foreign-owned firms which I think are detrimental to British Columbians generally. Before I deal with any specific resource I will speak about a treaty which was signed in the early 1960s-the Columbia River Treaty. It was debated in this House and many hon. members remember the debate which raged for weeks all over Canada. The treaty was signed and the Liberal administration of the day finalized it, together with the province of British Columbia. In effect it gave away the control of one of our great river systems and its water resources.
At the time-I have read the debate and am well acquainted with the story-the Premier of B.C. sold the people of that province on the idea that we were going to get a bonanza in return for the signing of the treaty. The Liberal government, without adequately examining the aspects of the treaty, went along with it and, to their discredit, finally agreed to signing the treaty, which in my opinion has done a great deal of harm not only to the people of B.C. but to all Canada.
(Mr. Harding.]
I should like to outline two or three points in this respect. In my opinion this is how resources are given away without proper thought or research. Consider the case of the Columbia River Treaty. It was signed, sealed and delivered. The dams have been built. The last dam is in the process of being built and is to be finished in 1973. What do we in B.C. get out of this? Where is the economic empire that we were promised would result from the development of the Columbia River? Where is the economic development, after we have spent hundreds of millions of dollars? I will tell you. There are not even 20 jobs on the Arrow dam, and on the Duncan dam just a handful of engineers are employed to lower or raise the gates in order to feed the turbines south of the line. We sold our power in B.C. for 30 years for $274 million. We were told that this money would build the dams, clear the reservoir basins and adequately recompense everyone.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I have been listening to his remarks very carefully and I am having difficulty in reconciling them with the subject matter before the House. I realize that there is a specific principle involved, and I do not want to infringe upon the hon. member's right to deal with the principle. However, I would be happy if he would deal with an example that falls within the purview of the bill, rather than the specific example with which he is now dealing.


Randolph Harding: The point I am making, Mr. Speaker, is that in this bill we should guard against the allocation to foreign countries of specific resources either through treaties of this nature or through the alienation of a particular resource in a province. These precautions have not been taken, and as a result the economic development of Canada has suffered.
If you will bear with me for a moment or two, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out how this policy has affected our area in particular. We have sold the power for 30 years. We will end up over $200 million in the hole, money which must eventually come out of the pockets of the taxpayers of B.C. And where is the economic development that was promised us? It is south of the line. Just south of the border a very large number of aluminum plants are operating on the hydro power which we sold so that we could construct the dams to flood our land. Those plants are
January 14, 1970

providing tens of thousands of jobs for Americans while we in British Columbia have created about 20 residual jobs out of this over-all development.
This sort of blind reasoning which leads governments to make treaties and deals of this sort is not good for Canada. We export our raw materials, we export power, and then we turn around and export the most precious product we have in Canada, our educated young boys and girls who have no jobs. Unemployment is soaring because we are exporting jobs every time we make a deal in which we export material which could and should be manufactured in Canada. This is where the Canadian Development Corporation comes into the picture. Why has it not been set up to develop our copper, iron and asbestos resources?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I have the impression the hon. member will not permit a question, but I do not want to prejudge the issue. I believe the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) wishes to ask the hon. member a question.


Mr. Otto:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? It will not take long. He had mentioned the Canadian Development Corporation so many times, and so did his leader. Is he aware that there is presently an incorporated company known as Canadian Development Corporation, with its head office at 85 Richmond Street West, Toronto, with directors in London, Ontario, and its solicitors being Thompson, Brown and Broadfoot? Surely he does not suggest that the Canadian government support the promotion of the stock in this private company?
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Randolph Harding: That was a rather facetious question. The hon. member should have known better than to ask it. He is aware that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has indicated on numerous occasions that the government will introduce a bill along the lines which I have been discussing.
I wish to emphasize that I am particularly upset over the lack of plans to process our copper concentrates in British Columbia. Every pound is shipped out of British Columbia. For every job we have in the extractive industries there are dozens of jobs even in the first stages of manufacture. We do not even have a copper smelter to do the refining of the copper. This is where a 21611-14i
Canada Corporations Act Canadian Development Corporation could easily come into the picture and give assistance if proper direction were given by the government.
There is just one more point I would like to make before I sit down. It is in connection with insurance companies. These are financial institutions. Over the years many of them have passed out of Canadian hands. I note that back in 1956 the Royal Commission on Canada's Economic Prospects said in its preliminary report:
Foreign ownership of the stocks of the Canadian chartered banks and of life insurance companies, which are incorporated under Canadian law, is not particularly large at the present time. It is desirable that Canadian control of these institutions be maintained. The commission suggests, therefore, that appropriate action be taken to prevent any substantial measure of control of the chartered banks and of life insurance companies from coming into possession of non-residents. One way in which this might be accomplished would be to provide by statute that any shares in such institutions which are acquired by non-residents of Canada in the future would be ineligible to vote. This restriction should not be applied to existing non-resident holders of such shares.
That recommendation was made 13 years ago. Since that time many insurance companies have passed from Canadian control. Every year we see a list of companies which have been lost so far as Canadian ownership is concerned. This is not an NDP story. This is the finding of economists who have been given a job to do. They have taken a look at the picture. They have come up with recommendations, but apparently those recommendations have not been acceptable to governments that have been in charge of Canada since 1956.
I see that my time has almost expired, Mr. Speaker, and I presume there are other hon. members who wish to say a few words on this bill before six o'clock. In closing I urge hon. members, regardless of party, to examine seriously the situation regarding foreign control. If they are convinced, as I am, that our independence, both economic and political, can be jeopardized by foreign control, I believe we should all make an effort to put teeth in the legislation in order to keep Canadian sovereignty in our hands for all time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Water Resources
[Stage Direction]
January 14, 1970
fTranslation]


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, November 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Greene that Bill C-144, to provide for the management of the water resources of Canada including research and the planning and implementation of programs relating to the conservation, development and utilization of water resources, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Speaker, this is my third attempt to try to speak on the matter of pollution. Last spring we had a debate on water. We had an opposition day debate, and I was the last speaker scheduled. Last November we spent a couple of days discussing the subject, and again I was the last speaker scheduled. Today I am glad to be the first speaker.
Let me say at the outset that any measure introduced by the government to curb pollution is certainly welcomed by all members of the House. The minister explained this bill four or five weeks ago. The pollution of water is not a problem for the future; it is a problem which requires our immediate consideration. It is in this context that I wish to make a few remarks on this bill known as the Water Act.
Man is living through an environmental crisis of his own making. Early in his evolution man was a passive agent in his surroundings, largely controlled by the factors of the environment. But modern man has become much more powerful. He can even use his technology to regulate elements of his environment. The extent of man's influence on his surroundings is escalating rapidly. Indeed, scientists warn us that the environmental changes brought about in this generation of human hyperactivity have been greater than those of all the years since the appearance of man on earth. But while we have learned to control or affect individual elements of nature, we are still far from understanding the complex interrelations between ourselves and our environment.
[Mr. Harding.)
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Too often human technology is used in ways which unintentionally worsen, not improve, the quality of life in our society. Too often the by-product of our progress is pollution, pollution of our surroundings or the disturbance of the delicate interrelationships of our environment. Striking examples of unintentional effects resulting from all kinds of activity abound. For example, on its introduction, DDT was heralded as a successful agent for the control of insect pests, but now its effects have led to its removal from the majority of its applications.
The unintended effects of man's efforts may go far beyond the potential pollution of his world. Scientists are also beginning to wonder whether man's "progress" will substantially affect such important processes as those which control the volume of oxygen in our air and the earth's heat balance. The potential effects of such changes are obvious. They have led one eminent ecologist to state:
What is now popularly known as 'progress' begins to look very much like the path to extinction.
Pollution has been referred to as a patient assassin which chokes its victims ever so slowly and silently. We must learn to consider all the effects of our actions. We must preserve a clean, healthy, enjoyable environment and we must safeguard the biological balance of nature. Man must not be allowed to pollute himself out of existence.
Pollution has been around for a long time. But what has happened in Canada? We have been very fortunate, Mr. Speaker; we have a big country with a lot of water and a lot of air. But anyone who has smelled the river outside this building, travelled the Gardiner expressway in Toronto on a still morning, or makes his living providing the country with herring from Placentia Bay knows what pollution is.
We cannot afford to sit back in confidence. We should count ourselves lucky that we have no Los Angeles, where carbon-dioxide levels are 10 per cent higher than normal. We cannot afford to be complacent. At the moment this bill does not deal completely-I underline "completely"-with pollution.
Let us first look at fishing. Forest spraying in New Brunswick has led to observations of fish mortality running between 50 and 98 per cent. Pollution has seriously affected shellfish beds. It is estimated that 25 per cent of the clam and oyster beds have been closed as a
January 14, 1970

result of pollution making the shellfish unfit for human consumption. I have experience in this matter, Mr. Speaker, because in my constituency a good clam-digging operation had to be stopped because the beds were contaminated. It becomes a vicious circle. Pollution leads to higher costs for everyone. Fishprocessing plants have been forced to bring in water from far out at sea because of local pollution.
To show hon. members how serious the situation is, let me tell them that the Atlantic Development Board has subsidized operations like this. I am not blaming it; I am merely telling hon. members what is happening in order to show them how much concern there is over this matter.
The west coast salmon and herring fisheries add about $70 million to our economy each year and governments have taken great pains to ensure that power projects and pollution do not interfere with the lives of these fish. But the recent-when I say recent I am talking about last year-Placentia Bay experience should prove to us all that we cannot be complacent about past successes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Louis-Roland Comeau: January 14, 1970
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I could mention many more areas which the committee will have to scrutinize very carefully, but I wish to speak more specifically on action the government should take immediately, to which I am sure the House will give its consent. I refer to action which should have been taken several years ago. According to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) at present we have an effective tool to deal with the problem of pollution. I quote from one of his speeches:
We are fortunate In that we have a clear-cut avenue for federal participation in the battle against pollution. We are fortunate in that we have an effective tool in the Fisheries Act.
The minister went on to say:
In this country, the nation has full authority over our "sea coast and inland fisheries". It makes our fishery laws and it approves our fishery regulations. True, Ottawa has delegated some of its authority to the provinces in respect to freshwater lakes and rivers. But our provincial government, if they want to make a change in any of our fishery regulations, must first submit them to us for approval. Any change in the Fisheries Act itself of course, is a matter for Parliament alone to decide. Our federal Fisheries Act, in other words, must be updated. It must include a few clauses which are essentially anticipatory in nature. It must not only say what kinds of chemicals can, and which cannot be discharged into Canadian waters, but see to it that our municipalities and our industries are aware of these guidelines ahead of time. It must provide certain penalties for non-compliance, of course.
With a new and amended Fisheries Act, we will no longer have to find dead fish in order to prove our case. We will no longer have to wait until the damage is done to our environment. We will no longer have to discipline maverick companies which themselves have failed to look ahead and to plan for the future. We will no longer have to plead with municipalities to do the right thing for themselves and their citizens.
Being simple and straightforward, it should also be economical in terms of manpower and red tape. So we can use our existing establishment to do a job on pollution, to do it quickly and to do it well.
The minister puts it very plainly. That is a long quotation, but I wanted to put it on the record because according to the minister there is no problem in immediate action being taken by the government to control pollution of our waters. Why hasn't some action been taken in the past, or why is it not being taken now?
Since May 30, 1969, when the minister delivered his speech, why has not the department drafted the necessary legislation to update the Fisheries Act? This would be
IMr. Comeau.]
much simpler matter than the bill we are now considering, and it would control pollution of our waters. This bill only talks about water. However, it is much more complicated than that. In fact, it might be so complicated that many Canadian citizens will not know what it is all about. It sounds good, but I am sure there are many who do not realize the complications involved. It does not do away with the red tape.
Of course, the Fisheries Act is concerned only with water, and a more broad approach to pollution is desired. When talking about pollution we must consider more than just water. However, this could be done and would probably be more effective for immediate water pollution. This bill, which is the major piece of legislation concerning pollution that the government has introduced, could then encompass pollution in all its aspects. The bill is not really attacking or getting at the root of the problem of pollution because, it concerns itself only with water. According to the Minister of Fisheries, effective action could be taken under the Fisheries Act. This bill might create more red tape and confusion. I do not understand how it will cut out the interdepartmental maze that now exists between the various departments of government.
The problem of pollution is national as well as regional and local. Co-ordinated national action is required to combat this national problem. One of the greatest failures of the present government is its failure to realize this fact and take the appropriate action. Consequently, the attack on pollution, water and air, has been frustrated by the action of numerous intergovernmental and intragovernmental agencies and bodies. Every department spends money in the field of pollution, but nobody can tell us exactly how much.
The Progressive Conservative Party has long recognized the need for co-ordinated action in pollution control and has repeatedly proposed the establishment of a single federal agency called the Canada Pollution Abatement Commission, reporting to Parliament through the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) with the single purpose of providing technical and financial assistance in pollution control to existing agencies in the federal, provincial, municipal and industrial fields. The purpose of such an agency would be the undertaking of research programs and the co-ordination of existing
January 14, 1970

Water Resources
programs. The agency would also be responsible for the development of a national pollution abatement policy.
To these areas of responsibility should also be added that of providing emergency information and assistance. If the federal government were to keep abreast of the technological means of combating pollution or, better still, providing leadership in pollution control research, such an information centre would be of great assistance in emergency situations. Experience gained from one emergency situation could be applied with possible modifications to a similar emergency situation. Some even advocate a department of environmental control. This might not be a bad idea, because at the present time every department is concerned with pollution and not one is really getting at the root of the problem. The Minister of Fisheries has already stated plainly that his department could have introduced legislation to update the existing legislation in order to provide effective water pollution control.
This new legislation could have attacked the whole problem of pollution. Recently a new and as yet unpatented method of dealing with oil pollution was implemented to correct a threat of crude oil pollution in Israel. This was considered to amount to a breakthrough in pollution control. I think it saved the Jordan River and even the Sea of Gallilee from contamination. Pollution is a global problem as well as a national one, and valuable information could be gained from foreign experience. Such information should be acquired,, kept on file and made easily accessible to parties concerned. This is one way in which a Canadian pollution abatement commission could operate, thereby affording some co-ordination to the present hit-and-run tactics in fighting pollution.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I hope hon. members will consider the suggestions I have made along with others which have been made in earlier debates. There appear to be many loopholes in this bill. It is far too complicated. Since hon. members can read, I shall not repeat the points raised during the incomplete debate which took place on the subject before the Christmas recess. There are many areas which could, of course, be dealt with now and perhaps I ought to refresh the memories of hon. members with regard to them. Nevertheless, I shall end my remarks within a few moments.
As I say, the bill is much too complicated. It will involve far too much red tape and its machinery will take a long time to become effective in controlling water pollution. For example, the setting up of all these agencies is bound to take a long time and no one knows how long it will be before effective action results. I shall conclude by adopting everything said so far by my hon. friends, particularly my hon. friend from Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken), when he replied to the minister after the bill had been introduced. In raising our objection to this bill I move, seconded by my hon. friend from Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave):
That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"since it does not spell out, declare or assume a federal jurisdiction in pollution control matters; since no specific commitment of federal funds has been made; and since provision for establishment of water use standards, pollution offences, and penalties are not nationwide but are limited to water quality management areas, this bill is therefore ineffective as a basis for a national water pollution control program and the minister is directed by the House to redraft Bill C-144 to include these and other fundamental omissions before it is read a second time."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Perhaps I might simply read the amendment rather than put it to the House, because I must confess I have grave doubts as to its admissibility. I would prefer to consult Mr. Speaker on the point, but for the benefit of the House I shall read it so that it may be clear on the record.
It is moved by Mr. Comeau, seconded by Mr. McCleave:
That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"since it does not spell out, declare or assume a federal jurisdiction in pollution control matters; since no specific commitment of federal funds has been made; and since provision for establishment of water use standards, pollution offences, and penalties are not nationwide but are limited to water quality management areas, this bill is therefore ineffective as a basis for a national water pollution control program and the minister is directed by the House to redraft Bill C-144 to include these and other fundamental omissions before it is read a second time."


Mr. Greene:: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order to raise as to the propriety of the amendment. I could commence argument now, or call it six o'clock. In any case, I wish tc inform the Chair that I have an objection to the form and nature of the amendment and suggest it is not in accordance with the rules of the House.

January 14, 1970
Water Resources


Stanley Howard Knowles: Six
o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There may be
procedural argument arising on this point. I have expressed the doubt which I myself feel,
but rather than begin a discussion at this point I think we might consider it at a later date.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Thursday, January 15, 1970