1970-11-30

LANG MAE YUR LUM REEK

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. While I have heard on many occasions during my 13 years here glowing, eloquent tributes to St. Patrick, St. George, St. David, St. Jean Baptiste before our rules gave us a holiday on that saint's day, and many other heroes, I do not recall this House ever hearing a salutatory statement to the devout and glorious patron of all the Scots, devout or otherwise, St. Andrew.
Considering that the Scots and Scottish Canadians have made a major contribution to our public life, contributing some of our greatest Prime Ministers and sharing the ancestry of others, including the present one, it is fitting, I think, that note be taken of this auspicious day. I believe that a judicious combination of two Scottish characteristics, frugality and friendliness, leads me to the formula that we might extend to one another the wish for a happy St. Andrew's day. To you in particular, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all Scots here present and here represented I say, lang mae yur lum reek.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41 I wish to table copies in both official languages of a white paper entitled "Income Security for Canadians".
Today marks the end of the first phase of a searching examination of this important area of policy. The views of Members of Parliament, the provincial governments, the public at large and low-income groups particularly will have an important bearing on the determination of several issues of national importance.
It is my hope that agreement among all concerned will enable us to proceed with the fundamental shifts of policy emphasis and program initiatives proposed.
The sum total of these constitutes an important reorganization of the income security sector of public policy. At issue is the painstaking and complicated task of endowing with a renewed sense of purpose and social relevance, various income support policies which have
evolved through the years in specific response to particular problems. Some of the programs involved are exclusively federal and reform of them can be accomplished with relative speed. Others involve the co-operation of provincial authorities and I intend to set in motion full, detailed discussions with those authorities immediately. While the dialogue implicit in the white paper techniques must be meaningful and complete, it is essential to remember that this policy sector concerns men, women and children in permanent and temporary difficulty. They await not just our words, but our actions, and in some particular cases long delay cannot in conscience be permitted.
Our guiding principle in the paper has been to find ways to ensure the greatest possible concentration of available resources upon the people in greatest need. This has led in turn to specific consideration of relative emphasis which should in future be placed on the two, previously parallel main components of income security. First, there have been income protection measures universally available to all or most people aimed at improving their general conditions or at preventing them from falling quickly into poverty as the result of various short-term interruptions of their personal income.
Second, there have been measures aimed more directly at the low-income minority of the population whose members either cannot enter the labour force through no fault of their own or who, even when working, do not derive from certain types of work sufficient income to provide adequately for themselves and their families.
The white paper argues that it is the second group that must today engage our main attention and resources. Here are to be found the aged, mothers by themselves raising children, the physically and mentally disabled, and the so-called working poor. Put another way, here are many of the family units in Canada containing children whose health and potential for economic, social and personal development may be limited by conditions beyond their control.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
It is our belief that the people of Canada will share the conviction that the claims of these people must for the next few years at least take precedence. Such agreement would result in increased emphasis on selective income support for people in need, and lessen the emphasis on universal programs.
Thus, the paper proposes strengthening an extension of the concept of providing guaranteed income support not universally but on a selective basis related to family income. Certain alternatives, major and minor, to existing universal programs will enable us to place, in the

November 30, 1970
Social Security
short term, approximately $470 million additional a year in the hands of low-income people. This figure represents $194 million of additional cost under the GIS program, and $270 million redistributed under the family income security plan proposals resulting from benefits withdrawn from higher income families and in tax recoveries from beneficiaries.
For the longer term, proposed changes under the Canada Pension Plan should have the effect of increasing protection for various groups in need by another $365 million a year.
These important improvements can be made without diluting economic development programs which help to ensure productive employment for the majority so that the national wealth with which to assist the less fortunate may continue to be generated.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, we are troubled by the persistence of widespread poverty in Canada. One-fifth of the total population is said to exist below the poverty line. I think we must learn to recognize the face of modern poverty. By far the greatest number of Canadians below the poverty line are working full time or part time and receiving virtually no assistance. Most of the others can work only part time in their part of the country or are old, blind, disabled, or mothers of deserted families. The number of Canadians who are poor because they simply refuse to work is said to be only 3 per cent of all those actually below the poverty line.
We are troubled by the failure of our increasingly costly welfare system to eliminate poverty. Our system was evolved piece by piece over the last half century, with each new program reflecting the problems and the values of its day. But there has never been a comprehensive overhaul of the entire structure based on consistent goals and principles. The result is a rather badly coordinated system which sometimes wastes funds in various areas and ignores real need in others. Such a system cannot be expected to cope with the rapidly changing conditions and problems of our technological society. Certainly a thorough examination is needed.
We believe that our society demands the creation of a full system of social justice. We claim that the major goal of our society should be to maximize every individual's freedom of choice and independence. But for men and women who are forced to devote their lives merely to staying alive there is neither freedom of choice nor independence of mind. Unless we act effectively, one-fifth of the Canadian people and their children after them seem destined to remain in that situation.
We believe such reform should give a key role to incentives. This, of course, does not apply to the aged and those outside the working force. But we should emphasize the necessity and importance of income development, of assisting all Canadians who can work to develop both the ability and the competence to achieve greater income earning potential. Opportunities and incentives are needed to encourage recipients to seek
further training or fuller employment. Our present welfare and retraining programs, which all too often discourage such efforts, must be reformed. We require an income development program for residents of Canada that would be federally sponsored and integrated with provincial programs after full consultation.
A war against poverty was declared in this country a few years ago but it was abandoned. In all fairness, one must emphasize that poverty has actually deepened in the last couple of years in this country as a result of increased unemployment and of the failure of old age pensions, for example, to increase correspondingly with the increase in the cost of living. Certainly this white paper and its proposals are two years late. When one reads the white paper and sees what is in it one wonders why it took two years to prepare it and table it in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I will make no comment today on the unemployment insurance proposals which are in a separate package, nor on the proposals regarding the Canada Pension Plan which are not destined to come into effect until 1973. We will have plenty of time to talk about those. As to old age security, the flat rate is to be frozen at $80 a month. Single persons over 65 years of age are guaranteed an income with supplement of $1,620 a year and married couples $3,050 a year. It should be pointed out that the sum of $1,620 a year is still well below the poverty line for a single person over the age of 65. It should be pointed out also that these allowances are subject to tax. Above all, it should be pointed out and emphasized that the 2 per cent upward adjustment in terms of the cost of living is still to prevail for some reason that is quite beyond my comprehension.
The minister pointed out that these changes will cost $194 million. This will be paid out of the old age security fund. I should emphasize in passing that the amount that the government will save as a result of reducing its family allowances program will at least offset the increase in old age security payments. I do not think the minister intended to give the impression, but perhaps he did, that some $270 million is being transferred to recipients of family allowances at the lower end of the income scale. I think the figure is actually $100 million, and the sum actually saved will be some $270 million plus the $100 million. I do not object to the principle of selectivity here, but I emphasize that this assistance to the aged is late, is inadequate, particularly for single persons below the poverty line, and is subject to taxation. I do not see why the older people who have been held up for so long must wait until April 1 of next year to receive any help at all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: As to the changes with regard to family allowances, I suggest that the system adopted is rather crude, far cruder than it might have been in the sense that the income eligibility does not vary at all with

November 30, 1970

family income. It could quite easily have incorporated this principle. A child will bring in some $180 a year at the maximum, and these benefits are taxable.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
What might have been a program of substantial help to the working poor, and which might have tied in with a subsequent move toward a more comprehensive plan, seems to me to have been bungled. Above all, in view of the help which the children of low income families need, it seems to me that the government will have some difficulty in justifying why it has removed some $175 million a year from assistance to families with children.
Without going on at great length, Mr. Speaker, may I say that we see here no effective broadening of the basis of security. We see no recognition of the difficulties that the poorer provinces have in using the Canada Pension Plan to provide an adequate level of support in those provinces. We see no recognition at all of the tremendous load that the government has placed on welfare authorities through the increase in unemployment. There is no recognition, Sir, of the need to encourage people and help them to break out of the poverty cycle other than just a general reference that this is something that is going to be discussed with the provinces.
Sir, one-fifth of the Canadian people are living in poverty today. This white paper offers very little hope to most of them. It offers some to the aged, but much less than could have been done for the children of low-income families. After two years of gestation it is a very inadequate response to the needs of this country.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to be able to say that there are a number of things in this white paper, at least this white paper with a blue cover, that are good. There is another side to the coin, but may I indicate briefly the reason for my opening statement.
There is provision for an increase in the pensions of older people who are in need. This is welcome. There is an increase in what we now call family allowance payments for those whose total family income is below $8,000 a year. I hope the minister is not thinking I made a mistake. Between $8,000 and $10,000 the amount of the allowance tapers off, but for families with incomes below $8,000 there is an increase. This is welcome.
The proposals to improve the Canada Pension Plan, so far as I have been able to digest them, are all good. Then, of course, there is the usual bowing three times to the provinces assuring the country that co-operation with them will be sought. This is good, but it happens so often that it is hard to get excited about it.
I said that there was another side to the coin. The first criticism I wish to make is that it seems to me that if half as much time had been spent in trying to work out the details of a guaranteed annual income as was spent explaining to us that it cannot be done, we might be farther along the road. If the government will not listen to us I hope it will listen to the delegates at the policy
Social Security
conference of its own party who said that they want a guaranteed annual income.


An hon. Member:: Pie in the sky.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Somebody over there calls it pie in the sky, but that was the position taken at the Liberal conference.
The second criticism I would like to make is with respect to the proposals to improve the Canada Pension Plan. As I say, they are all good, but they are all very much in the future and I get the impression that this book is full of words such as in this very section that tell us how wonderful things are going to be in 1976 and 1977. But the problem is that people are in need right now. In so far as the government relies on the improvements it is going to make in the Canada Pension Plan, I hope it will endeavour to get the provinces to speed up the process of making those improvements.
My third criticism is that this white paper, like so many documents in this field, sets out to help the poor and does so but still keeps them poor. It still provides for two categories of people, those who are self-supporting and those who have to receive aid. I think there are better ways to abolish poverty than by mere subsistence payments such as those set out in this white paper. As a matter of fact, I do not agree that the figures of $135 per month for a retired single person and $255 per month for a retired married couple represent the abolition of poverty.
The fourth criticism, Mr. Speaker, is that although the white paper devotes many paragraphs on many different pages to the subject of veterans legislation, those paragraphs are only descriptive. They tell us what has been done for veterans in the past and they tell us the present situation. However, despite the fact that we have been waiting for months for this white paper to get some lead as to what is to be done for veterans, there is no indication of where veterans fit into this total program of income security for Canadians.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I criticize the decision announced in this white paper, notice of which is already on the order paper, to freeze at $80 the old age security pension in the case of those who do not receive any portion of the guaranteed income supplement. When you call that bill for first reading, Mr. Speaker, I am going to enter a caveat against its procedural admissibility. I contend that there is a contract between the Parliament of Canada and the people of Canada under which our people, having paid taxes into the old age security fund, are entitled to the benefits of the Old Age Security Act. To cut out, as from January, 1971, the 2 per cent annual escalation is breaking that contract, is contravening the policy laid down by Parliament, and I think the bill should be looked at by Your Honour from that standpoint.
I remind the government and I remind the House that Mr. Pearson, Miss LaMarsh, the present Minister of Finance and the present Secretary of State for External Affairs, during the debates on the various bills that have

November 30, 1970
Social Security
amended the Old Age Security Act, emphasized the point that because Canadians were paying into the old age security fund they had coming to them as a right the benefits provided in the Old Age Security Act. One of those benefits is to have the basic pension escalated, if the cost of living goes up, by not more than 2 per cent in any one year. I suggest that to take that away at this time is unfair and unjust and in violation of a policy laid down by Parliament.
I should like to emphasize this point, Mr. Speaker, and with this I shall bring these remarks to a close, by indicating the kind of unfairness that will develop. Under this white paper, if a person is receiving old age security and a guaranteed income supplement combined, he will get up to a 2 per cent increase in his total income each year. But if a person is receiving, let us say, old age security and a retired civil servant's pension-and his total may be just about the same-he will get, by the legislation we passed last March, up to a 2 per cent annual increase in his retired civil servant's pension but no increase in his old age security pension. The third person is one in receipt of old age security and a pension from some private company or some other source. That person will get no increase at all because of the rise in the cost of living. On this basis in particular I think it is most unfair to cut out the annual increase in the basic old age security pension which was provided by Parliament and which is part of the contract we have made.
I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that it is unfortunate the government has not come through with an upward adjustment in the 2 per cent ceiling, but apart from that I submit that denying to the people of Canada who have provided for themselves some other resources and therefore cannot obtain the guaranteed income supplement the right to have their basic pensions escalated from here on is most unfair. This is the feature in the proposals before us to which I object most of all- the freezing of the basic pension at $80 a month.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity of congratulating the government on its attitude toward Canadian families.
Since 1945, there has been a succession of pleas in favour of an increase in family allowances to parents and now the Economic Council of Canada is requesting, in its fifth annual report, among other things, a review of the Family Allowances Act, while also recording the constant increase in the cost of living. I see that the government has taken these recommendations into account.
To be sure, the time has come to adjust family allowances, as families in the low-income groups are in great need of help.
There is still a great deal to be achieved. Let us hope that the Canadian government will give more and more consideration to the family-consideration coupled with

action. Our birth rate is alarmingly low. Let us help families in a concrete and efficient way.
It is a fact that children have a much better chance to live than they used to, but it is hardly fair to say that the mortality rate in respect of certain types of illness has declined. It has been, in a way, limited through the progress of science, through admirable efforts on the part of doctors as well as through the co-operation and enlightenment of parents.
Judging this progress from only one criteria, that of life conservation, Canada, one of the richest countries in the world, does not rank very high yet among the nations of the world. As a matter of fact, 12 countries have an infant mortality rate lower than Canada.
As far as allowances are concerned, we should take a logical position, because, according to the amounts allocated to foster-homes we find it more profitable to raise other peoples' children.
With regard to old age security pensions, we believe the rate adjustment to be simply ludicrous. There are over 1.5 million senior citizens in Canada, many of whom have reached age 65, with little or no income.
Many a time these hardships are their only reward for a life of toil. It would have been in order to adjust their pensions upwards so as to ensure a decent standard of living. Because of limited protection against rising prices, old age pensioners have felt the bite of inflation much more than most other Canadians.
The social needs of our senior citizens are too often neglected. Retirement draws the worker away from active participation in the activities of those institutions he previously belonged to. Because of some disability or other, or lack of income, they may also be deprived of the services offered in their neighborhood or the community. They may come up against problems that require the help of an expert, but they do not know where to go, and cannot always move about to get help.
Canada must play its proper role toward its older citizens by making sure their years of retirement are as pleasent and fruitful as the resources of the country can allow.
I have watched the behaviour of many political men closely enough to conclude that most of them would favour increasing family allowances and adjusting the old age pension reasonably. Still, they remain paralyzed, because of lack of money or the need to increase taxes, according to their concept of scarcity in an age of affluence.
However, ministers, members of Parliament, senators, judges, commissioners, not to mention the proteges of the system, provide against the cost of living increase. This last category has followed, when it did not go beyond, the cost of living requirements. Nonetheless, it is strange to see how easy it is to understand problems when one's own security is at stake, and how difficult it is to understand a situation as unfortunate as that of a high proportion of our Canadian families.

November 30, 1970
We should be ashamed of such behaviour. To those who can not find any other means than taxes to allow the necessary increases and who did not hesitate to give themselves the increases we all know about, I would ask why they cannot do something to give justified increases to those who need them much more than they do? Why try to ratio Canadian families? Producers and dealers are advertising their goods at great cost.
Why are taxes allowed to undermine the effect of such advertising?
It is simply illogical. In cutting down the flow of money by abusive taxes, the sale of products is at the same time restricted. It is not necessary to be a genius to understand that.
As far as products are concerned, we seem to understand that it is not necessary to deprive people in order to provide all Canadian families with the products they need.
Canada, a rich country, can certainly feed and clothe all Canadians at the same time without depriving some to serve the others. It is a mere question of seeing real wealth in goods instead of seeing it in the symbol which is only a means of getting the goods which are plentiful.
It is unfortunate that too many politicians seem to take seriously the information supplied by the financiers' noisy publicity. It is not surprising that a certain number of our graduates are so eager to turn to socialism.
With their acquired and unassimilated knowledge of science and letters and mostly on account of their ambition to reign rather than serve, they get ready for higher positions in order to enjoy real security. They should rather take into account the needs of the population in general.
We demand tax free allowances and pensions, but this is something that most of our economists are unable to comprehend. They understand everything that is to their advantage, but when it comes to others, they oppose various objections.
We waste too much time, here in this House, trying to And out who-rather than what-is right.
% % *



CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Introduction of Bills:
November 24, 1970-Mr. Saltsman-Bill intituled:	"An Act
to establish a Canada Development Corporation".
Mr. Speaker:: I indicated to the House last Friday that the Chair had reservations about this bill and suggested to hon. members who might like to argue about its acceptability from the procedural standpoint that they could argue about it at this time or later, if they preferred to. If the hon. member for Waterloo wishes to present arguments at this time in support of the bill from a procedural standpoint, I shall be pleased to hear him.


Mr. Saltsman:: Mr. Speaker, bearing in mind your remarks of last week, I have gone through the bill in an
Questions
attempt to make it acceptable to you, Sir, and I hope that my efforts have been successful. The purpose of a private member's bill very frequently is to direct attention to an important matter. It is not our intention in the bill to suggest that it should involve implications for government revenue. The corporation would be entirely selfsufficient to that extent. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in light of our intention that this bill should not involve any implications respecting revenue for the government, I hope you will permit it to be introduced.


Mr. Speaker:: If there is no further argument about the bill, perhaps I might be allowed to look at the matter a little more closely. I told the hon. member last week that I was very anxious to give him the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps what has been done with other bills before might be done with this one in the sense that we might be able to look at what might be considered as the financial provisions of the bill and, with the agreement of the House, have it amended accordingly. In any event, I will look into the matter and see if there is anything that can be done by the Chair in co-operation with the hon. member and in co-operation with the parliamentary counsel to make the bill acceptable from a procedural standpoint.

[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-201, to amend the Criminal Code (obliteration of motor-vehicle serial numbers).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is simply to make it illegal to operate or possess a motor vehicle on which the serial number has been altered or obliterated. The only conceivable reason for obliterating or altering a motor vehicle serial number is to try to conceal the fact that the vehicle has been stolen. Last year stolen cars cost Canadians over $20 million.


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

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

Mr. Carter: 1.	What was the cost of the film produced by the National Film Board on Premier J. R. Smallwood, tentatively titled Smallwood?

November 30, 1970
Questions
2.	What was (a) the total footage of film shot (b) the total footage of film actually used?
3.	What disposal was made of the excess film?
4.	What was the number of people in the crew that made the film and how long were they in making it?
5.	Did CBC undertake to purchase this film before it was made?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of Stale):: I am informed by the National Film Board as follows: 1. $80,103.
2.	(a) 43,000 ft.-(b) 2,000 ft.
3.	All negative, as per usual practice, was retained by the National Film Board's stock shot library. Left over non negative material was donated to Premier Smallwood for his archives with the proviso that it would not be used for public exhibition or for political purposes.
4.	Crew was composed of 4 men for 32 days; during a period of three days it was increased by nine; during a period of ten days it was increased by four.
5.	No.


ESTABLISHMENT OF WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT AREAS
Mr. Harding: 1.	In what areas does the government anticipate establishing Water Quality Management Areas as provided for in the Canada Water Act?
2.	Have any such areas been designated to date?
3.	Has the government entered into discussions with any provincial or local governments or any other groups in order to initiate the establishment of such areas?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minisler of Energy, Mines and Resources):: 1. The Government anticipates that water quality management areas will be established, as provided for in the Canada Water Act, in any part of the nation where water quality management has become a matter of urgent national concern. Where the waters involved are located within one or more of the provinces the establishment of such management areas normally will take place by agreement between or among the federal and provincial governments concerned.
2.	No such management areas have been designated to date; that part of the Canada Water Act providing for establishment of such management areas became law on September 30, 1970.
3.	Yes. Arrangements have been made with each province to establish intergovernmental committees to maintain continuing consultation on water resource matters. Most of these committees were established in anticipation of the Act coming into force; and they have met on several occasions in connection with the formulation, coordination and implementation of water policies and programs. The possible establishment of water quality management areas is only one element in this policy and program review process.


YOUTH HOSTEL AT BRIGHTON COMPOUND. CHARLOTTETOWN, PEI.
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What consultations were held with representatives of the Government of Prince Edward Island and/or the city of Charlottetown prior to the establishment of a youth hostel at the Brighton Compound in Charlottetown?
2.	Who were the members of the advisory committee?
3.	When was this committee formed?
4.	When was the youth hostel opened?
5.	What are the names and addresses of those responsible for managing and operating the hostel?
6.	Were any youth leaders or social workers in Charlottetown requested to assume or assist in direction of the hostel and, if: so, whom?
7.	What is the estimated total cost of operating the hostel?
8.	What amounts were spent in cleaning and renovating the building used?
9.	What were the other major items of expenditure?


Gérard Pelletier: 1. Prior to the establishment of the hostel in Charlottetown telegrams were sent to the Honourable Gordon Bennett, Minister of Education and Her Worship Mayor D. M. Corrigan of Charlottetown informing them of the emergency hostel program, and requesting their co-operation.
2.	Members of the advisory committee: Mr. Frank Sigsworth, Barrister, P.E.I.; Miss Bea Mair, Dept, of Health, P.E.I.; Miss Carol MacMillan, Detached Youth Worker, P.E.I.; Mr. & Mrs. R. D. Donnelly, Local Citizens, Charlottetown; Mr. J. Evans, Y.M.C.A., Charlottetown; Miss Bernice Rowland, Public Health Nurse, Charlottetown.
3.	This committee was formed on July 6, 1970.
4.	The hostel opened on July 10, 1970.
5.	Members of the management committee: Mr. Brian Bulmer, Fredericton, N.B.; Miss Pat Doherty, 3 Waverly Court, Charlottetown; Miss Janet McLeod, 18 Selling Street, Charlottetown; Mr. Larry Robichaud, Fredericton, N.B.
6.	The Advisory Committee assisted in direction of hostel.
7.	The estimated total cost of operating the hostel in Charlottetown was $7,882.
8.	The budgeted amount for cleaning and renovating: was $1,662.00.
9.	The other major items of expenditure were staff salaries $4,070.00 and food $1,050.


YOUTH HOSTELS-SUMMER, 1971
Mr. Goode: Does the government plan to re-institute a program of temporary youth hostels for the Summer of 1971?


Gérard Pelletier: At this time the government is in the process of evaluating the 1970 summer emergency hostel program and no plans have been formulated to date for a similar program during the summer of 1971.
November 30, 1970


COST OF EXTRA RCMP DUTY-ROCK FESTIVAL, 1969, ALDERGROVE, B.C.
Mr. Rose: 1.	What was the cost of extra RCMP duty at the Rock Festival held on Labour Day weekend, 1969, at Aldergrove, British Columbia?
2.	What municipal or federal agency paid these costs?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Solicitor General):: 1. The members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police do not receive compensation for extra duties such as overtime.
2.	Not applicable.


CANADA STUDENT LOANS ACT-AMENDMENT COVERING PART-TIME STUDENTS
Mr. Rowland: Is the government giving consideration to amending the Canada Student Loans Act to enable part-time students in postsecondary institutions to participate in its provisions?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: This is a matter of government policy. Should the government decide to propose an amendment to the Canada Student Loans Act to make the suggested change it will be announced at the appropriate time.


CRTC-DIRECTOR RESEARCH AND PLANNING
Mr. Aiken: 1.	Who was the successful candidate for the position of Director, Research and Planning, CRTC, advertised under Public Service Commission Bulletin No. 70-3601?
2.	What are the qualifications and experience of the successful applicant as a Research Director?
3.	What is the nationality of the successful applicant and is he completely bilingual?
4.	(a) What salary or remuneration is paid to the successful applicant (b) does he receive, in addition, a per diem allowance and, if so, at what rate?
5.	Where does the Director carry on his duties each day of the week?
6.	How long has the successful applicant lived in Canada and what was his previous employment?
7.	How many other persons applied for the position and were all such persons Canadians?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Public Service Commission and the Canadian Radio-Television Commission as follows:
1.	Mr. Andre F. J. Martin.
2.	Attended the Ecole des Beaux Arts, Bordeaux, France. Wide experience as a film producer, director and radio producer. Research and study experience in film and media subjects.
3.	French national. Bilingual capabilities considered by the examining Board to be satisfactory for this position.
4.	(a) Salary range, $19,100-$21,700; (b) No.
5.	In Ottawa.
Questions
6.	Mr. Martin has lived in Canada since July 3, 1967. His previous employment was Film Producer and Director and conducting research and studies in film and media subjects.
7.	Twelve, not all of whom were Canadian.


AUDITOR GENERAL
Mr. Fortin: Does the Auditor General audit the books of every (a) proprietary (b) mandatory (c) mixed economy Crown corporation and, if not, does the government intend, in the near future, to allow him to do so?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: The Auditor General audits the accounts of all departmental and agency Crown corporations and all but five of the proprietary Crown corporations. Those five are: Air Canada; Canadian National Railways; Canadian National Railways Securities Trust; Cape Breton Development Corporation; Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
In addition, there are several other public instrumentalities for which the Auditor General is not the auditor. These are: Bank of Canada; Industrial Development Bank; Canadian Wheat Board.
As indicated in the Auditor General of Canada bill introduced the 16th of October, it is not proposed to alter the current legislative provision for the audit of Crown corporations, as found in sub-section 2 of Section 77 of the Financial Administration Act, which reads as follows:
77. (2) Notwithstanding any other Act, the Auditor General is eligible to be appointed the auditor or a joint auditor, of a Crown corporation.


RECIPIENTS OF OLD AGE SECURITY-BEAUCE CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Rodrigue: How many recipients of Old Age Security are there in the constituency of Beauce and, of this number, how many receive the Guaranteed Income Supplement?

Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): Old age security statistics are not maintained 'n such a way as to make it possible to state the number of recipients in any given constituency.


RECIPIENTS OF OLD AGE SECURITY-MANITOBA
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many people in Manitoba receive the Old Age Pension?
2.	How many of these recipients receive the Guaranteed Income Supplement?


John Carr Munro: 1. In Manitoba, 94,175 persons receive the Old Age Pension.
2. The number of Manitoba old age pensioners who receive the Guaranteed Income Supplement is 47,777.

November 30, 1970
Questions


TIDAL POWER DEVELOPMENT-BAY OF FUNDY
Mr. Forreslall: 1.	For what purposes has the government decided not to allow access to the Atlantic Tidal Power Programming Board's investigation of Fundy tides until April of 1975?
2.	What national interests could be compromised by allowing access to this documentation?


John James Greene: 1. The Report of the Atlantic Tidal Power Programming Board, dated October 31, 1969, and entitled "Feasibility of Tidal Power Devleopment in the Bay of Fundy" was tabled in the House on March 24, 1970 and, therefore, is a public document.
2. Not applicable.


ARTIFICIAL MILK
Mr. Rodrigue: 1.	Has the Department of Agriculture issued permits to allow the import of artificial milk?
2.	What was the amount of artificial milk sold in Canada in 1969?
3.	Does the government intend presenting legislation to prohibit the sale of artificial milk?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce as follows: 1. No. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce administers The Export and Import Permits Act which controls the importation of certain products. Artificial milk is not under import control.
2.	None.
3.	No.


REGINA-POSITIONS IN FAMILY ALLOWANCES AND OLD AGE SECURITY DIVISION OFFICE
Mr. Burton: 1.	How many positions of "Eligibility and Review Clerk" are there with the Family Allowances and Old Age Security Division Office of the Department of National Health and Welfare in Regina, Saskatchewan?
2.	How many of these positions require proficiency in both the English and French languages?
3.	What is the description of the degree of proficiency required in each language for these positions in Regina?


John Carr Munro: 1. There are 27 such positions.
2.	Two of these positions require proficiency in both official languages.
3.	These positions require the ability to read specialized work terminology, to write letters and bulletins, to understand completely a conversation or discussion and to take an active part in a conversation or discussion.


INFORMATION CANADA
Mr. Mather: 1.	What is the number of Information Canada centres to be established in various parts of the country?
2.	What is the estimated cost of such centres?
3.	Is consideration being given to avoiding duplication and reducing costs to the taxpayers by utilizing for public information purposes the existing information centres in Canada i.e. the public libraries?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister without Portfolio):: 1.
The ultimate number of regional enquiry centres has not been determined. Current plans call for the gradual establishment of centres based on the six existing Canadian Government Publications Bookshops and the development of similar combined bookshops and information centres in those provinces where no federal sales outlets exist at the present time. In addition to the national capital centre, two regional establishments are envisaged for the current fiscal year and four in 1971-72.
2.	Using the national capital centre as a base, the initial cost to Information Canada of each regional outlet, including interior design, furniture and equipment may vary from $40,000 to $60,000 depending on location. Rental costs and basic physical alterations, which also vary considerably according to location, age and condition of premises, are the responsibility of the Department of Public Works and would be included in its estimates.
3.	Yes.


PERSONNEL OF COMPANY OF YOUNG CANADIANS
Mr. Comeau: 1.	What is the salary of the Director of the Company of Young Canadians?
2.	What qualifications are required to hold such a position and who sets them?
3.	How many persons are there on the Director's personal staff?
4.	How many people are employed by the Company of Young Canadians?


Gérard Pelletier: 1. Salary range of the Director of the Company of Young Canadians $20,000-$25,000.
2.	The appointment is made by the Governor in Council based on experience and personal suitability for the position.
3.	I am informed by the Company of Young Canadians that there are two assistants on the Director's personal staff.
4.	I am informed by the Company of Young Canadians that the following people are employed by the CYC: Volunteers, 92; Field Staff, 23; Ottawa Operations, 23.

November 30, 1970


POLLUTION-ESQUIMAU HARBOUR
Mr. Anderson: 1.	Are Canadian naval vessels stationed in Esquimalt dumping untreated sewage into the Harbour and, if so, which ones?
2.	Have any measures been taken by the Department of National Defence during the past year to prevent the discharge of untreated sewage by HMCS Dockyard into Esquimalt Harbour?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: 1. Yes, HMCS Qu'Appelle, Yukon, St. Croix, Gatineau, Cape Breton, Columbia, Chaudiere, Cowichan, Miramichi, Fundy, Chignecto; Two Gate Vessels (Porte de la Reine and Porte de Quebec) and the sailing yacht Oriole.
2. At the present time a comprehensive study is under way in conjunction with the Municipality which proposes a connection to the Municipal Collection System discharging to the Macaulay Point Outfall for final disposal into the ocean. Design is now complete for the new Dockyard and sewage interceptor system, and design is under way for the new Naden and Graving Dock sewage interceptor system.


ARMED FORCES-EDUCATION OF DEPENDANTS OVERSEAS
Mr. Anderson: Are all schools run by the Canadian Armed Forces in Germany using the same course credit system and, if not, for what reason is this practice not followed?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, all secondary schools or combined schools at the secondary level adopted the credit system effective September 1, 1970. The extent of application may vary depend ng on the size of the school, grade level structures, physical facilities and pupil involvement. At the elementary level pupils are classified by grades where instruction is encouraged on an individual or group basis to meet the particular needs of the pupil.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-REPLACEMENT FOR ARGUS AIRCRAFT
Mr. Lambert (Edmonfon Wesl): 1.	Has any decision been taken as to the type of aircraft which will replace the Argus aircraft presently in use by the Canadian Armed Forces and, if so (a) when was the decision taken (b) how many aircraft will be procured?
2.	What is the total cost of such aircraft, including spares, and what is the schedule of delivery and the anticipated date of operational status?
3.	Has any decision been reached as to the ultimate disposal of the Argus aircraft?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. No.
2.	Cost of each aircraft, including spares, will not be known until the replacement aircraft has been selected.
3.	No.
Orders for Returns


EMPLOYMENT OF MRS. GERARD PELLETIER BY CBC
Mr. Coates: 1.	Is Mrs. Gerard Pelletier presently employed or under contract to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and, if so (a) when was the original contract signed between Mrs. Pelletier and CBC (b) what are her duties?
2.	Has her contract at any time been renewed or revised and if so, on what date?
3.	What remuneration does Mrs. Pelletier receive from CBC as a result of her employment?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. No.
2 and 3. Not applicable.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Rose: 1.	For the year 1970-71, which American-produced series are to be carried by the private network, CTV, and by the Canadian Broadcasting Company?
2.	For the same year, which Canadian series are to be carried by the CTV network and by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?
3.	For the same years, what series are to be carried by CTV and CBC during the prime viewing time fo 7 p.m. to 11 p.m.?
Return tabled.


BANNING OF FISHING BECAUSE OF MERCURY POLLUTION
Mr. Harding: 1.	What rivers and lakes in Canada have been banned for fishing due to mercury pollution and, in each case, for what period of time?
2.	What is the estimated loss in employment and fishing revenue due to the ban?
3.	In each case, what has been the source of the mercury pollution?
Return tabled.



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 THE CANADIAN ECONOMY TAKEOVER OF RYERSON PRESS BY UNITED STATES COMPANY

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the failure of the government to

November 30, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
take action to prevent the takeover of Ryerson Press by an American concern, thus adding to the loss of a sector of the economy important to the development of Canadian identity and culture, and the fact that today is the last day on which action can be taken before the completion of the sale of Ryerson Press to McGraw-Hill.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Regina East has filed the notice required under the terms of Standing Order 26. The Standing Order outlines the factors which have to be taken into account by the Chair in determining whether the House should be adjourned for the purpose of such a motion. In fact, Standing Order 26 (16)(a) requires that the matter proposed for discussion must relate to a genuine emergency.
On many occasions it has been determined that the emergency contemplated by the rule implies a new, unforeseen or sudden circumstance which requires immediate consideration by the House. I do not think that the rule applies to situations which have been public knowledge for a number of weeks, as evidenced in this instance by numerous questions asked by hon. members. The first question was asked on October 9. Many other questions were asked since then and answers given, satisfactory or otherwise, depending on the judgment of the hon. members who asked the questions. On November 10 the hon. member for Skeena proposed under Standing Order 43 that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
It will be seen that the matter proposed for discussion today by the hon. member for Regina East can hardly be said to have arisen suddenly and in this sense is not an emergency. The Standing Order also requires that the matter come within the administrative responsibility of the government. There is some doubt in my mind whether this requirement of the Standing Order has been met in this instance.
I also suggest to the hon. member that his proposed motion is along the lines of a non-confidence motion. He proposes to discuss at this time the failure of the government to take certain action. In this sense the hon. member is proposing that the House consider a grievance or that the House consider a non-confidence motion.
For all these reasons I doubt very much that it would be in order at this time for the Speaker to put the motion of the hon. member for the consideration of the House under the terms of Standing Order 26.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: 1
wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister relating to the statement made by the Minister of Justice of Quebec over the weekend that some persons arrested

under the War Measures Act regulations had been beaten and that he proposed to conduct his own investigation into this. As Prime Minister of Canada is he satisfied that this is an adequate response by the Quebec Minister of Justice to these findings of beatings of persons who were arrested under regulations issued by the government of Canada?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: That is my reaction, Mr. Speaker; it is a satisfactory response. It will, of course, depend on what the response develops into'. There have been communications, as usual, between our ministers and the Quebec ministers. For the time being I feel that it is a satisfactory response. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to suggest any other response, I will consider it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: As the leader of the government does the Prime Minister not consider it his responsibility to make strenuous representations to the province of Quebec for an independent investigation into these alleged beatings in order to assure the people of Canada that an adequate investigation is being made into events that Canadians do not like to think are occurring in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared to consider the representations of the Leader of the Opposition that he does not have faith in the trustworthiness of the commission of investigation set up by the Quebec minister.


Mr. Crouse:: That is not what he said.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I indicated that I did not think an investigation by the Minister of Justice of Quebec would be independent, at least as we understand the word. I ask the Prime Minister not to twist my words in the way that he has.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmoni):: Will the Prime Minister indicate whether in his consultations, or those of the Minister of Justice or the Solicitor General, with the provincial authorities there has been any suggestion that after the provincial investigation has been concluded some form of public statement will be issued to assure the general population of Quebec with regard to these matters?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think that is a desirable eventuality. I will express the hope that it is proceeded with in that way I am not sure, but I believe there have already been representations to this effect. I will, of course, convey this suggestion to the Quebec Minister of Justice.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I believe a couple of days ago I asked the Minister of Justice whether he would consider setting up a judicial inquiry, and I was wondering whether the minister had had some conversation with the Minister of Justice of Quebec with regard to settingup such an inquiry at the provincial level. Has the Minister of Justice had any such conversation since I asked
November 30, 1970

that question and, if so, what was the nature of the conversation and the result of it?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Since the question was put to me by the' hon. member for Calgary North I have had conversations with the Minister of Justice of Quebec. Indeed, again this morning I expressed to him my deep concern at allegations of mistreatment by the police of certain people detained under the regulations promulgated pursuant to the War Measures Act.
I also talked to Mr. Jacques Hebert this morning, who is chairman of the three-man commission appointed by the Attorney General of Quebec to review the conditions of detention of those held under the War Measures Act. I was advised by Mr. Hebert that during the initial few days of the current crisis just after the proclamation of the War Measures Act, when over 350 people had been arrested at one time, there appeared to have been five or six cases of rough handling of accused persons by the arrested at one time, there appeared to have been five or six people of prolonged interrogation. All these alleged incidents, according to Mr. Hebert, apparently took place during the first few days following the proclamation of the War Measures Act when the wide arrests were made.
Mr. Hebert has personally assured me that no obstacles are being placed in the way of his committee, that they have been able to interview any detained person they wish to interview. Every complaint has been transmitted by Mr. Hebert and his committee to Mr. Louis Marceau, the protecteur du peuple, the Quebec ombudsman established under the laws of Quebec. The Attorney General of Quebec advised me this morning that he had authorized Mr. Hebert's committee to have complete access to all persons detained and that it was open to the Quebec ombudsman, who also has complete access, to suggest what indemnity should be paid or what other remedial steps should be taken in the case of anyone who has been unfairly treated.
I have also been advised by the Attorney General of Quebec that the disciplinary committee of the Quebec Provincial Police is investigating any allegations of rough treatment, and I am assured by the Attorney General of Quebec that the proper action will be taken.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of the income security report which has just been tabled by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Since chapter 6 of this report seems to be concerned mainly with giving some of the reasons for not implementing a guaranteed annual income, and in view of the statements that have been made by Dr. Willard, 23568-291
Inquiries of the Ministry
Deputy Minister of the department, before the Senate committee, and the majority opinion expressed by the Liberal policy convention the weekend before last favouring a guaranteed annual income, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the government would be prepared to reconsider the whole question of the guaranteed income as being basic to a genuine frontal attack upon the problem of poverty in this country?
Riqhi Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker I am informed as regards Dr. Willard that the leader of the New Democratic Party is quoting him very inaccurately; therefore I cannot deal with that allegation.
The other allegation concerning the position of the Liberal delegates at the policy convention two weeks ago I must deal with by stating that at that time they did not have this detailed argument before them. We knew, of course, what the argument would be, and that is why I suggested to them that they study the white paper with an open mind. I know they will do that, but I also hope that the members of the opposition will, though perhaps this is too much to ask.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the government has already provided for a cost of living bonus in the pensions paid to former civil servants and former employees of some agencies of the Crown the armed forces and Members of Parliament and Senators would the government be prepared to reconsider its decision with respect to discontinuing the cost of living bonus tor those who are on the old age security pension? The cost to the government would be relatively small, $14 million or $15 million a year, and in addition it would seem that one group of pensioners is being discriminated against in face of the treatment meted out to other pensioners who come within the purview of the federal government.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of publishing a white paper is in order that all these questions be placed m context. We did, of course, consider the alternative suggested by the leader of the New Democratic Party, but we did not accept it because we thought it was more important to help the poor, as we do, than to help the nch, as he is suggesting. The white paper is there and the whole context is now available not only to members of the House of Commons but to the Canadian public We will therefore wait for discussion of the white paper.
^ I must say that if it should be the desire of the country to accept the recommendation of the New Democratic Party leader, I hope at the same time they will indicate which taxes should be increased in order to finance this.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a final supplementary. I am sure the country will be pleased to know that the Prime Minister thinks that anybody receiving more than $140 a month is rich. May I ask a question about the Canada Pension Plan. As pointed out in the report, the federal government must give three years' notice to the provinces of any proposed change. In view of the fact that the provinces do not contribute but have the benefit of access to

November 30, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
the funds of the plan, and also in view of the fact that three years is a long time to wait before making some of the changes recommended in this report, would the government undertake to consult with the provinces to see whether this period of time could be considerably reduced so that desirable changes could be made to the Canada Pension Plan in a much shorter period, preferably in 1971?


John Carr Munro: If I may answer that question, Mr. Speaker, over the course of the last year or two in informal discussions with the provinces one or two indicated they would be prepared to relax the particular law that requires this notice. If this type of consensus develops as a result of discussions with the provinces on the Canada Pension Plan, then I think the government would be very happy to consider shortening the period.


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the minister made representations to the provincial governments in regard to the advisability of reducing property taxes for pensioners as a means of increasing their discretionary income? If not, is he considering placing that item on the agenda for the next meeting of ministers of health?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, this may be a matter that can be discussed at these meetings of ministers of both health and welfare, but it seems to me that this is an area that lies exclusively within provincial jurisdiction.



FISHERIES


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: Mr. Speaker, I want to address a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Can the minister say if and when Canada will sign an agreement to share scientific knowledge with the Soviet Union? Will the information shared be mainly in the area of marine knowledge, and can the minister indicate in a very general way whether Canada will make a reciprocal response to such arrangement?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, an agreement of a very general kind in respect of scientific matters is under discussion with the Soviet Union.


John Howard Lundrigan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister indicate, in light of the recommendations of the Science Council of Canada that there be an increased effort on the part of Canada in the area of marine resources and marine knowledge, whether we are taking any steps toward establishing a Canadian ocean development authority?


John (Jack) Davis: The answer to the latter part of the question is no, Mr. Speaker.
[Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands) .1



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the President of the Privy Council and welcome him back. I hope he is in good health not only so that he may be better able to bear the slings and arrows of being Government House Leader but also because he might help us resolve some of the doubts that have arisen in the House as to the direction we are going and what the government wants us to do. Could he indicate later this week, in a statement on motions, what will be the likely course of government business from now until the Christmas recess, when that will be, and hopefully whether the government proposes to withdraw Bill C-190. In respect of Bill C-181, does the government intend to abandon further debate on that bill, despite the fact it has been debated for several weeks?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Presideni of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his welcome back to the House. I am delighted to be back and I am somewhat flattered to observe that the House refused to take any important decisions in my absence.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to have the benefit of the views of other House leaders before taking any decisions on the course of business. I hope to be able to meet the House leaders later today. As a result of that meeting and later consultations, it might be possible to clarify the program we would like to place before the House between this date and Christmas and to determine what the adjournment date will be as well as any other arrangements which would help to clear up the business we think we must clear up before taking that Christmas adjournment.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice. In view of the rumour attributed to the Prime Minister that he intends to abandon further debate on Bill C-181, can he say whether or not this is correct. Is it the government's intention not to proceed further with debate on that measure?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this rumour is not correct and I hope the hon. member will not contribute to the spreading of it.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Haslings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. I wonder whether he can clear up the persistent rumour indicating that the government, because of the universal editorial condemnation it has received on its Auditor General bill, has decided to turn tail and run but leave the bill on the order paper not to be brought forward for debate at this session?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize for interrupting hon. members-
November 30, 1970


George Harris Hees: Oh, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: In spite of the hon. member's plea, I must say it is not in order to ask ministers or the government to confirm or deny rumours or reports. The question can be asked directly, but certainly it is not procedurally acceptable to ask whether or not a statement is correct or true.


George Harris Hees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the rumours have been so persistent during the last few days I think the Prime Minister would like to answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Even if the hon. member is more persistent than the rumours he cannot ask the question.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact this is the last day on which action can be taken to retain Canadian control of Ryerson Press, will the minister indicate whether the government has reconsidered its previous approach to this matter and is going to take action to prevent this sale?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Yes and no.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, can the minister indicate whether the government is considering including provisions in its revision of the Combines Investigation Act which would prevent such sales, and can he also indicate when this bill will be available to the House?


Stanley Ronald Basford: As I made clear, we are in the course of revising the Combines Investigation Act. Of course, it would not be proper for me to say what will be in the revised Act before it is brought before Parliament.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kenl-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture related to statements the minister has made, the latest before the National Farm Congress, dealing with proposed government financial and other aid to farmers leaving their lands. I wonder whether the minister can give any indication as to when legislation dealing with this matter will be introduced in the House?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: No, Mr. Speaker; I cannot give a precise date but I can repeat the hope I have expressed many times that it will be soon.
Inquiries of the Ministry



FARM PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION-REPORTED STATEMENT BY MINISTER CONCERNING CONTROL

Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. Is it his intention to introduce further legislation, in addition to Bill C-176, to translate into action the minister's reported remarks, namely that in future all farm production and distribution will be determined by the government, that decisions in this regard will be taken completely out of the hands of farmers and farm organizations, as is done in the Soviet Union?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the minister has never made such a statement and the one press report that I saw to that effect I thought was journalism at its worst.



ESTABLISHMENT OF EFFECTIVE CONSULTATION PROCEDURE

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, in view of complaints by provincial ministers of agriculture and farm organization spokesmen that there has been lack of consultation between these organizations and the two ministers involved in agricultural policy, can the minister assure the House that proper or workable consultation procedure will be set up between the federal government, farm organizations and provincial governments so there may be some understanding between them on the formation of agricultural policy.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think the congress we had last week went a long way towards satisfying effective procedure for consultation. Many of the provincial ministers, as well as leaders of farm organizations, indicated to me that this was a very useful exercise in that regard.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I have a supplementary question. In view of reported statements that a program involving the retirement of farmers and, indeed, substantial acquirement of land is to be followed, has there been consultation with farm organizations and leaders on this program? Will this type of consultation be followed before such a program is started, so that we will not need another congress to discuss it after it has been in operation.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that one of the most useful ways to have consultation is for one side or the other to put forward a proposal. When I have a proposal which will set out the policy as far as the federal government is concerned, obviously and naturally we will put it to the provincial governments and farm organizations in order that they may give us their views.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest we should not get involved in a debate, but before going to another subject the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Lambton-Kent.


Mr. Mac T. McCulcheon (Lambion-Kenl):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the comment he just

November 30, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
made about the terrible reporting of his statement I wonder since we have Information Canada now, whether he will try to get the proper position put forward through that organization?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think we should go on to another subject.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

['Order. The hon. member is repeating the question in exactly the same terms.']
Mr. Warren Allmand (Noire-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. While I congratulate the minister on the white paper he tabled today, I wonder whether he would correct the oversight he made on Friday night, now acknowledged, in that A1 Phaneuf did participate in the Grey Cup game, and that he and the Alouettes did a terrific job in bringing the Grey Cup back to Montreal?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do congratulate the Montreal Alouettes and offer my most sincere apologies to Mr. Phaneuf.



Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister of which I have given him notice. Will he help reconcile the apparent shift in government policy from what I thought was a rather firm position opposing the sales of arms by Britain to South Africa, as set out in the Prime Minister's letter to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom last July, in light of an answer given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs on this topic in London last Friday night?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member suggests the position of the government was made known to Mr. Heath in my letter of July and the position remains the same. Because the hon. member was good enough to give me notice of his question, I did look quickly at the article to which I believe he referred. All I can say is that the conclusions drawn in that story obviously are those of the writer. They do not represent the position of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Naturally, it is our desire that this issue or any issue will not force a break up of the Commonwealth. But to brand efforts to avoid the breaking up of the Commonwealth as waffling or softening is to confuse diplomacy with strident shouting.


Mr. Fairweather:: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Prime Minister for his positive answer. Before he leaves for the Conference of Prime Ministers in Singapore in January, I wonder whether he would consider commenting one way or the other on the issue of whether a member of the Commonwealth, in his opinion, may take a unilateral
policy decision which could result in a very fundamental change in the nature and make-up of the Commonwealth. I do not ask for a policy statement today.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Since the hon. member is suggesting that the comment not be made now perhaps there will be an opportunity for the Prime Minister to do this on motions some time.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Prime Minister. Has the government of Canada had an opportunity to evaluate the suggestion put forward by the government of Somalia to the United Nations that South Africa's major trading partners hold meetings to discuss ways and means of eliminating their trade with South Africa and, if so, is the government of Canada considering initiating such consultations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the question I take it that the consultations have been suggested by a government and therefore that government has taken the initiative. I see nothing new about it. It is a matter which has been discussed at the United Nations for quite some time; that is, whether or not something should be done about trading with South Africa. The member knows the answer which has been given by the major trading nations.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, the question which was put is a pretty specific one. I should like to ask the Prime Minister once again whether the government has examined the specific suggestion made by Somalia that the major trading partners-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is repeating the question in exactly the same terms.



AIR TRANSPORT


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Last week I asked the acting minister whether the government had taken action to deal with the overcharging of Canadian air passengers on international flights originating in Canada. The acting minister indicated the minister would reply as soon as possible.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Well, Mr. Speaker, the matter quite properly was referred to my colleague, the Minister of Transport, and is before the Air Transport Committee of the Transportation Commission. I hope my colleague will have more to say on this matter in the House tomorrow. In the meantime, it is perfectly clear that the present arrangements are due to an international arrangement

November 30, 1970

through IATA but the fact is that Canadians travelling overseas are entitled to pay for their tickets in United States funds and in that way receive a reduction.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that the IATA manual on traffic conference resolutions, as well as the commercial air service regulations, provide for the immediate removal of discrimination of this kind?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Yes, but those are matters being looked at by the Air Transport Committee and my colleague the Minister of Transport.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Now that the government's white paper on income security for Canadians has been tabled, will the government be introducing legislation to raise the disability pensions paid to veterans and also to raise the level of payments made under the War Veterans Allowance Act?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I hope to be in a position on Wednesday of this week to table veterans legislation. At the same time, I shall make a statement on motions concerning war veterans allowances and veterans pensions.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the statement of the Hon. Samuel Uskiw, Minister of Agriculture for Manitoba, made at the agricultural congress concluded this weekend to the effect that Manitobans were particularly embittered over the so-called chicken and egg war and the government's failure to enforce the provisions of the constitution to guarantee free movement of goods across provincial boundaries, what action does the government intend to take to rectify this serious threat to the unity of our country?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Well, Mr. Speaker, this matter was discussed at many of the policy forums held at the agricultural congress. I might say it was also discussed at the agriculture ministers' meetings which were held at the same time. I think the consensus expressed at the federal-provincial conference in September was that passage of some national measure to deal with this problem would be the most satisfactory way to deal with it. That opinion is still the consensus of the ministers.
Inquiries of the Ministry REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION



NORTHERN MANITOBA-EXTENSION OF SPECIAL AREA

Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. I wonder if the minister could say whether any requests have been received from the province of Manitoba to extend the boundaries of the present special area in Northern Manitoba to include the rest of the territory in Northern Manitoba?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I have met with the representatives of the government of Manitoba, particularly the Premier, Mr. Schreyer. There was talk of extending the limits of special and designated zones, but no decision was reached.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Can the hon. gentleman advise us concerning the possibility of an early decision regarding overtime pay for members of the Royal Canadian Mounted police?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, that matter is being looked into. I cannot promise the hon. member an early decision.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, should like to direct a question to the Solicitor General. Can he give the House any account of the situation in the Prince Albert pentitentiary?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to do so. Ten of the prisoners who escaped last week have been returned to the penitentiary. One is still at large. Concerning the fires, immediately following the telecast of the Grey Cup game, fires set by a few malcontents broke out simultaneously in the office of the supervisor of recreation located on the south side of the auditorium building and in the library located on the north side of the building. One of the officers on duty was taken hostage by inmates and held for approximately three-quarters of an hour until released by other members of the staff. The damage was quite extensive and a very rough estimate of it is $100,000.

November 30, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Frank Howard: I wonder whether I might be permitted a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In the light of the situation which existed over the weekend, and the hunger strike which took place on another occasion at the penitentiary about a year ago as well as the general tension which has existed in that institution for a period of a year and a half, would the minister be prepared to have a thorough inquiry conducted into the administrative competence of the officials of this penitentiary in an effort to see what might be done to alleviate the situation and ensure that in the future some respect will be paid to the officers employed there as well as the inmates in the institution?


George James McIlraith: Without admitting all the premises of the hon. member's question, I should point out that two boards of inquiry are presently dealing with matters at the penitentiary. One inquiry relates to the escape of the 11 inmates last week and the other relates to the fire and damage consequent on it. It would be premature to take a firm position on the question of a commission of inquiry to examine into the affairs of the institution until the reports of those two boards are received; the matter will be considered then.



PROPOSED FLOODING OF SKAGIT RIVER VALLEY-DISCUSSION WITH UNITED STATES AUTHORITIES

Robert Lorne Stanfield: am sorry to bother the Prime Minister, but I should like to ask him whether his government has taken any steps to open discussions with U.S. authorities on the question of the flooding of the Skagit Valley in British Columbia, a matter which I think is of great interest to some of his colleagues as well as to many others?


John (Jack) Davis: This matter is receiving urgent attention from the government.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I ask the question again, since the minister seems to be a little hard of hearing. Have any steps been taken to get the United States authorities to open discussions on the question of the flooding of the Skagit Valley.


John (Jack) Davis: I think the matter at issue is an internal matter for Canada and one that we must resolve ourselves.



PROPOSED FLOODING OF SKAGIT RIVER VALLEY-NECESSITY FOR CANADIAN PERMIT

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister if it has been finally established whether or not the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources must grant a permit to the Seattle Light Company before this valley can be flooded, as was suggested by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in a letter which he sent to the hon. member for Fraser Valley West? Has that point been established so that we may know where the responsibility lies, and with whom the decision will lie, with respect to proceeding with the flooding of this valley?
Kon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):
This matter is also under active consideration by the legal authorities here in Ottawa.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Since this consideration has been going on now for some ten months, may I ask the minister when we can expect the government to reach a decision with respect to who has the authority to grant permission and what action the government is going to take when it is decided whether or not a permit can be granted?


John (Jack) Davis: My answer to the question is, shortly. However, I should point out to the hon. member that the project is running into several new obstacles on the U.S. side and that we have more time to consider our course of action.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: When the minister suggested that this was a problem that had to be worked out within Canada, was he endorsing the view attributed to the Prime Minister regarding the way in which the people of British Columbia had to solve the problem, or does he have something else in mind?



AIRPORTS


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
As the construction of a new road is contemplated between Hull and the new international airport at Ste. Scholastique, would he tell us if the Quebec authorities have asked for the financial assistance of the federal government? If so, to what extent?


Jean Marchand: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: My
question is directed to the Prime Minister. Perhaps he might be able to enlighten us a little regarding some

November 30, 1970

suggestions made by the chief of the defence staff last evening on television. Can the Prime Minister indicate to the House whether or not the government has entered into any negotiations with the government of France with respect, first, to the sale of additional arms to that country and, second, with respect to the opening up of one of our defence bases on the east coast for a summer fleet base for the French navy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am not
aware of that. This matter comes under the Minister of National Defence. I will ask him to report to the House on it, if asked, when he next returns.



FISHERIES


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry whether he is able to answer a question that I put to him last Wednesday?


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: I am informed that the Canadian Saltfish Corporation was acting under powers given to it under a provincial Act respecting the marketing of salt fish passed on April 28, 1970. In section 2, the provincial Act provides that no person other than the corporation or an agent of the corporation shall buy salt fish. Therefore, no private firm can engage in this trade, even if the price they pay is greater than the initial price paid by an agent of the corporation.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Max Saltsman: I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It arises from the statement made by western Canadian oilmen that they expect an over-all price increase of between 25 and 40 cents a barrel for their product, depending on the government's policies. I should like to ask the minister whether he has been looking into the effects which such an increase would have on consumer prices and, if not, whether he intends to do so?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am not aware of the statement but I will search it out and see what ramifications it has for my department.
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS



NEWFOUNDLAND-INVESTIGATION OF BUS ACCIDENTS, QUALITY OF SERVICE

John Howard Lundrigan: I have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary or the acting Minister of Transport. Could the department investigate the serious accident to a Canadian National bus in Newfoundland yesterday, and could the investigation include several previous accidents, as well as the general quality of the bus transportation system serving the whole province?


John Napier Turner: I will get in touch with the Minister of Transport immediately and I hope that when he is in the House tomorrow he will be able to deal with that very serious question.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Max Saltsman: I should like to ask the
Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs whether he has had a chance to check into the effect the recent agreement with the United States on the export of natural gas has had on consumer prices in Canada and, if so, when will he report to the House?


Stanley Ronald Basford: That is a matter that is properly within the jurisdiction of the National Energy Board. I am not quite sure to what the question refers. The sale was approved by them and the effect on domestic supplies is outlined in the report of the National Energy Board.
# * *



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whiiby):: In the
absence of the Secretary of State, I will put my question to his Parliamentary Secretary. Will he see that an inquiry is made of the CBC to determine whether or not all other possibilities were exhausted before a U.S. citizen was hired as chief public relations officer for the corporation?


Mr. James Hugh Faulkner (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: I will pass that question on to the corporation.


John Edward Broadbent: Would he also inquire whether or not this U.S. citizen was, until recently, an employee of the U.S. consulate?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Orders of the day.
1588

November 30, 1970
Canadian National Railways



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, November 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Benson that Bill C-186, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways system and Air Canada for the period from the 1st day of January, 1970, to the 30th day of June, 1971, and to authorize the guarantee by Her Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company and certain debentures to be issued by Air Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina Lake Centre):: We are on
the forty seventh year of what I think has become the annual awards day for the Canadian National Railways, awards for their borrowings and their debts. I do not know if this is a longer record than the Academy Awards, but the number of annual awards for the CNR constitute, I think, a record in Canada.
I was disappointed at the manner in which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) chose to introduce this bill, in view of what had been said about the CNR each year, and in particular in the last two or three years regarding its financing problems and CN pensions. One would have thought the minister would have spent a few moments at least expressing government policy, and dealing with some of the questions that have been raised on numerous occasions both inside and outside the House. Instead of that, he chose to spend eight or ten minutes reading what I suggest must have been on the cover of the bill, and then he sat down. This is completely inadequate, and one hopes, however fondly, that before the debate on this bill ends someone else from the government will take part in the debate and deal with matters that were raised in particular last year and again this year.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I choose to call this the 47th annual awards-for-the-CNR Day. It all began in 1923 with the debt that started the company off under an initial financial burden that it can never repay, or at least reduce to a level where it could be met each year out of the operating revenues of the CNR. This continuing debt burden cannot be blamed on the Canadian National Railways. Most of the debt that the taxpayers have met each year can be attributed to the results of public policies which were in effect then, and which are still in effect now.
The evidence is ample that on a year-to-year basis for these 47 years the CNR has been operating efficiently and profitably. In the 47 years its rail operation has shown net rail revenues in 41 of those years, and rail losses in only six of them. In that same 47 years, however, there were only 13 of them when the government of Canada did not have to vote funds for deficits. In the other 36 years, Parliament has voted it a grand total-believe it or
not-of $1,123,527,043. That is the total votes of Parliament to clear up deficits. They were not votes for capital expenditures, something which would be perfectly proper. They were not votes for debentures or bonds, or for the purchase of shares in the CNR. Those were the total votes in 47 years just to clear up deficits.
If one takes more recent times, from 1944 to 1969, a period of 26 years, the evidence of an efficient and viable Crown corporation is even more striking. In 23 of those 26 years our company, the CNR, showed a surplus. But after deducting interest on debt our company, the CNR, showed a loss in 21 of those 26 years. When one looks at the interest charges one finds an interesting and maybe peculiar situation. One finds that most of the interest charges are now paid to the government of Canada. For example, interest on debt in 1969, as shown in the CNR's annual report, comes to $74,205,000, but $45 million of that is interest to be paid to the government of Canada. At the same time, in the same year 1969, the CNR surplus in round figures was $49,500,000, and so it would appear that for that year much of the money we were voting for the annual award was money to be paid back to the government.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that something like $4 billion which is owned by the CNR is not of much interest to government members. No doubt they are prepared to perpetuate for another 47 years what goes on with this Crown corporation. And no doubt the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and other members over there, who are busy gabbling like a bunch of roosters in a chickenless coop, could not care less. But, Mr. Speaker, I hope that there are hon. members of this House who are concerned about it, and who are going to insist that the government do something about it.
I was saying that most, if not all, of the money that Parliament is being asked to vote in this bill for the CNR deficit is money that will be paid back to the government for interest owing to it. Similarly in 1968, interest on the debt of the CNR was $70 million, and again half of that was interest owing to the government of Canada. These interest charges are compounding a mounting debt. The debt is compounded each year by further loans that are used to pay off previous deficits, which include mounting interest charges that we owe ourselves. In the past ten years, 1he interest on the debt for our company climbed from $49 million to $74 million.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member but I must bring to the attention of hon. members that it is extremely difficult to follow the hon. member who has the floor when there are so many conversations taking place. I think hon. members should be prepared to co-operate with the Chair, and with the member who has the floor, a little more than that.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Now that Zorro has left, and maybe left his mark over there, we can continue with what most of us consider to be a very serious matter. I was saying that in the past ten years, interest on the debt of our company has risen from $49 million to $74 million, while in the same period the company's return varied from a low of a $6 million loss

November 30, 1970


Mr. Osier:: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre seeks the floor on a question of privilege.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the party involved in the byelection referred to a moment ago, I want to make it abundantly clear that the gentleman whose name was not mentioned but was alluded to, had no connection whatsoever with TransAir until after the byelection. I do not see any reason why the two things go together.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is a point of debate and not a question of privilege.


Robert Jardine McCleave: He was paid now but flew later.

November 30, 1970
Canadian National Railways


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: 
An hon. Member:: Or Regina.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Or Regina. Most facilities of this kind are being discontinued in areas around that city. Most of these small communities have lost their post offices; many have already lost their station agent. In some of them, there were two station agents but both of them have gone. Few of those centres have any sort of permanent truck depot, and none of them have immediate access to air transport facilities. The establishment of such centres would make available to the Canadian people such national transportation facilities as are available. I have thrown out that idea off the top of my head. Perhaps this would not be a practical suggestion for towns or villages with a population of 500; perhaps it would only work with centres of 1,000 people and more. Yet, it seems to me that that is the kind of facility which would make available to all Canadians the benefit of the different kinds of transportation and communications systems in the country.
In speaking about reduced train services, may I say this: it has been brought to my attention today that the Canadian National management intends to replace the passenger trains now operating between Ottawa and Montreal with dayliners. I understand this affects all present passenger trains, except the transcontinental service. All other trains will be replaced with dayliners. If my

November 30, 1970

information is correct, this means the elimination of parlour cars and dining cars on the Ottawa-Montreal run. Of course, as we know, a dayliner is a sort of glorified bus on rails. It is my information that these changes are scheduled for February 1, next year. The trains to be affected are No. 31, which leaves Montreal for Ottawa daily at 8.10 a.m.; No. 131 which leaves Montreal on Sundays only at 10.15 in the morning; the west bound train No. 30, which leaves Ottawa for Montreal at 7.40 in the morning and No. 36, which leaves Ottawa for Montreal at 4.40 every afternoon. On this train you can obtain dining car service, buffet service and, for all I know, bar service. Not having travelled on the train, I have no personal knowledge about that. My information is that these services are to be suspended as of February 1.
If these reductions go into effect, first class rail passenger service with meals between the nation's capital and the largest city in the nation will disappear. The Canadian Pacific Railway already has pulled off its additional trains from the same route. I hope that every member of this House, and in particular all those members who are from Ottawa, Montreal, the area beyond Montreal and who represent that area between Ottawa and Montreal, will raise hell about this during the present debate. Of course, if my information is not correct, I will be happy to be corrected. If my information is correct, I hope that the members most affected and their constituents, will see to it that the matter is raised loudly and vigorously during the debate on this bill.
I now come to another matter that was raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who opened this debate on behalf of our party. I am sure members of all parties will say something about this, and I intend to take my turn in doing so. I am referring to the pensions of retired CNR employees and to the CNR pension plan generally. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that one year ago almost to this day, a debate began on a bill similar to this one for CNR financing. In that debate, Members of Parliament on all sides of the House persuaded the government to give a commitment that CNR financing and CNR pensions would be referred to the standing committee which would study these matters and make recommendations to this House.
We were all very happy that the government agreed to do this, Mr. Speaker, and I, having been a member of that committee, wish to say that it was a very good committee. I am sure it must have heard between 40 and 50 briefs. That is only a guess on my part. Possibly there were more. It sat dozens of times and spent hundreds of hours on this item. One cannot say that those members who served on it were docile Members of Parliament. There was the hon. member for London East (Mr. Turner), who is a railroader. There was also the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg), who is a railroader. There was the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), who is not a railroader but who can make as much noise any day as a railroad. The committee consisted of men like that. I, too, an ex railroader was a member of that Committee. All of us had some knowledge of railroading and we all knew a little about pensions. In addition, we were served by an excellent staff.
Canadian National Railways The Chairman of the committee did an excellent job and excellent briefs were presented to the committee. Believe it or not, and I was prepared to bet one year ago that this would not happen, the committee presented a unanimous report.
Not believing that that would happen, the hon. member for Moose Jaw and I were quite prepared to bring in a minority report. Nevertheless, that committee brought in a unanimous report which speaks well not only of the committee but of the soundness of the case put forward by the CNR employees and pensioners.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Hear, hear.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Only because the case of those men was so good and so strong did the committee bring in a unanimous report. In the discussions we had during the drafting of that report, we became aware of the unanimity of members from all corners of the House. There was a singleness of purpose in the minds of all members. We adopted the report unanimously; it was presented in this chamber and, again, wonder of wonders, something happened which rarely happens. When that report was submitted to the House, it was adopted by this House unanimously. That took place under circumstances even more rare, circumstances that I am sure Mr. Speaker would wish to see repeated. The report was so adopted without debate. Yet, despite that, Canadian National Railways has refused to act on that report. It ought to be pointed out that while the committee was drafting that report, Canadian National Railways through its vice president, Mr. Tarr, saw fit to announce some pension plan changes which in my opinion were very minor and totally inadequate. I repeat here what I said before the standing committee: that was a deliberate attempt by the Canadian National management to undercut the committee and head off its report. It was an insult to that committee and an insult to Parliament. Worse still, it was an insult to the CNR pensioners.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Hear, hear.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I hope that either the committee, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) or the government will censure the CNR management, and censure particularly the vice president, Mr. Tarr, for the way that committee was treated and for the cavalier attitude expressed by the CNR towards a unanimous report which was adopted by Parliament. I hope that the message gets through to them very strongly. I hate to say this, Mr. Speaker, because I have a great deal of admiration and respect for the management of Canadian National Railways. They have operated that railway extremely well in the face of horrible odds.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
With regard to the matter of pensions for employees, Canadian National has acted little better than the best of

November 30, 1970
Canadian National Railways railway pirates, namely the Canadian Pacific Railway. Because this is a publicly owned corporation, it is more responsible to Parliament and the people of Canada than a privately owned company. It is incumbent upon the management of the CNR to act in a better way than this. In fact, it is incumbent upon them to set an example for private employers in the transportation industry.
The cavalier attitude of the CNR toward Parliament needs to be dealt with by this government and by Parliament. I hope that members of all parties agree that this bill should not pass until such time as the government requires the CNR to implement the report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications with regard to CNR pensions. If the CNR refuses to do the right thing, Parliament will have to require them to do what is right or act on their behalf. It is not too late for Parliament to make fundamental changes in our transportation policies in order to give greater priority to public service and public needs and less priority to the financing and the needs of financiers.
When the CNR began operations on January 21, 1923 the company debt was over $2 billion. Since that time, $1.8 billion has been added to that debt. The Canadian public owns almost all of the shares of the company. I am interested in knowing who still holds the $4 million of capital stock. Who are these stockholders and how long have they held these stocks? In which subsidiary companies are these stocks? I have been unable to acquire this information through my own resources, but I hope it will be given to the House. It will certainly be requested in the standing committee.
Another small item to which I wish to refer is typical of what has been allowed to happen to the finances of our railway system. There is over $2 million worth of debt held by the public which is a perpetual debt with 5i per cent interest. I thought that perpetual bonds went out in the days of Queen Victoria. Maybe that is when these bonds were issued, I do not know. If so, it is time to repeal these last vestiges of the Victorian age. I would like to know who holds these bonds. Where are they? Are they held in subsidiary companies of the CNR? Are they perpetual bonds of the old Grand Trunk Pacific, Grand Trunk Northern, Canadian Northern Railways or Canadian Government Railways? The amount involved is only $2 million, but perpetuity is a long time. To receive 5i per cent interest forever is pretty good, if you can live that long. I doubt whether they are held by individuals. If so, they will be unable to collect in perpetuity.
If these bonds are in the hands of some institution, I do not think it will be driven into bankruptcy or made a social welfare case if Parliament enacts legislation wiping these bonds off the books. If they were issued 50 or 75 years ago, we should determine the total amount of interest paid. If it amounts to more than the principal, that is a pretty fair return on the investment and the bonds should be recalled. These are some of the questions I would like answered. I hope we get the answers either in this chamber or in the standing committee.
I recommend to all hon. members a Dominion Bureau of Statistics document issued in September, 1970, catalogue No. 52201. It is entitled, "Canadian National Railways 1923 to 1969". I commend this booklet to all hon. members. Because of my ignorance of accounting procedures and terminology, I spent a week end trying to understand it. I may have misread or misunderstood some of this. If so, I hope someone will straighten me out.
I hope all members have a copy of this booklet when the annual report of the management of the CNR is presented next spring. We need to get the message through to the management of the CNR that all members of this House want to be very helpful with regard to the company's financial obligations and liabilities. I am sincere in saying that. It is time the management of the CNR told us what they think should be done about the company's financial position. We could use this information.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has exp red. The hon. member can only continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. During the debate on the annual awards to the CNR, I ask hon. members on both sides of the House to give the matter of the CNR financing the closest possible scrutiny. It will be helpful to the committee when dealing with this bill and when dealing with the CNR annual report. It will also be very helpful to the CNR. Much more information is required, even more than is contained in this very thorough document. I hope the management of the CNR will be anxious and willing to supply us with the information which we request. With regard to that matter and to the matter of CNR pensions, on which the committee report was unanimously adopted, I hope that all members will attempt to get the message through to the CNR and the government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for
Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo.


Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: It appears that even the Deputy Speaker is not able to get the name of my riding correct. It is Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo. I must ensure that the right names are used.
We are happy to note that today the government brought in its much heralded white paper on income security for Canadians. We certainly hope that vehicle is going to be carried forward and that the unanimous and detailed report presented by the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications with regard to the needs of retired Canadian National Railway employees was given every consideration during the preparation of the white paper. Although I have never been employed by a railroad, I did for many years live in a town where railroading was a way of life. Many employees of Canadian National who worked during the depression years are now pensioners, and they are having a very
IMr. Benjamin.]
November 30, 1970

difficult time making ends meet at a time when very little emphasis is placed on controlling inflation.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I welcome this opportunity that comes annually to speak about CN affairs. I should first like to make another plea to the Department of Transport to consider favourably the site I have proposed in Amherst township, in Dufferin county, for the new international airport to be built northwest of Toronto. This is a site that has a lot to offer. For example, not too many people will be displaced; the price of the land will be comparatively low; and it has good access to Toronto, Hamilton, London, Kitchener and Waterloo. This is a site that I feel should receive special consideration.
I was a little disturbed last week when I heard that one of the problems that might arise in this area is that there is no strongly flowing stream to carry away pollutants from the sewage and lagoon systems that might have to be constructed to cope with the expected approximately
100,000	people who would live there. I sincerely hope that by the time the proposed airport becomes operational this government, through the work of its National Research Council and as a result of the research undertaken by other government departments, will be in a position to introduce a recycling scheme that will make it possible for inland towns to promote and develop airports, as in this case, and industries.
To return to the main theme of my remarks, members from western Ontario have spent a lot of time in this debate discussing railroad matters. On November 1, all passenger rail traffic was discontinued in the very important and developing area north and west of Guelph and west of Stratford. At that time we felt that we might have lost the battle, but this does not always indicate that we have lost the war. This debate provides us with an opportunity of further discussing the developments that m;ght take place in this particular area. We fought Canadian National Railways in this regard for many years. I have always felt that the Board of Transport Commissioners gave us a fair deal. I think sometimes we received better consideration from them than we have from the National Transportation Commission.
Looking back to the railway bill brought into the House by the minister of transport of the day, who had squirmed himself into this House from his many positions in the civil service, I can recall that this was not the first legislation he introduced which was controversial and which he had difficulty putting through the House. I am very glad to say that our party did not support that bill on the final vote. The National Transportation Act was to be the be-all and end-all of our transportation problems. It was going to unfold a great new transportation policy, one which I am still waiting to see. In fact, I think this legislation opened the door to the railways to close branch lines which, in a lot of areas, should still be continued.
As I have mentioned before, the inconsistencies in the decisions of the commission are outstanding. The other
Canadian National Railways day the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson) mentioned the fact that the railway line in his area had not been discontinued. We noticed that, according to news articles, the CPR had discontinued it because people had to ride in baggage cars, stations were filthy and the scheduling was bad. However, the transportation commission ordered the CPR to continue operation of that line.
Let me refer once again to the hearings that took place during the Easter holidays last April in Owen Sound. One of the things pointed out to the Canadian Transportation Commission on that occasion was the fact that the CPR should upgrade its services and improve accommodation on the trains. Talking of riding in baggage cars, I have ridden in the baggage car of the rail liner that runs out of Guelph simply because there was not room for me in the rest of the car. This has happened weekend after weekend. Certainly, people who had to ride in the baggage car would look for alternative transportation the next time. A public relations job on the part of the railway was needed here. The last speaker said that rail liners are going to be run from Ottawa to Montreal. I suggest that if they are no more comfortable than the rail liners in my area, it is not going to be long before people will refuse to ride on them, too. Consequently, more pressure will be put on the highways of the nation to accommodate those who would like to travel on the railroad but find the accommodation so uncomfortable that they look for an alternative.
I am also getting tired of hearing this phrase "uneconomic branch lines". It is not only the railways that are uneconomic. For example, what about the CBC, many government departments, and especially the Department of National Defence with its aeroplanes that go straight into mothballs? How far do we continue this process of lopping off services that do not pay? The railroads have not devoted enough research into providing alternate means of travelling on the railroads. This is a matter I mentioned before and which I will keep on mentioning until I am told that it is economically and mechanically impossible.
There are miles of railroad lines across this country which are being maintained and, in fact improved. For example, in my area a new nuclear power project is being constructed at Douglas Point. Part of the money provided by this bill is for the construction of a new branch line from Hanover to Southampton and then up to Douglas Point. Once a day or once a week a train will carry oil to power the heavy water plant until enough steam is provided by the plant to enable it to be self-sufficient. That line is going to pay because the railroad would not put it in if it were not. The weight of the rails is being increased all the way up that line, and it will be ploughed all winter long. Why will this line be kept in service? Will it be only a 5 per cent or 10 per cent usage? If I were in the provincial government and the railway company applied for more PCV licences to operate their express trucks up there, I would ask them if they had ever tried putting those trucks on the rails which were not being used. I would ask them whether they had thought of putting on buses for the people to use. They

November 30, 1970
Canadian National Railways would be much more comfortable than the old rail liners.
I would ask them whether they had done any research in this regard.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I have a pamphlet which indicates that some experiments were conducted several years ago in the United States in this regard. Why is the Canadian National now considering the operation of these big turbo-trains between Toronto and Montreal which will cost millions of dollars? Do we know that these are going to pay?
I suggest they may or may not. By the same token, I do not think the rail passenger service in this nation ever did pay, but this was only a small part of the total railway picture. This was part of the service the railway companies promised to give, not just at the time but in perpetuity. These companies made promises when they were given franchises to operate railways in this nation and they should be held to those promises, particularly in the populated areas. The people deserve rail service and these companies should reconsider their position. I hope they will spend a little more money in researching the feasibility and bringing into operation those things I have mentioned.
Why should all the provinces of Canada be faced with such heavy transportation costs and continue to subsidize the buses and trucks being used by the railway companies? The railway companies have not discontinued their freight and express service in this area. This service must be paying, so the very same people the companies said they were losing money on are still helping increase the revenues of these companies. I agree with an earlier speaker that the management of the CNR has done a fair job of showing a profit in the past couple of years and in reducing the deficit which has to be paid by the government of Canada.
I should also like to refer to the agreements which were made and the things which were given to the railways. It seems to be almost impossible to find the agreements made with the CNR but I imagine they were made on the same basis as the agreements with the CPR. These were the promises made by the companies. The company undertook to build a transcontinental railway by May 1, 1891 and from thereafter and forever maintain, work and run this railway. I have a very interesting little pamphlet entitled "The Federal Railway Land Subsidy Policy of Canada". It is rather interesting to note how much was given to the railways in those days, not only in the way of money but in land. In fact, in one area of Manitoba, for every mile of railway completed the company was given 6,400 acres of land. That was of great assistance and those gifts of land would be worth a lot of money today. I maintain that if the railway companies made an agreement with every town and village through which they run to provide service, they should continue that service as long as there are people to be served. Instead, they are now being allowed to cut off their service.
I have the feeling that in every one of those communities through which the railways run there is a lot of land
which was given to them which they still own. Much of this land could be used by these communities. I know of one town in which the CNR has five acres in the most expensive area, and the company proposes to develop the land itself. When the railway companies came to these communities and asked for permission to run services through them, the communities were very happy, but by the same token they are very unhappy to see these services eliminated. I sincerely hope that as time passes some of these things I have mentioned will be considered.
There is one other thing that bothers me, and that is the fact that at practically every hearing the companies have appeared with a great many figures showing how they arrived at a loss position. We asked for an independent audit, but in many cases we were never able to get one. We often felt there were times when the companies charged too much of the operating cost against the passenger services they wanted to discontinue. Even after the Canadian Transportation Commission took over and was supposed to audit the figures of the CNR before they were presented at the hearings, we were not happy with the idea that this was such a financially poor service the companies should be allowed to get out.
When we look at the amount of money being voted each year to this Crown corporation we wonder about the auditing. I have here the Canadian National Railways System Auditor's Report to Parliament for the year ending December 31, 1969. It is not a very large document and it certainly does not go into much detail. If we wanted to find out what was going on in respect of the passenger service in the Bruce Peninsula, it would be impossible to find any figures in this auditor s report to Parliament. Through the years we have been finding areas of government which should probably be examined. In view of all these things, I feel it would be important to all Canadians to have this immense Crown corporation, which plays such a great part in the cost of living of everyone in Canada and is borrowing money from the federal government, brought under the Auditor General. The figures of the company should be presented to him and he should present a yearly report of its operations to this House.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Thomas):
That Bill C-186 be not now read a second time as, in the opinion of this House, the making of financial guarantees or grants to the Canadian National Railways without the appointment of the Auditor General of Canada at least as a joint auditor of the CNR is not a principle that this House ought to support.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the amendment moved by the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Howe). If hon. members agree, I should like to consider this matter and discuss it with Mr. Speaker before putting it in a formal manner. I know that at least one other hon. member wishes to deal with the main motion. If this is agreeable, I shall reserve my decision for the present.

November 30, 1970


Mr. Ross Whicher (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, it certainly is a pleasure to follow the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Howe), particularly on a subject such as this. This is a matter about which he has spoken on many occasions over the years, not only in the House of Commons but in the areas of Canada which he represents so capably. I must say that because of his speech my remarks will be shorter since many of the comments he made are those which I would have made.
I believe it is high time you and I, Mr. Speaker, as parliamentarians, decided who is responsible for transportation policies in Canada. We should decide whether it is the railways or the House of Commons. As the last speaker and others have said in this debate, although we are dealing merely with the Canadian National Railways in this bill as well as Air Canada, one cannot differentiate in respect of the CNR and the Canadian Pacific Railway in this connection. While it is necessary that the CNR each year ask Parliament for funds, the CPR received millions and millions of dollars as a result of agreements drawn up years ago. In addition the CPR was given millions of acres of land by the people of Canada. This money and the land were given to the CPR by the people of Canada in return for the provision of railway service for ever and ever. Because of this, this money has been go ng into the coffers of the CPR every year. Since the CPR is a private enterprise corporation, it does not have to come to the House each year to ask for money as is the case in respect of the CNR.
I should like for a moment to review some things which occurred many years ago when the railways began opening up the hinterland of Canada. Sir John A. Macdonald realized that in order to unite Canada it was necessary to have a railway system extending from Vancouver through to Halifax. Therefore, he and the financiers of that day, along with his associates, began thinking about how such a railway system could be started. Apart from having the brains to realize the necessity for such an undertaking, it was necessary to have the required money.
Many meetings were held and agreements were drawn up. By and large, the agreements were to the effect that the people would provide the money and the railways would provide the services for all time. In connection with the Canadian Pacific Railway, we find that this railway was given $25 million. That was a large amount of money in those days. In addition, the railway was given 25 million acres of land. In return, the Canadian Pacific Railway was to build lines right across Canada and in various other areas of the country. Those services were to be provided for all time. The arrangement in respect of the Canadian National Railways was similar although it was financed by the Government of Canada. The railways were financed by hundreds of municipalities across Canada. This includes municipalities such as those in the riding of Bruce which I represent. The agreements provided that one municipality would advance $20,000, another $25,000, another $30,000 and another $40,000. In return for this money provided by the various municipalities, the railway was to provide railway service to these municipalities for all time.
Canadian National Railways
It may be that in certain circumstances some corporations, provinces or municipalities should be permitted to renege on a contract. It may be, for instance, that in certain areas of Canada a railway system today simply does not pay. It may be also, if Parliament so wishes and agrees, that the railway should be allowed to withdraw services in certain areas. However, if that should be the case, I suggest that when one reneges on a deal the other side of the story should be taken into consideration. In other words, the municipalities across Canada who signed agreements in the first instance with the railways should have the money they paid returned to them. Is there anything wrong with such a suggestion? Surely, this is the manner in which private business is conducted. Surely, also, if I have a parcel of land which I exchange with someone for services rendered, if those services should cease it is only right and proper that the parcel of land should be returned to me.
In the areas which I and other hon. members represent, it would appear that the CNR is no longer providing the services but is selling the lands that were given to it at a profit. At least, this is what the railway is attempting to do in the riding of Bruce. The hon. member who spoke a few moments ago mentioned the Douglas Point project. This is one of the largest projects from a financial point of view by any government agency in Canada. It involves an amount in excess of $1 billion. The Canadian National Railways system is strengthening its tracks and so on, as well as improving its freight service. At the same time, however, the passenger service is being cut off through the whole area. The City of Owen Sound, with a population of approximately 19,000, and the immediate area with a population of 15,000 or 20,000, were left without rail passenger service as of November 1, 1970. Let us give the railways the benefit of the doubt and let us also assume that the Canadian Transport Commission did not make a mistake in cutting off passenger service in this area. Then, let us look at the deal that was made by the railway with the municipalities and let us consider the lands the railway received in return for providing service for all time to the people in that particular area.
Only a week or so ago, a motion was passed by the Bruce County Council. A copy was sent to me, the Canadian National Railways and to the Canadian Transport Commission. This motion, in effect, places the cards right on the table. Although I hesitate to mention in this House of Commons things which happen in a particular municipality or riding, nevertheless I shall refer to this motion because it hits the nail right on the head. That is exactly what we want to do. The motion which was put through reads:
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
That all lands in railway rights-of-way owned by either the Canadian National Railways or the Canadian Pacific Railway, which are no longer in use, be returned, without charge to the municipalities.
That motion was passed by the municipal council and it puts in one sentence exactly what should be done here in Canada. The CNR has called off the deal, so the municipalities should have the right to call off the deal

November 30, 1970
Canadian National Railways
also. We want the land back. The hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo pointed out the various fields in which the railways have been successful, such as the hotel business and the gas and oil business, in which the CPR in particular has been so successful. Certainly, the railways can bring wheat across the country when we make large sales to China, the U.S.S.B., or some other country. In many instances, they provide services all over the world. But they have forgotten the people who pay the bill, namely, the citizens of Canada.
I hope that when the time comes for the CNR officials to appear before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications these points will be brought out very strongly. Those people who travel to the Grey Cup and football games throughout the year cannot use the wonderful services about which the railway companies boast, such as the very best of refrigeration, etc. The Canadian Pacific Air Lines have an aircraft called the "Executive" which travels across Canada on which they have the prettiest girls in the world. On this flight you can use business machines of various types, you can get any type of magazine as well as the finest food in the world, but if you want to go 500 miles on a railway passenger train, in many instances you cannot even get a sandwich. In my opinion, the railways have purposely put themselves out of the passenger business.
I would like to add one thing in closing. At the hearings that were held in Owen Sound last Easter-and to all hon. members Owen Sound is a long way away from their territory, but I ask them to listen please because this is going to happen to them also-it was pointed out by the railways that the bus companies would take over. I say, nonsense; they are not taking over at all. From little towns like Port Elgin, Southampton and Kincardine you have to travel 300 miles to get to the city of Toronto. I say to hon. members: do not swallow all this nonsense about getting service after the railways close down. That is all I wish to say on this occasion. I would just ask hon. members who are on the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications to ask the following question of the president of the CNR when he comes before the committee: Do you not think it is fair, sir, that inasmuch as you have reneged on your side of the bargain you should give back the lands to the various municipalities in Canada which gave them to you for the service that you no longer provide?


Mr. Roland Godin (Porineuf):: Mr. Speaker, I have been a member of this House for about five years and every year, the government introduces a bill in order to tell us that the CNR is in the red.
Looking at Bill C-186 today, most Canadian citizens would be inclined to believe that things have improved and that they should therefore rejoice. Nevertheless, that company's employees, especially the pensioners, are unfortunately the victims of conditions that are far from good.

Members have, a while ago, eloquently stated their views and those of the people chiefly concerned in their area and I deem it my duty to speak, as the representative of the Portneuf constituency, through which run the CN railway lines, and especially as member of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, which has heard since last year much evidence on the CNR's failings which are causing serious vexations to that crown corporation's employees, especially its pensioners.
For instance, we learned during the past year that 2,500 CNR pensioners receive only $25 per month, 7,325 only $100 per month and more than 8,000 get less than $200 per month, which means that a Canadian citizen who has contributed to the progress of his country during the 40 years he worked for the CNR, receives now as a monthly pension an amount lower than the allowance paid to people on welfare.
As a matter of fact, last week I met a Canadian National employee who told me that after his 43 years of service, his pension had been set at $211 per month.
Mr. Speaker, this fate is not exclusively reserved to Quebec, since it is also that of all CNR pensioners.
Witnesses from Edmonton, Sarnia, Ottawa, Montreal and Riviere-du-Loup have pointed out with figures that it would be possible for the CNR to increase by 25 per cent the pensions of its pensioners, without changing the rate of contributions, and even without affecting the capital, since the reserves are so high that the interest alone is adequate to pay the pensions. And the importance of those reserves have been proven before the last federal election, by tampering of the order of $371 million.
Paid every other Thursday, that is 26 times a year, during a certain time, the employee was contributing 5 per cent of his salary to his pension fund. Today, he contributes at the rate of 6.5 per cent, that is an average of $25 for two weeks, or $600 a year.
For its part-according to the agreement entered into in the early sixties-the Canadian National must pay an amount equal to the contribution of the employee, but it has happened that the company has not respected its commitments by neglecting to honour its payments, by simply disregarding its obligations, in short, by simplifying its obligations through the simple registration of its debts with the office of the Superintendent of Insurance in Ottawa.
One day, the representatives of the government, and particularly the Superintendent of Insurance, cancelled in one stroke a debt of $371 million, property of the CNR pensioners, without the latter having even been consulted. This action incited Mr. Edward H. Egan, representative of local T-700 of the Transport Union in Ottawa, to say, and I quote:
This fund has been administered in typical fashion by management and with utter disregard to its employees. We have nothing but contempt for their methods. Here we have a situation where the employees are paying for the recapitalization of the
November 30, 1970

railway and the government, hand in hand with management, is retiring that debt. It is our contention that we have been had!
Mr. Egan made this statement when he appeared before the committee. Now, since this tampering has become a matter of public knowledge, here is what appeared in the Kitchener-Water loo Record on Monday, May 11, 1970.
Peter Carew, Executive Secretary of the Canadian Railway Labour Association, says that the recent reduction in the unfunded liability of the Canadian National Pension Fund is a "devious, immoral action, little short of embezzlement" and "morally the action is little short of theft".
The committee heard various witnesses, including Mr. C. T. Vance, representing the Retired Railway Veteran's Association, Edmonton, Alberta. When the member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) asked him, and I quote:
My concern is with the reduction in the pension plan of the $371 million which apparently was approved by the Superintendent of Insurance. What justification is there for the approval of this reduction-
Mr. Vance replied:
Well, he must have approved it. I am assuming he did because I made a request of Mr. Humphrys that the entire Canadian National pension plan be audited and that we have a report. I have no hesitation in saying to you, sir, that they were skating on rather thin ice to avoid an audit. That is all I can say to you, sir. I have nothing more to say than that.
I think that had there been an audit, some of the things that I am complaining of might have come to light.
Mr. Speaker, in so doing, the government allows one of its corporations not to take into account a $371 million debt and, then, it acts independently to avoid an audit. Such behaviour is really dishonest and is a matter of deep concern for the people already on pension. And the employees still at work wonder what the future holds for them.
Their state of mind shows in their testimony, to which I take the liberty of calling the attention of the House. Among the witnesses heard on June 4, Mr. Vance, while testifying again on behalf of the Retired Railway Veteran's Association said, as reported in No. 31 of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the committee:
Dealing with the Pension Plan, if the information we have is correct, votes are not taken on the Pension Board. It is a matter of the Railway bringing in a proposition, laying it in front of labour representatives and saying, "That is it; take it or leave it". And when suggestions are made by the employees recommending change the Railway immediately bring out of the so-called deficit which they created and they suggest to the employees that if they want to pay more then certain changes "might" be made. We believe it is essential that the Pension Board become a decision-making Board, rather than function strictly as an advisory type of Board.
During the past two years the railway temporarily has introduced early retirement schemes designed to encourage the over 55 age bracket to take their pension. Particularly on the most recent occasion, this has not been done on a fair and impartial basis. There are numerous instances of employees being turned down, even though there are laid off workers available in his occupation. While the money used for the scheme is not drawn from the pension fund, it appears obvious that the railway has money available for pensions whenever they consider it in their best interests. We suggest this money be placed in the pension
Canadian National Railways
fund in future, and arrangements made to use it in a more equitable, fair and impartial manner.
Mr. Speaker, here is what Mr. Egan, the representative of the 225-member Local T-700, said:
Mr. Chairman, Committee members, and ladies and gentlemen. Previously, as a conductor and trainman with the Canadian Pacific Railway, and now in the same capacity with the Canadian National Railways, I am in a position to know what our men want and need for a pension plan, and what shoud be done to have an equitable arrangement with the Company.
Every 14 days we contribute to the plan at the annual rate of 5.5 per cent on the first $5,100, and 6.5 per cent on the balance.
We now have a situation whereby we are the contributors and the recipients, but we do not make the rules nor do we have the power to change them as economic conditions demand. We are at the mercy of the Company and the Pension Benefits Standards Act administered by the Superintendent of Insurance. We will point out later in our brief that this arrangement leaves a lot to be desired.
The main theme of our brief is that at this time, with the amount of money that should be in the Canadian National Pension Fund, and with the contributions that will be coming in the future, the fund should be of such stature that we could have a plan which would carry itself in the not too distant future. This plan would give us all that we could hope for, as well as upgrade those already on pension.
Other themes are as follows:
1.	To bring back dignity to those already on pension and who are existing on the poverty level. May I stress this? It is the poverty level.
2.	To have an equal voice in administering this fund.
3.	To create a Canadian National Pension Fund Corporation, completely independent of the Company and the government.
4.	To force the Canadian National Railways to pay back to the fund the $675 million that was borrowed at 4 per cent for 60 years.
5.	To force the government to cancel the reduction of this debt by $300 and some million-I have $300 million in the brief-with the claim that it was a surplus of funds.
6.	To separate this fund from the Canada Pension Plan.
7.	To strengthen the hope of all contributors to this plan of an adequate pension based on a rising economy so that we would never have to come on a bended knee to a committee such as this and ask for justice because of poor administration of our fund.
We are of the opinion that there are a number of things which should be done immediately. We are ashamed of our government; we are also ashamed of the Canadian National Railways.
We have shouted long and hard, but to no avail.
Mr. Speaker, as I still have much to say, allow me to call it five o'clock.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Howe), at the conclusion of his speech some minutes ago proposed an amendment. The Chair took the amendment under advisement but did not put it to the House. After consultation with Mr. Speaker and officers of the table, I would like to make a ruling on the amendment now. However, in view of the fact the hon. member is not in his place, if hon. members would agree, this could be done at eight o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

November 30, 1970
Business of the House PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION



SUBJECT MATTER OF QUESTIONS TO BE DEBATED

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised ton'ght at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland)- Regional Economic Expansion-Departmental study of implications of National Defence base closures; the hon. member for Halifax East-Hants (Mr. McCleave)- Finance-Size of increase in gross national product-Tax relief measures to stimulate economy; the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton)-The Canadian Economy- Takeover of Ryerson Press by United States Company.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a brief statement about discussions we have had in connection with the business of the House. It has been agreed that we call the Public Order Bill at eight o'clock tonight, and it is our firm expectation that it will be possible to conclude the debate by ten o'clock or earlier. If that is realized we would call the vote on the third reading of the Public Order Bill, if a vote is required, as the first order of Government Business tomorrow. With respect to having the vote tomorrow as the first order of business, I think this should be put in the form of a House Order, but with the understanding that at ten o'clock tonight, if as a result of any meeting with the other house leaders I have difficulties, or we all mutually have difficulties, I would come back to the House and say that maybe we should change that House Order.
9 (5:00p.m.)


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) has well set out the discussions which have taken place. It is our hope in this party that the first suggestion will be consummated and that we will have completed the debate by ten o'clock this evening. If that be the case, then a vote will be taken as the first item after Orders of the Day. I think there can be no greater attraction to hon. members to make sure their speeches are even shorter than usual, than the hope that this matter may be completed and the vote taken tomorrow after Orders of the Day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the government House Leader has stated the position with clarity and the hon. member for Peace River has clarified it. I shall just say, hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In view of the fact that the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin) had the floor at five
o'clock, would it be in accordance with the wish of the House that the debate be adjourned by the hon. member for Portneuf and that the special order of the House be made in the terms of the agreement as set out by the house leaders?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I forgot momentarily, and was reminded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that after looking at the prospects of the work of the Standing Committees it is necessary to extend the date of the final supply day which, in the normal course, would be December 10. It has been agreed that we extend that supply day until December 15 so that we should make a special order that, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 58(5), the present supply period shall end on December 15, 1970. If that is agreed, the 5th and final allotted day for the present period would be Tuesday, December 15.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is acceptable, Mr. Speaker. It will give members of the opposition a chance to do more than just see the supplementary estimates as they go flitting by the Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Mr. Fortin:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that a special order of the House be made in the terms outlined by the hon. President of the Privy Council?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, Private Members' Notices of Motions.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


J. Michael Forrestall: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the development, encouragement and maintenance of a co-ordinated, comprehensive, and long-range national program for the recovery and use of the resources of Canada's sea-coast waters and continental shelves; and to this end, effectively utilize the scientific and engineering knowledge and skills of the public service and government agencies and co-operate with private investment enterprise in the exploration, technological development and industrial use of the resources of the marine environment of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed fortunate that this resolution has come to the floor of the House of Commons so close on the heels of the report to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) from the Science Council of Canada with respect to Canada's science and the ocean. Without going into the report in any detail, let me say

November 30, 1970

that I whole-heartedly endorse virtually everything in the report and I commend it to the government in the hope they will be able to get on with it in the immediate future. Even a casual scanning of the efforts of other maritime nations with good mineral potentials off their coasts reveals the total inadequacies of our own efforts to date.
With a continental shelf covering some one and a half million square miles, almost half of our total land area, this failure to vigorously investigate is almost alien to our pioneering spirit and heritage. If I may be permitted, I will quote very briefly from the summary of the report of Science Council of Canada at page 7:
Recent events have clearly indicated the urgent need to develop a sound national policy for the marine area. Challenges and opportunities exist which, if neglected by Canadians will be seized by others ... The time for action is now.
To meet these challenges . . . there is a need for a national program, a Major Program in Marine Science and Technology-
While other nations such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, Russia and others are well into research and development programs, Canada seems content only to look for gas and oil, and that, until very recently, in only a minor way. One wonders if the current difficulties over federal versus provincial jurisdiction has been part of the cause. If so, Ottawa should settle with the provinces concerned now, before some of our offshore exploration for oil starts paying off with production and the resulting landgrab starts. There is need for, and room to, compromise on the part of the federal government in this area. The Prime Minister has already recognized this, A little over a year ago he admitted that there might be distinctions in law between the east and west coasts and, as well, between the coastal provinces and those in between.
Perhaps the point of resolving the question at the earliest time becomes clearer when viewed in terms of economic loss brought about by the continuing confusion in law. Whatever we do, it must be done soon and in a manner most likely to appeal to those who would investigate and develop the potential that we all believe is there.
A second, the apparent urgent need is to ensure that we protect the highly vulnerable sea environment. The clear message of Mr. D. G. Crosby, Canadian delegate to the United Nations special committee on the seabed reads:
We have in many parts of the world now reached a stage on land where In the relatively near future, according to some eminent scientists, we may actually reach the irreversible stage as regards the pollution of our environment.
Let us not make the same mistake with respect to the even more vulnerable environment of our seas and oceans.
With the experience of the Arrow in Chedabucto Bay we have taken a significant lead in pollution, its control, the costs to ecology, the legal implications and, hopefully, prevention. We should continue to press for rigid safeguards, but in a form that will encourage orderly scientific exploration, and protect the seas from the reality of pollution as it is with us on land.
Marine Resources Program
The passage of laws or acceptance of standards at the international level, can work two ways. They can be such as to make safe exploration and subsequent exploitation possible or they can be excessive in either their restrictions or freedoms. Only when we establish firm policies and goals of our own will we be able to safely enjoy the rich rewards of the sea environment. Countries like Saudi Arabia have taken great initiatives. They have already claimed exclusive mineral exploitation rights beyond the limits of the continental shelf. We know of the sulphur, iron, manganese and the other hard minerals that are being mined all over the world, such as tin, for example.
Studies made to date of the resources other than oil reveal a wide range of minerals. Many of them are within easy reach of our shores; others in deeper water for which new techniques will have to be developed. The important thing is for Canada to identify these resources and move now to establish our rights to this wealth, settle the problems of controls over such things as depletion, pollution and policing, and get on with the task of developing the skills and the machinery to convert the potential into wealth for our country.
For Canadians, such studies would have even further direct benefits. Greater knowledge of our sea and underwater resources has important implications for fishing, navigation, weather sciences, not to mention our national prestige and the very obvious military implications. In our area we have a natural setting for the lead in such efforts. The Bedford Institute, Dalhousie University's Department of Oceanology, the National Research centre and the Defence Research Board blend smoothly with each other and the provinces' research efforts to make us in the Dartmouth-Halifax area a unique centre for such complex undertakings. That has been outlined by the Science Council of Canada. We have the industrial complex to support such effort and the skilled labour pool to back it up. We have a large naval complex and over 200 years of maritime experience. We have the shipyards and their traditional skills. In short, we have everything except the one, important ingredient, adequate federal interest and involvement.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I suggest that failure to take some initiatives now could well reduce us to a position of regulating the exploitation of the resources of our seabed. We could, as we have with so many of our minerals on land, wind up selling the raw material and buying back the finished products. We could lose the opportunity of opening up wide and diversified employment opportunities even in the early stages of such efforts. Time is the factor of importance, Mr. Speaker, not money. Failure to employ time wisely now could have long lasting adverse effects on our economic growth ability.
One area in which time could be spent very profitably, in my opinion, is in seabed geology. Surely, we could follow Australia's lead and prepare profile studies of our shelf and take the required core samplings to identify not only what the sub-sea floor is made up of, but in what

November 30, 1970
Marine Resources Programquantities and where. When the day comes in the next 70 or 75 years on which it is no longer economical, in terms of pollution, to mine the land, we had better be prepared to turn to the sea and the resources both in it and below it. The depths of the ocean present all the challenges of a second frontier for Canadians, primarily because we have so far not committed ourselves to master or understand it. While we dare only to nibble at these resources, I am afraid we shall remain starved.
Great technological advances will be made during the 1970's in preparation for the 1980's, a decade which will surely see the mastery of the depths to 20,000 feet below the 2,000 foot level in which our technology now permits us to operate. It would be inexcusable for us to find ourselves dependant on the technology of others during the 1980's. We have more than most nations at stake. If we have found it difficult to effectively control our land resources, how can we hope to effect control of our sub-seabed resources without a demonstrated capability clearly stamped "Canadian".
What about the cost factor? That is clearly set out in the report of the Science Council. They call for an escalation in expenditure so that by the 1980's our investment will be in the order of $300 million. I support this proposal. Suprisingly enough, the figures that I worked out one year ago differ from the figures of the Science Council with respect to 1980 by only $15 million. One of the things we must be concerned about, if we are to accept this proposition after careful study, is this: we must make sure that the build-up, if it does take place, will be sustained. I imagine that the Science Council would support this idea, although it does not particularly deal with it in its report.
Attempting too ambitious a start could cause the program to face erratic support in the latter part of the 1970's. In other words, whatever research work is undertaken would have to be acceptable to the government in terms of its own order of priorities and must be capable of long term funding, without any question whatsoever. In my opinion, the program must not be subject to annual cutbacks, or increases, for that matter. It must be stable. The scientists involved must always know where they are going from the time they begin. At present, as I have mentioned, we have no national goals, although it is to be hoped that the Science Council of Canada's task force report and the recommendations in that report will commend themselves to the government of this country. It is to be hoped that we do not waste any time in getting on with developing the vehicle which will translate the Science Council report, which deals with urgent matters, into actual programs.
As I have indicated and as I stress again, we must tread a path of clearly outlined and adequate policies so that we may know how we shall treat these resources by 1980. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, to the members of the House and to the government, that leaving this to 1990 will be too late, because by that time the encroachments of other countries concerned about the environment of the sea will be such that we shall be regulators of policy
and not exploiters of resources. The direction of less than .4 of 1 per cent of our gross national product into the resources of the sea is not enough. On the basis of controlled escalation, this should be more in the order of 1 per cent of our gross national product by 1980. It should be noted that this input I am referring to should reflect only government expenditures and should exclude expenditures by the Department of National Defence, which has military objectives in mind, and the expenditures of universities and private industries, the contributions of which will also enable us to understand the environment of the sea. A close study will have to be made of the order of the mix between pure and applied research efforts as between the public and the private sectors. At present we are spending about $8 million annually on applied research with respect to maritime resources and between $22 million and $23 million on pure scientific research and exploration. The figure of $30 million does not include the cost for ships and other related, supporting facilities.
It is my belief, Mr. Speaker, that by the middle of the 1970's our expenditure in this area annually should be at the level of $50 million and by 1980, as I have indicated, it ought to be very close to the $300 million figure. By that time we ought to be well launched on practical projects which will ensure that, as we go into the 1980's, Canada will have not only control over the explorat'on of the sea, the sea floor and what is under the sea floor, but control as well over the exploitation of the resources of the sea. I commend the Science Council of Canada for its work. I hope that there will be the widest possible publication of the study papers connected with report No. 10. They have my support in this program that has been recommended to the government and all members of the House.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to talk very long because I know hon. members wish to vote on this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis-Roland Comeau: I want to give them the chance of doing that. The motion presented by the hon. member for Dart-mouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) I consider, on the basis of my two years in the House, to be one of the most important matters that has been brought before the House. Although, if accepted, it would affect all of Canada, I submit that it would help to make the Atlantic provinces in particular more viable and self sufficient. We have not yet placed the proper emphasis on our resources, particularly mineral resources, in the Atlantic provinces, this is why it is vitally important to get moving on a program of this type.
e (5:20 p.m.)
I was advised by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) that this motion has been on tlie Order Paper since 1967, over three years. It is a shame that it was not debated earlier because the Science Council of Canada reported on this subject last week.

November 30, 1970

They could have taken the initiative from the suggestion of the hon. member had this motion been debated earlier. It is interesting to note the resemblance between the study completed on April 10 by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East and the one published this week by the Science Council of Canada. If the terminology is not the same, it is at least very similar.
Canada is a member of the Geneva Convention of the Continental Shelf, 1958. Canada can claim the natural resources of the seabed and subsoil offshore extending far beyond the limits of the territorial sea. Canada can claim the resources of the sea to a depth of 200 metres. There is a difference of opinion between the federal and provincial government with regard to the rights to offshore resources. In 1965, the Supreme Court dealt with the problem of resources off the west coast. The decision of the court in December of 1967 was unanimous. It found entirely in favour of the Crown. All submerged resources lying offshore from the ordinary low water mark are Crown property.
In 1968 the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced that Canada should establish mineral resources administration lines to divide areas of federal and provincial jurisdiction. Areas landward were to be administered by the provinces and areas seaward to be administered by the federal government. He also stated that half the revenues accruing from mineral resources from within federally administered areas would be placed in a national pool and distributed to the provinces on a basis acceptable to them. Of course, not all the provinces agreed with this proposal. There was discussion on this subject at the recent Liberal convention. The matter is far from being settled, but is a problem which must be resolved. We should not prejudice our interest in the development, continued research and use of our marine resources. It does not matter which government has the jurisdiction because both the federal and provincial governments work toward the same end. I would not like to see the Atlantic provinces in comparison with gypped other parts of Canada.
In the interest of all Canadians, the federal government should greatly improve the marine resources program. This is pointed out by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East in a paper which he submitted some time ago. Canada is very active in the field of oil and gas. Many companies have carried out marine geophysical surveys. Since 1966, the number of exploratory permits issued has greatly increased, particularly with respect to northern gas. This applies to both the east and west coasts. As pointed out by the mover of this motion, studies have revealed a wide range of minerals, in addition to our oil resources. This is of particular interest to the Atlantic coast region.
It is well known that in the past fishing has been the main activity off these shores. The federal and provincial governments have failed to grasp the opportunities to explore and fully develop our resources. It is understood that provinces alone cannot finance or provide the necessary machinery for full exploration and development of our marine resources. Only the federal government can
Marine Resources Program
do the job properly. Certainly, the province of Nova Scotia cannot, by itself, do the job.
A lot of exploratory work remains to be done in the field of marine resources. It cannot be done by any one province. Many people, including members of this House, still believe that we should proceed with caution, particularly off the Atlantic coast, in view of the effect that exploration and development might have on our fisheries. Surely, there must be a point of balance. We must be able to exploit our marine resources to the fullest while still maintaining a viable fishery. I do not want to dampen the hopes of the fishermen in the Atlantic provinces, but at the same time the future does not look too promising. I believe there will always be proper conservation methods. I am glad to see the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) in the House. He is very interested in the conservation of our fishery. In the last five years there has been evidence of depletion of some species. It is to our advantage to find other means of income for the residents of the Atlantic provinces. We should not simply ignore motions such as the one presented by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East because of the benefits they would bring to the people living in the Atlantic area. This applies also to those living on the west coast.
I am referring to the Atlantic coast in particular because it has often been said that the Atlantic provinces cannot make it. Maybe they have not been given the chance. Perhaps everything that should be explored has not been explored in order to make these provinces viable. The reason for this motion is that the mineral resources off the coast of those provinces have not been explored fully. There is no doubt this would be of great benefit to that area. Increased research in resources other than the fishery is of prime importance at this stage.
The Science Council of Canada in their Report No. 10, the latest report, stated:
The impact of such developments as offshore petroleum exploration and exploitation, new needs in fisheries and transportation, new demands in recreation, antipollution, and climatic prediction and control requires a serious reconsideration of the place of marine science and technology in our total national picture. The time for action is now!
The motion presented by the hon. member is of great importance. It is unfortunate that this subject has not been debated more often in the past because it is of prime importance to the development and well being of many Canadians. Many departments are interested in and concerned with the proper development of marine resources; for example, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in our Arctic areas, and the Department of Fisheries and Forestry. We cannot develop our resources on the east coast to the detriment of the fisheries; safeguards can and must be provided. Increased research under the National Research Council, at universities and so on, should make this possible.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I simply want to impress upon hon. members that the motion moved by the hon. member for Dartmouth-

November 30, 1970
Marine Resources Program
Halifax East is of vital importance. The Department of National Defence has an interest in this matter in relation to its defence installations. So has the Department of Transport through its shipping branch. The Department of External Affairs has an interest because this matter has to do with extraterritorial rights. Perhaps the fact that so many departments are involved is why progress has been slow. The Science Council of Canada has made a positive recommendation that some move along the lines suggested by the hon. member be made, and it is the federal government that must take the initiative. The Atlantic provinces, indeed all of Canada, will have much to gain from increased activity in this area.
Some time ago the government reneged on its proposal to harness the Bay of Fundy tides. In my opinion, these tides are a tremendous source of energy and have fantastic possibilities in terms of making the Atlantic provinces more self-sufficient. No longer would the rest of Canada tell the Atlantic provinces that they must be given money in order to live. Although nothing has been done to date, a start can be made in the future on this project which is a long-term one. I suggest we adopt the recommendation of the Science Council of Canada as well as act on this motion. Since other hon. members want to speak, I shall not deal with the financial requirements that are involved; these have been dealt with by the hon. member as well as by the Science Council of Canada.
I might also point out that there are great possibilities here for mineral development. This is a subject we could talk about for days on end. Suffice it to say I support the motion and urge the government to do something about it, for in this area lies tremendous possibilities for all Canadians, particularly for those in the Atlantic provinces.


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a few brief remarks in support of the motion put forward by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall). I hope to conclude my remarks in about two and a half minutes so that, hopefully, the matter may come to a vote. The motion before us, in brief, calls for the development of Canada's east coast waters and continental shelf resources. Certainly there is sufficient merit in that proposition to bring us to the point where we would at least support the sending of the subject matter of the resolution to the appropriate committee, or perhaps a joint committee, for study and action.
It is a fact that Canada has either the largest or second largest seacoast shelf area in the world. In any event, its area is immense. We have done very little in the way of studying the potential wealth that lies within our sea-coast areas, though we have done something to encourage exploration for oil and gas in our marine areas. Recently I expect hon. members read a report which suggested that we should look at the food resources of our marine areas, because it has been pointed out that the population explosion in the rest of the world is such that the existing traditional areas of food production may be insufficient to provide food for the world's needs in time to come.
Only the other day I read that the Japanese are now exploring the use of seacoast water with regard to hydro power development. Although this is in the very early, exploratory stage, it is an area in which the Japanese are interested. I think we are all vaguely aware of the potential mineral wealth that is lying just off our shores. All in all, I think the motion deserves our non-party support to the extent of at least sending it forward for further discussion and, hopefully, action.
I like the wording of the motion. The only change I would make would be to strengthen the idea that the federal and provincial governments co-ordinate their activities if this undertaking should commence. In the hope, as I said earlier, of the House coming to a decision on this resolution, I will now resume my seat.


Mr. Ian Watson (Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) for moving this motion and giving us the opportunity to discuss a topic which, as he himself pointed out, has not been adequately discussed in this House. He is a Maritimer with perhaps a special interest in this subject, though it is one that should concern all Canadians.
If the government of Canada is going to preserve its federal claim vis-a-vis the provinces, it will have to become more involved in research into the exploitation of the undersea continental shelf. If the federal claim is to have any credibility, this action must be taken in order to protect and to advance at the international level our case for national jurisdiction over the exploitation of our continental shelf. We must clarify our claims to national jurisdiction.
Before dealing with that subject I should like to talk for a moment about some of the things that Canada should be doing now, with the resources that are available to us, to increase our knowledge and our ability to take advantage of some of the new technology that is being developed. Possibly this is an area for Canadian-Soviet co-operation. We can offer many things to the U.S.S.R. in the area of mining exploitation. On the other hand, I think the U.S.S.R. has a lot to give us in the area of expertise and knowledge of deep water areas off our coasts. It is a well known fact that the so-called Soviet hydrographic fishing trawlers have photographed the sea floor up and down both the west and east coasts of Canada.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
This area is one which is of prime interest to Canada, obviously. I would strongly suggest to the government of Canada that the next time it talks with Soviet officials about co-operation in various areas of technology, it should make a pitch for a much more substantial exchange of information in this area. Canada would certainly benefit. The need is obvious for a very comprehensive survey in Canada of the undersea conditions, of the geology, biology, mineralogy, and the various forms of sea studies including the wave action and meteorology of our ocean frontiers.

November 30, 1970

Perhaps there are ways for us to give some incentive to our industrial people to encourage private input into this kind of research. I would hope that we might consider additional tax incentives as encouragement for this particular kind of research, which in the long run is so essential to the establishment of our national claims over the continental shelf and for eventual full exploitation of this area.
In early 1970 President Nixon made certain proposals which were among the most important international proposals made by any country for a long time. They envisaged a world treaty under which nations would give up a good part of their claims to most of the riches of the world's seabeds. He proposed giving up to 90 per cent of the seabed to an international agency, with royalties going for international community purposes. The area beyond the depth of 200 metres to the outer limits of the continental margin would come under a special form of trusteeship whereby the coastal state would have the right to control access, exploitation, pollution and, in fact, the full development of the area to the limits of the continental margin without going so far as recognizing full, absolute and complete national jurisdiction over this area.
Canada has not taken an official position on the Nixon proposals. Our position seems to be at the moment that we agree there is an area which is beyond our national jurisdiction. We agree that there must be a more precise definition, and we agree that the area beyond must be exploited for mankind and in particular for underdeveloped countries. We have been, I presume, deliberately nebulous on this subject because the government has not made up its own mind.
I feel quite strongly that now is the time for Canada and every country in the world to move toward greater international input into undersea and sea exploitation. I do not think we can allow ourselves many more years of complete freedom of exploitation. Whether it be undersea exploitation, seabed exploitation or exploitation of the animal resources of the sea, we will have to bring this under international control eventually. It therefore seems to me it is to the distinct advantage of almost every country in the world to move toward a much more concrete form of international control than we have now.
The United States proposals perhaps have a military aspect to them in that the trusteeship suggested by President Nixon would eliminate the pattern of extending national jurisdictions to the edge of the continental margin. However, because this particular aspect of the U.S. proposal exists, I do not think we should underrate it or fail to see the tremendous value that exists in this proposal for a movement toward an international sea regime and much greater international co-operation between the peoples of the world. The countries of the world during the last few years seem to have been regressing into nationalism. This regressive nationalism which is occurring even here in our part of the world is not to the long-term advantage of any of us. The need for assistance to underdeveloped countries is greater than it has been and will be even greater in years to come.
Marine Resources Program
I would suggest that development undersea resources on the so-called outer margin of the continental shelf is an area that should be exploited for the benefit of all mankind. I would take a position supporting the Nixon proposals, but the depth of the continental shelf could be an area of compromise. In fact, I disagree with the Canadian position if it is to be that we lay full claim to the continental shelf to its outer margin without any provision being made for a contribution from this extremely rich area to the underdeveloped countries of the world.
There is room for compromise in the Nixon proposals, but I do not think the Canadian position should be what it appears to be developing into, to lay full and absolute claim to all the continental shelf to its outer margin. This is an exercise of Canadian nationalism with which I would not agree. The trusteeship proposal should, however, be expanded upon. We should not simply have a trusteeship in this area of the continental shelf extending from a depth of perhaps 200 metres or 400 metres to the edge of the continental margin only for the purpose of exploitation of the seabed or beneath the seabed resources. We should have an international trusteeship set up whereby we can control, for conservation purposes, all the animal life in this area.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
There are presently many examples of misuse of fishing rights which other oountries have acquired over the centuries on both our east and west coasts. It is essential that a better international framework be established soon for this area.
I would hope the government of Canada will push strongly for another conference on the Law of the Sea. I should like to see us modify our position on the outer continental shelf to take into account the real need which exists for additional aid to the underdeveloped countries and which would take into consideration the danger inherent in increasing nationalism around the world. I would hope we would take a step toward the world community to which I believe most of us aspire over the long term.


Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, as we draw to the conclusion of a debate of this type it is good to return to the starting point; therefore, I wish to refer to the resolution put forward by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall). Through this resolution the hon. member has given us an opportunity during the past hour to debate a topic which is of vital interest to Canadians. The resolution states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the development, encouragement and maintenance of a co-ordinated, comprehensive, and long-range national program for the recovery and use of the resources of Canada's seacoast waters and continental shelves; and to this end, effectively utilize the scientific and engineering knowledge and skills of the public service and government agencies and co-operate with private investment enterprise in the exploration, technological development and industrial use of the resources of the marine environment of Canada.

November 30, 1970
Marine Resources Program
Dr. Solandt of the Science Council of Canada, perhaps quite unknown to the hon. member, has been working along a very similar line and one which closely parallels what the hon. member has suggested.


J. Michael Forrestall: I never said I was the only one concerned.


Grant Deachman: I must say it is to the credit of the hon. member that his discourse this afternoon should have been so closely related to what the learned scientists who comprise the Science Council of Canada have come up with. His proposal is pretty much akin to the proposal made in the monograph from which he quoted today. The hon. member in effect has entered the debate somewhat at the eleventh hour.
I should like to turn to the first page of this document which is dated November, 1970, and highlight for a moment what is proposed therein, because I believe it is generally acceptable to the House and probably just as acceptable to the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East. It shows that we really are getting close to doing something in this most important field. In this monograph Dr. Solandt says:
It has been estimated that about half of Canada's ultimate potential oil reserves lie offshore.
That is to say, on the continental shelf surrounding continental Canada. Then at page 18 Dr. Solandt says this:
To lift only one corner of the curtain, industry expenditures on offshore exploration are expected to grow from about $25 million in 1969 to a minimum of $40 million in 1970. The work requirements on federal government offshore petroleum exploration permits may result in an expenditure of some $1 billion by 1980. If exploitation follows, the financial outlays will certainly dwarf these exploration figures.
Further down on the same page he says what he would like to see done to cope with this problem.
The Science Council therefore recommends that an interdepartmental committee be established immediately to satisfy this need. This committee should consist of senior representatives of federal departments having responsibilities in the marine environment-
He names those departments and then states on page 20:
The Science Council recognizes that there can be several alternative mechanisms that will accomplish these ends, but in view of the need to establish a solid technological base as rapidly as possible, and since Crown Corporations have successfully fulfilled such mandates in the past, it recommends the establishment of such a corporation, a Canadian Ocean Development Corporation.
One of the recommendations of the Science Council is the establishment of a Canadian Ocean Development Corporation which would provide not only for Canadian ownership of marine technological enterprises but would also ensure that a significant proportion of the activities involved are carried out by Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The nour appointed for the consideration of private member's business having expired, I do now leave the chair. The House will resume at 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleron) that Bill C-181, to provide temporary emergency powers for the preservation of public order in Canada, be read the third time and do pass.
André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, when the government, taking advantage of unanimous consent, introduced in the House the War Measures Act as a great emergency, it publicly undertook to introduce in the near future new legislation whose main characteristic would be permanency. However, to the general disappointment, the government has gone back on its promise and has postponed indefinitely its promise of permanent legislation, putting before us instead this temporary Bill C-181.
At the height of the crisis that shook not only Quebec, but the whole of Canada, in October last, the government proclaimed the War Measures Act to check the undercover and murderous activities of the FLQ. At that time, we supported the government, because we recognized-and we still do-the danger that the FLQ as well as any group that shares the same views represent for Quebec, for the future of Democracy in Quebec and in the rest of Canada. There was some kind of a consensus at that time to the effect that this legislation was inadequate.
There is no ready solution to this issue, Mr. Speaker.
Indeed, when we are dealing with such shameful and merciless people who have gone as far as abducting two men and ignominiously murdering one of them in order to achieve their political aims, the two eminently democratic bodies that are the Canadian government and Canadian Parliament must never cease to be on the alert. Abnormal conditions often call for extraordinary and tough legislation at times in order to preserve our institutions, our society and our fellow-citizens.
Having said this, there remains one undeniable fact: any legislation and measures enacted to stamp out this evil must never under any circumstances be such as to cause greater harm. Therefore, I want to state my position clearly as one of moderation and comprehension but also of strength, with respect to the revolutionary forces which are now actively seeking to destory our country.
I call for the passing of emergency legislation of a permanent nature. This is basic. This is the reason why I have the impression really that we are wasting our time now, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said, but not for the same reasons. He does not believe in Parliament, while I do. In any case, as the situation is now under control and as the measures taken neither saved Pierre Laporte's life nor brought back British diplomat James
November 30, 1970

Richard Cross free, does it mean that these failures are due to our legislation? I do not think so. They are instead the result of the state of panic created by the governments who, by their inaction and their weakness, allowed our radio stations to alarm the people at any time, and thus to give the FLQ all the publicity it could need to keep this tension alive.
These failures and this weakness of the government are also due to our lack of experience in this new type of warfare, namely, the use of violence and force to overthrow the established government.
I believe that, in these circumstances, the police and armed forces, in spite of the difficulty of their task, are doing a good job. Of course, some problems have come up and there has been abuse of power in some cases, but I think that the police are not be blamed for that but rather the legislation under which they acted, the War Measures Act. And the experience of the first three weeks made the people realize how far such abuse might go, abuse due to poorly adapted legislation, imprecise, provoking and even in some regards, certainly disrec-pectful of the basic rights of the human being. Therefore, we are in great need of new legislation on emergency powers, a permanent statute not intended solely to save face as it is the case with Bill C-181.
This new legislation on emergency powers which I call for like many other hon. members, should allow the cabinet to order emergency measures when, for example, transport and public services are disorganized, when the supply of commodities is endangered, when strikes jeopardize the national economy of a province or the efficiency of public services or when the lawful authority is seriously threatened by movements or associations advocating violence or force as a tool.
It is abnormal that unlike many other countries Canada should be without permanent legislation. Here we wait for blows to fall before taking action, instead of anticipating them. Is not leadership far sightedness?
Permanent legislation is and will always be a superficial solution to a crisis. Legislation can only control a situation on the outside but inwardly anger may continue to increase to the point of degenerating into terrorism.
Therefore, we must try mainly to restore order in our society, not only by voting a modern and permanent public order act but also by tackling fundamental problems which cause, have caused or will cause in future such outbursts of violence and terrorism.
When considering the continuing downgrading of the economic situation in Quebec, one can realize that it is but the beginning of our troubles unless we tackle the problems of poverty, social injustice, unemployment, slums, employment of our youth and the many questions arising from the basic problem: the economic situation.
Mr. Speaker, the leaders of Social Credit and their followers have been saying, for decades now, that all problems of a social or human nature had often one common origin, the economic problem.
Public Order Act, 1970
Without trying to sound ominous, the Creditistes had foreseen the crisis which recently jolted not only Quebec but the whole of Canada.
How many times did we say that some day passions would grow so exasperated that the situation would become explosive unless we tried forthwith to put some order in our economic system. When so speaking, the Ralliement creditiste members were right once again and we hope that today, the government will hear our voice, the voice of the people who are fed up with promises of a "just society" and of "100,000 jobs" and who have lost any hope to see these promises ever materialize.
The economic situation in Quebec is far from satisfying and the Canadians, particularly the Quebecers, are desperate at the incompetence and inaction of this government. In view of the importance of this matter, let me describe for a few seconds the economic situation of both the Quebecers and the Canadians in general.
This winter, a 14 per cent unemployment rate is forecast in the Maritimes, a 13 per cent unemployment rate in Quebec while, for Ontario, this rate will reach only 7 per cent. For the last 15 years, the Quebec unemployment rate has always been from 20 to 40 per cent higher than the average unemployment rate in the whole country.
But what is most alarming, Mr. Speaker, is that in 1969 out of the 158,000 unemployed in Quebec, 65,000 or 42 per cent were under 25. Those young people who had been promised since 1960 a society of happiness, security and freedom through stable employment studied long and hard so as to be prepared for the task the society was offering them. But it turns out that these were nothing but empty promises by small-time politicians and even with their diplomas, the young despair of ever being able to do something with their hands and their education, and of ever being able to get a job.
Those young people-and I want to be their spokesman-are bitterly disappointed and most of them do not believe any more in Santa Claus Trudeau or Santa Claus Bourassa. The "just society" and the "100,000 jobs" are neither for today nor for tomorrow.
It is a shame to see that 42 per cent of the unemployed in Quebec are less than 25 and feel useless and rejected by society and it is easy to understand that their frustration could easily turn into revolt.
I therefore ask myself who is responsible, in the end, for the troubles which have shaken Canada, if it is not society itself, and particularly its leaders who have tolerated and created that situation in its entirety, through their inaction. That is fundamental and deep cause, and whatever the content of the emergency legislation may be, it will solve the problem only temporarily and very superficially. The time has come for an economic reform in depth.
It might be said that people who live off governments, who wait for whatever is given to them, are bound in greater number in Quebec, especially if one takes into

November 30, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
account the very high level of unemployment in that province.
Indeed, in the province of Quebec, 572,800 persons depend directly on social welfare to live. To that number one can add approximately 29 per cent of those who work and whose standard of living is barely above the poverty level. In Quebec, 39 people out of 1,000 are on welfare as compared with 17 in Ontario.
Those figures are revolting, but the situation of those people is still worse, if one considers the huge wealth and possibilities of this country. Those people do not share at all in the prosperity and life of our country. In short, they are rejected by society. One must not be surprised if some want to reject society. And the governments ignore them completely.
The government fights inflation and the terrorists, sets up bilingualism programs, creates hundreds of royal commissions, and publishes hundreds of white papers-it tabled still another one today-but that does not in any way change the situation of those people which keeps getting worse instead of better.
That is why it is so important for us, members of Parliament, to assume our responsibilities, to give precedence to the interest of the people over that of the political parties, with a view to ensuring the freedom and economic security of each and every citizen. But that supposes an economic reform in depth. Our present society does not really take into consideration the needs of man, nor his aspirations. It refuses to hear his desperate cries. Some of these days, man will wake up and revolt. The federal government, through the CBC, the Company of Young Canadians and various other organizations, is, after a fashion, doing dishonest social work with the ratepayers' money, by showing only one side of the picture, by getting those needy people all worked up, by luring them with the beneficial effects of a society where everything is permissible, from abortionn to the legalization of drugs. The taxpayers are lured with the advantages of socialism, licentious life, revolutions that took place in other countries, but they are always shown only one side of the picture, so that one fine day, the nation awakens.
And when that happens, the government feels justified in extending its hold, its power, and in multiplying its dictatorial measures through laws which trample the basic civil freedoms, and it takes advantage of the situation. And when an election is called, the same governments ask: Give us a very strong majority. Then the people slip even further and the government seizes the opportunity to increase its hold, to grab everyone's property either through farm credit companies or the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Mr. Speaker, the respect of the human being will only be truly achieved by an economic reform in depth which will put money at the service of the human being, in order to put an end to the exploitation of man by high finance.
A reform is due and time is going by quickly. The bill under consideration is a swindle. It is nonsensical and is
part of the great drama produced by the Liberal government to entertain the people and make them forget their real problems. This is why, on behalf of my fellow citizens of Lotbiniere, I will vote against this bill which. makes people forget their real problems and does not deal with the root cause.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak at length on third reading of the temporary emergency powers bill. It is not my desire to hold up the vote on this legislation but I feel I must place my views about it on the record.
The War Measures Act was brought in by the cabinet by Order in Council almost six weeks ago. The House of Commons was not consulted first. The main reason given for invoking the act was that a state of apprehended insurrection existed in the province of Quebec. At the time we had no knowledge or evidence of any apprehended insurrection in Canada, and as events have unfolded here in Ottawa it has become crystal clear that no state of apprehended insurrection ever existed. Wild rumours and unfounded stories drove both the Quebec provincial government and our federal administration into a state of hysteria and panic. The fantastic exaggerations of cabinet ministers and their subtle hints of sabotage, plots and insurrection against the government were a major contribution to this whole unhappy affair.
I would agree that emergency action against the FLQ was needed. No one can condone terrorist activities in a democracy. But I am convinced we did not require the War Measures Act to bring about law and order. There are a number of sections in the Criminal Code such as those on treason, sedition, offensive weapons, unlawful assembly, conspiracy, and others which are readily available to our law enforcement officers to arrest those they suspect of being ready to lead demonstrations and to incite disorder and violence. If additional powers were reasonably needed, they could and would have been obtained from Parliament on a temporary basis. These additional powers could have extended the length of time of detention and permitted the authorities, without warrant, to search private dwellings for explosives and offensive weapons.
All parties in this House agree that the vast powers under the War Measures Act were far too restrictive and abusive for meeting the FLQ situation in Quebec. This was indicated by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) after they were first introduced. It makes one wonder why the present regulations, which are less restrictive, were not included in the Order in Council when it was first brought in on October 16, 1970. The government had been considering the use of the War Measures Act for several days. The failure to bring in less restrictive powers under the Order in Council is just another example of the panic and chaos which struck every department of government during the crisis.
An interesting article appeared in the Globe and Mail on November 26. The article was really a severe chastise-

November 30, 1970

ment of the exaggerated statements made by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand). I would like to quote for the record several paragraphs from it as follows:
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Justice Minister Jerome Choquette was quoted yesterday as describing as highly exaggerated an implication by Regional Economic Expansion Minister, Jean Marchand, that there may have been as many as 3,000 heavily armed revolutionaries ready to fight for Quebec independence.
Mr. Marchand cited the figure as a justification for Ottawa invoking the War Measures Act to combat FLQ terrorism.
In an impassioned defence of the act, Mr. Marchand told the Commons on October 16 that the FLQ has 3,000 members. He said many had infiltrated into decision-making positions throughout Quebec. He claimed that the FLQ had enough explosives and arms to destroy downtown Montreal and said it was ready to use them.
"There are maybe 100 or 125 active members of the Front de Liberation du Quebec in my opinion," Mr. Choquette was quoted as saying. "Mr. Marchand has his own way about him. His statement was highly exaggerated. There were far too many conflicting comments and opinions coming from Ottawa during the crisis."
Mr. Bourassa said: "I would like to see Mr. Marchand's statement. Was he speaking of active terrorists, or sympathizers?"
When pressed by reporters to say whether he considered 3,000 an exaggerated number for active FLQ members, he said, "Well, you saw the arrests, about 100 still held-you have your answer there."
I point out, Mr. Speaker, that in the latest results given to the House of Commons, the Minister of Just'ce (Mr. Turner) told us there were 454 individuals arrested under the War Measures Act and that to date 403 of them had been released. Only 51 had been detained to date, and of these only two had been sentenced. No doubt a number of those presently being detained will also be released without charge. Despite an intensive police search in every part of Quebec, no large caches of weapons or large supplies of dynamite have been located.
All this information would clearly indicate that the claimed threat of apprehended insurrection never existed. In my opinion, when the full story of the FLQ crisis is written in the months and years to come it will become abundantly clear that governmental panic at both the federal and the provincial level was the main cause for invoking the War Measures Act.
Another important and supplementary reason was the desire of the federal government to prop up the weak and vacillating Liberal cabinet of Premier Bourassa. Only one member of that cabinet had really stood out against negotiating with the terrorists, and that was the Attorney General. To help save the political hide of a Liberal Premier, and to prevent further active negotiations by the province with the FLQ for release of prisoners, 22,000,000 Canadians were stripped of their civil liberties.
We must not forget the role played by the mayor of Montreal in this FLQ crisis. He rightly requested federal assistance, but under the cloak of the War Measures Act he was one of the first to abuse its powers by using it against his municipal political opponents. I personally feel that the real crisis in the city of Montreal and in the
Public Order Act, 1970
province of Quebec is well in hand. There is no further need for the vast police powers of the War Measures Act and no need for the very extreme powers under the temporary emergency powers bill which is currently before the House. The crisis is in hand in Quebec and any remaining problems, in my opinion, could be handled adequately under the sections of the Criminal Code which I have already mentioned.
Let me add that recently the Prime Minister has tried to foist the blame on the news media for the wild rumours which were spread about plots, replacing of government administrations, etc. Every member and every reporter in this House knows where these wild rumours originated. They came from prominent cabinet ministers, from Liberal backbenchers and from the Prime Minister himself. Many of them are on record in speeches made by them. These members should get up in this House and tell the people of Canada what they have done. Trying to foist the blame on the news media is a disgraceful tactic and it must be highly embarrassing to those members who were guilty of originally spreading the rumours.
Despite the fact that the present measure is somewhat less restrictive than the War Measures Act, it nevertheless contains several very vicious and repugnant sections. In fact, these sections are so lacking in their protect.on of civil liberties and are so opposed to my ideas of Canadian justice that I refuse to endorse any type of legislation which contains them. Clause 8 will make offences retroactive. This is the most vicious feature of the bill. If something was legal five or six years ago, I fail to see the justice in now making it retroactively an illegal act.
Many hundreds of innocent individuals can be caught by this vicious feature and it should never be allowed to pass into law. Surely Canadians have a fairer sense of justice than to allow legislation of this type to be placed upon our statute books. This section makes an individual guilty until he proves himself innocent. No one who believes in basic civil liberties can endorse this abhorrent principle.
The second feature is the failure of this government to allow a review board or a review commission to make certain that the measures under this act are not abused. This safeguard is an absolute necessity, for many more innocent people may be arrested under this temporary measures act and could again suffer adversely because of our failure to allow an independent review to take place. The setting up of this board would in no way affect police action in the city of Montreal. Still this government remains adamant and refuses to allow this necessary protection of the civil rights of Canadians.
We are told that it is up to the province of Quebec to administer the act and that provision for a review board is not required. However, this is federal legislation and we have the powers delegated under the Constitution to insist upon the protection of the civil rights of every Canadian regardless of where he resides. We should protect those rights and insist that those who would use the powers of this new legislation must also agree to protect

November 30, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
them. The host of abuses which have already taken place under the War Measures Act, including those moves made against political opponents for obviously political reasons, should serve as a concrete example to us. The abuses which have taken place will for the most part be perpetuated in the new legislation. Again, at this late stage of the legislation I appeal for suitable amendments to protect Canadians against these potential abuses.
Mr. Speaker, before I close may I touch briefly on the root cause of the FLQ trouble in Quebec. It stems primarily from the lack of basic social and economic reform. Contented citizens do not turn to terrorism if social and economic conditions can guarantee them a decent standard of living. But if unemployment is ever-present and basic social reforms such as housing, etc., are lacking, then groups like the FLQ can fester and grow on this type of discontent.
Why have we had this problem in Quebec and elsewhere without adequate action being taken? Who is to blame? We have had Liberal federal government since 1963-


An hon. Member:: That is when the FLQ started.


Randolph Harding: -and precious little has been done on the federal level to alleviate the worsening situation in the province of Quebec. It is time the people of Quebec and the rest of Canada realized that the Liberal government of the past seven years has not done anything to alleviate adverse economic conditions or recognize the need for social reform in the province of Quebec. This lack of reform is the basic and the root cause of the growth of the FLQ.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Randolph Harding: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would say that under the War Measures Act a host of abuses have already taken place. A large number of innocent people have been ruined by being picked up and having their names associated with the FLQ. Some individuals have lost jobs and their wives and families have been harmed by these arrests. The powers under the War Measures Act have been used politically in the city of Montreal and in other parts of Quebec to get at political opponents. Every day some new abuse under the War Measures Act comes to light, and when Canadians are able to read the full story of what has actually taken place they will never again want to see the War Measures Act invoked in Canada during peacetime. Mr. Speaker, if this bill is to be voted on at third reading without being amended, I shall have no choice but to cast my vote against it.
e (8:30 p.m.)


Mr. Romuald Rodrigue (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, no right-thinking citizen could remain indifferent to the serious problems that faced the Quebec and the Canada governments following the events of last October.
No citizen could remain insensitive to the anguish felt by the Cross and Laporte families.
No Canadian could fail to disapprove of the offences committed, nor deny that in certain circumstances, the implementation of extraordinary measures is justified.
When the tragic circumstances we have known led to the invoking of the War Measures Act, we trusted the government and its leader, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when he said there were very good reasons to invoke the War Measures Act.
Now, on October 16, the federal government, at the request of the government of the province of Quebec and the city of Montreal, invoked the War Measures Act.
In the light of the facts known and outlined by the Prime Minister and his cabinet, Parliament approved the action of the government on the understanding that a legislation not as stringent as the War Measures Act would be introduced in the House as soon as possible.
Therefore, Parliament acted in good faith on October 16 last. After a month, one would be inclined to believe that the reasons stated were groundless.
The act invoked to apply extraordinary measures was not adapted to the present circumstances. It had been drafted to cope with a wartime situation. In this instance, Parliament was facing an unusual situation, different however from the conditions prevailing in a country at war. We were therefore at grips with a situation without legislation appropriate to circumstances.
The replacement of the War Measures Act was consequently necessary. It was extremely important that a new legislation be discussed and passed in order to put an end to such a situation.
We have supported the principle of a new bill and made suggestions to the government. We were expecting a bill different from the one before us. During the discussion in committee, we have proposed amendments to Bill C-181. Members of other parties have also moved amendments, but they have all been turned down by the government.
The rejection by the government of any reasonable amendment makes Bill C-181 the twin brother of the Regulations for the preservation of public order.
As the government has not kept its word, I do not see why we should give unqualified support to an incomplete legislation which grants almost unlimited powers. We have supported the principle of an emergency measure, but not necessarily this one.
Rather than an emergency law with a permanent character, such as can be found in the Western countries, this government has preferred to introduce a temporary legislation, so that if a similar situation arose in another part of the country, or in a different way, it would again have to ask Parliament to promulgate the War Measures Act.
Could it be that the passing of the War Measures Act was not justified or still, that it was promulgated in a moment of panic? Both are possible.

November 30, 1970

Rather than introducing a permanent legislation, they have preferred acting hastily by passing an incomplete, temporary legislation, that is a last minute law. When are we going to get a permanent type of legislation?
This reaction from the government is not new. They give everything a temporary character. Nothing is clear in this bill. There is no detailed definition. Of course public order requires the respect of laws, and I am for it, but it infers in return that the government should respect individual rights. The proposed legislation barely touches on the problem and offers limited possibilities, except that it declares that an association is illegal and imposes punishment on those who belong to the said association, who say that they are members or participate one way or another in its meetings.
But who can prove that a person belongs to the unlawful association when no one even knows whether it issues membership cards.
Certain clauses of this bill grant to the government or the attorney general unlimited powers which could lead to abuses. Such powers confer full discretionay authority to the government. Why then pass legislation which will only apply to one association and to one province, Quebec in this instance? The Minister of Justice, in the explanations he supplied in the discussion at the committee stage, concluded by saying that the Criminal Code contains provisions allowing for the condemnation of persons deemed guilty of indictable offences.
Now, if the Criminal Code provides for punishment for crimes committed in October, why then was it necessary to resort to the War Measures Act?
The situation we have experienced and that the government would like to be carried on is extremely serious. We shall have to try, through every means at our disposal, to prevent the recurring of such a situation. We must tackle the task immediately and create a climate that would eliminate the ultimate causes which gave birth to the unlawful association.
We must also ponder over the consequences of the crisis we have just witnessed and particularly over our institutions. Democracy is so fragile a flower that it is seldom to be found under its most perfect form. It rests on a set of rules presupposing the agreement of the community. Should a group choose to live on the fringe of society and claim its own set of morals, every thing goes hay wire since it is true that lawfulness may exist only from a certain standpoint. Such is the case of subversion and terrorism. It is therefore inevitable that democratic rules be redefined. It becomes necessary to fight against a new danger for which there is no such thing as a traditional formula.
First of all, the citizens, and Quebecers in particular, should be given financial security and civil liberties. Right now, it is believed that civil liberties are significant, in theory only.
Our party has for too long preached a fairer distribution of production across the country. It is time that our voice be heard at last, because it is the people's voice which demands justice. The time has come to reform the
Public Order Act, 1970
economic system, to promote brotherhood and to adopt our economic as well as our social and political structures to man. The time has come to put money at the service of the human being, in order to remove the understandable frustration felt by people who do not receive their fair share of the national production.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, if deep constitutional reforms must be contemplated to eliminate in Quebec the causes that brought about the unlawful associations, we believe that our Canadian society should show the necessary flexibility and broadmindedness. This is not the time for arrogance, but for understanding and dialogue; we have a country to build, not to destroy.
We strongly believe that the federal government from now on will have to enter debates on the constitution with a spirit of brotherhood and national reconciliation. Again, what is important is first that Canadians live decently. The constitutional framework must not be an obstacle in the way of the fulfillment of Canadians, including the people of Quebec.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, for the next few minutes I intend to express my views concerning the causes that led to the troubles we have been through recently and which are probably not over yet, and my opinion on this bill which is before us for third reading.
It is about time, I think, that we should speak frankly. Ever since the crisis reached its height, I have kept my mouth shut because, in my opinion, we had to let the clouds clear and allow the present government all the leeway it needed to keep the situation well in hand and put a stop to terrorist activities.
First of all, I must say I am a true federalist, that I believe in a strong and United Canada, in mutual understanding but not in the submission of one of our provinces to the rest of Canada.
I totally disapprove of all the reprehensible acts of the FLQ, and support the position of my leader, that is, that the most energetic steps possible must be taken to safeguard what democracy we still enjoy.
I doubt that we should have to go over all the suggestions and amendments put forward by the various members of my party, or the opposition or even those of the government members, which, in any event, were turned down by the government although the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had invited us to make them.
All Canadians, and we members of Parliament above all, should stop to consider together the direct cause of all this effervescence in the province of Quebec during the past months.
The world has been shown a new image of Canada. In fact, forgotten are the red tunics, inflation, the Western Prairies, the dairy problem, the wheat problem; even our official recognition of Communist China-excuse me, of Red China-has escaped attention.

November 30, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
Suddenly, breaking through the government's political masquerade, economic, social and cultural problems have come to light.
Now is the time for speculation. Federalists or not, or attracted by all the world's ideologies, we are caught unawares, and even panicking. We must admit that the FLQ is the strongest in this whole matter. We must stop deluding ourselves and face reality. That is difficult and humiliating for each and every one of us. But this time, events that monopolize the mass media throughout the world do not originate in Asia, Africa or South America, but right here at home in the nice Catholic French Canadian province. "Is it possible?", respectable people ask.
To all hon. members opposite, I wish to say that they have become bourgeois under the cover of democracy, that such events had long been visible in our historical and immediate sky. We must not say that they take us by surprise.
The government was well aware of the situation, had been for a long time, but nobody was courageous enough to say what was wrong and, above all, to apply the appropriate remedies. The following question is raised: Why did it wait so long? Perhaps to let the events develop to such a point where he could save the situation and then be hailed as the great saviour of democracy. Thus with this new shield, he could continue to wheedle the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, this game can sometimes cost the life of innocent people. I see that several hon. members are shaking their heads and finding those remarks hard on the great savior of democracy. What to think about it? On what can those statements be based?
Can an answer be given to the following question: Why did not the government take heed of the many warnings given over a long period of time?
Let us recall some historical facts: the frustration of French Canadians faced with the arrogance of English Canadians after the conquest, their reticence at the time of conscription for the Boer War in 1901 and the 1914-18 war, the refusal of many of them to serve under the Union Jack during the 1939-45 war, the stand of the former Montreal mayor, Mr. Camilien Houde, on compulsory registration in 1940, a stand which got him a few lyears in jail at the expense of the federal government (what an honour!), statements by Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine, Henri Bourassa, Canon Lionel Groulx, Maurice Duplessis, Right Hon. Louis St-Laurent, Daniel Johnson, the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste (Mr. Caouette), Frangois-Albert Angers, Jean Lesage, Claude Ryan, Rene Levesque and a great many others, all gave warning of what is happening today.
The leader of my party spoke in 1963 as follows:
Separatism is a symptom of the injustice suffered by French Canadians. Most of these famous men were educated by old parish priests and still believe, as most of us do, that they must love their enemies. They were taught to turn the right cheek to whoever slapped their left one. They were taught not to kill. They therefore uttered strong protests against abuses, but they did nothing more than that.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Today however, young people have been educated by mechanical men, by learned fellows, by people who are engaged in a system of numbers and who teach only numbers to our students, who become what we know them to be.
The time to turn the right cheek is over. Movements like FRAP, citizens committees, the FLP, the MIS, the Vallieres-Gagnon committee, the MLT and the latest, the MDPPQ, that is the movement for the defence of Quebec political prisoners, are movements that have had enough of holding out any cheek.
Mr. Speaker, the government has been getting warnings for a long long time. But it waited. For instance, why did it not take any account of the statements, supported by documents, made by Mr. Saulnier on October 11, 1969, when he said the following:
We know that in Canada there are persons and groups of persons who work actively to realize a plan aimed at destroying all freedom in our form of democratic government and in this plan, the expression of the will of the people at the polls is excluded.
In several instances, these people and these groups are inspired and financed by foreign political regimes belonging to an International whose ideas on basic freedoms are different from ours.
Why was there not an immediate reaction from the government when Mr. Saulnier and the legal department of the city of Montreal, through Mr. Michel Cote, appeared before the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts? At that time Mr. Cote tabled a number of documents found at the Company of Young Canadians headquarters and elsewhere. Those documents were leaflets entitled "Strategie revolu-tionnaire" and "Mobilisation Numero Deux".
In the event government members have never read these documents or to refresh their memory if they have forgotten Messrs. Saulnier's and Cote's statements, I would like to quote part of "Mobilisation Numero Deux".
Inevitably, the Quebce revolutionaries are led to get together under one word without losing their own personality. Whether they are now working with the FLP, FLQ, citizens' committees, unions, MLT, MIS, Vallieres-Gagnon committee, they all participate in the same strategy. There are only two strategies: electoral strategy and revolutionary strategy. All those movements are fundamentally opposed to elections. That means therefore that they have chosen to overthrow established order through revolution.
Mr. Speaker, this same document unfolded a three-stage plan to spread revolution throughout Quebec. These stages went from radicalization, to spontaneous agitation and popular insurrection, including the armed occupation of plants, universities, schools and public services.
The description is complete: the objectives, the methods, the FLQ structure, its infiltration of organizations such as the Company of Young Canadians, etc. Even though the government does not usually give any consideration to the proceeding's of the committees, of the House, the ministers had other means to get information. They had only to read the newspapers or watch CBC television-the national network-to see and listen to

November 30, 1970

revolutionaries such as Pierre Vallieres explain what the FLQ intended to do.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) complained about lack of time and lack of warning. But Mr. Vallieres himself warned him on the CBC.
Such behaviour shows some crass ignorance on the part of the government. I was somewhat amused when our Prime Minister expressed surprise one night in October 1970, on national television.
Why did the government charge that some political leaders were trying to cash in politically on these sad events? I wonder, earnestly and objectively, whether the government did not tacitly decide to do just that too by failing to react sooner to these events. That could cost a man s life, but, on the other side, are there not considerations that the government deems more important?
Mr. Speaker, while looking for the underlying causes of the problems that now bring the government to introduce the bill before us, I should like to remind the House that for the FLQ boys, our history starts much before 1867, a fact that some have tried to get across.
* Is 'L""1 Jhe English-speaking majority that says that since 1760 French Canadians are the sons of a conquered nation, that they are under-developed people and that they beg for dollars from Uncle Sam?
Is it not true that French Canadians rank 12th in Canada as far as their economic status is concerned' By the way, they rank just before Italians and Indians!
Her are some statistics published in La Presse of October 26, 1968 and taken from the findings of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism.
Mi. Speaker, I shall only mention the main points which struck me. Thus, the French-speaking Canadian has an annual income which is $1,000 less than that of the English-speaking Canadian, i.e. a 20 per cent difference. All across the country, including Quebec, the French Canadian earns 12 per cent less than any other Canadian regardless of his ethnic origin. All across the country, except in Quebec, the English Canadian earns 10 per cent more than other Canadians. Quebec is the only province in Canada where a unilingual English-speaking Canadian will earn more than a bilingual French Canadian. But in Quebec, as far as the salary is concerned, French Canadians rank 12th, out of 14 nationalities. It is not I who say that, but indeed the report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. Englishspeaking Canadians earn 40 per cent more than the other people of various other origins. After graduation from university, a Jew will increase his income by $4171, an English by $4007, an Italian by $3695, and a French Canadian by $3290. As a result, French Canadians are represented in only 3 per cent of all transactions made through the Montreal Stock Exchange, and they only hold 15 per cent of all the real estate title-deeds. The French Canadian businessman is but the servant of the English-speaking Canadian businessman.
I feel it might be well for all members to read closely the fourth volume of the report of the Royal Commission
Public Order Act, 1970
on Bilingualism and Biculturalism to find out what the real situation is with regard to French Canadians. It is not what one might imagine or what the prime minister woifid have Canadians, from one end of Canada to the other, believe it is, with his slogan: a united Canada.
Like the reactionaries, I see, in the present situation in Quebec, an abnormal situation. They chose to change that situation through means of which I categorically and totally disapprove. Yet, I do agree that it is high time that situation were changed.
What does the text of the FLQ manifesto reveal? Essentially, the situation in which we now live. We must admit that they are right when they speak of our economic and social colonialism. In short, who are we' Do we have our own little Israel to build, to fight for, to protect? Are we done for as a people, or are we getting bogged down irrevocably in the chaos of anarchy?
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
^	terrorists? Cowards, assassins, traitors
the Fraieh Canadian nation! You have to admit, they are a little of all that. But why did they become traitors, terrorists, cowards, assassins, "rejects of history", to use an expression of the prime minister? There are certainly reasons for their murderous conduct. What is the responsibility of society, of the government, of the other race. When a man catches rabies because a dog bit him, e treat the man and kill the dog. It looks very much to me as if we are now doing the opposite.
These men, these FLQ members, realized that they are a conquered, exploited people, strangers in their own province. They are people with high political awareness, who are fed up with the situation in which they are living. Many people are shocked by government inaction, as evidenced by all the movements I referred to earlier, and which have been swarming in Quebec since the time of the quiet revolution. The process of ogling the FLQ through fake governmental microscopes leads us to believe that this movement is made up of bad guys and hench men, but it, fails to show the movement's fundamental nature. We are now taking the weapon away without trying to cure the mind that guided the arm that has been aiming it.
In an effort to help solve the problem, a new definition must be found for this federation which is slowly sinking within the slime of bureaucracy and submissive and unco-operative federalism. Such is the new challenge facing our young country; build a country with the people, for the people, by the people, in one word, build a democracy.
This present upsurge of terrorism is, by way of consequence, a unique chance for us to pull ourselves together. The terrorists apparently are not bent on revenge; they would rather, as they have shown, try and raise their flag next to the one which the Canadian people have been flying for the past 103 years.
If we consider the situation in a positive state of mind, we can, I believe, derive therefrom something meaningful. Such a movement spurs us on, rouses us, jolts us into

November 30, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
the dynamism we need to build the country and a society which will be not only just, but human.
Mr. Speaker, this is no time for speculation or petty politics, but the time for great decisions. It is up to the right-minded to shake themselves and not become the victims of those who seek to overthrow the administration. Who knows but that the FLQ may be the prelude to many political upheavals throughout the whole of Canada.
To be sure, life in future will no longer be what it was in our country, Canada. The good times are gone. History is taking a new turning. Whither is Canada going? What will be its fate? Many a reply can come to mind, but one thing is certain. It all depends on how the government will be able to channel the existing forces to build or destroy our heritage.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that our future will he quite different from the past. We must constantly legislate, adjust the country to the present time, stop living like in the Middle Ages.
This is the lesson the FLQ gives us. It is now up to us to take advantage of the situation in order to survive democratically. But most of all, we must not forget that the grievances of the FLQ are exclusive to Quebec. It is a movement that makes the most of the present situation, unemployment, poverty, regional disparities, differences between the two main ethnic groups, arrogance towards one another etc... All this strengthens the FLQ, while it weakens the administration.
As I said before, we must look beyond the realities. The powers that be and the authorities might bring in the army to crush the terrorist movement which besets and threatens us. A sociologist would no doubt say that society is ill, but a chemist would say that a catalyser is needed to activate the chemical reaction. Thus both will say the same thing, but with a vastly different vivid language. At that time, if you manage to understand fully the picturesque of people, odd as it may seem we will be in my view in the process of achieving democracy.
In conclusion, I would like to read into the record an excerpt of the letter which the Prime minister sent to my leader on October 17. I quote.
It is with the utmost seriousness that I invited then and that I am inviting again today your suggestions with a view to amending the regulations, as well as those you could put forward concerning the nature and the contents of a new legislation. I shall show much eagerness in considering your suggestions as soon as you are in a position to submit them to me.
Mr. Speaker, the opposition parties and even some government members made suggestions which have almost all been rejected by the government. Thus, as recorded on page 1391 of Hansard for last Monday, an hon. member on the government side proposed an amendment which read as follows:
That Bill C-181 be amended
(a) by striking out line 10 on page 3 and substituting the following:
"mental change within Canada with respect to the province of Quebec or its relationship to Canada as that'

Consequently, the bill concerns only Quebec now and not the rest of the provinces. In fact, it concerns only the associations or movements which want secession. What about other provinces? What about other associations or movements which would advocate a shameless federalism, a federalism of submission and not of co-operation!
Since this government proclaims that it does not want a special status for the province of Quebec, I wonder if its deeds are in agreement with his words.
Ever since this government states that it wants bilingualism at large, a mari usque ad marem, it brings in reports and orders commissions to study the problem. But when it rejects amendments moved by one of its own who is asking that the bill now under consideration should be drafted in good French, I wonder if its words are not in contradiction with its deeds.
Even after saying that it would take due note of all our suggestions, the government rejected nearly all of them and I am wondering once more if it is not acting contrary to what it is saying.
Mr. Speaker, I am also against the bill's retroactivity since it could not be justified. If any provincial or federal political party were declared an unlawful association as a result of illegal doings of one or more of its members, everyone having participated in the party's activity would be considered an outlaw and guilty. I wish to emphasize that if fully implemented, this legislation would infringe upon man's freedom to work for an association or a movement which is not illegal at the present time. If, for instance, a handful of PQ extremists committed reprehensible acts which interfered with the freedom of the Canadian people, and if this party were to be declared an "illegal association", then all the people who have been active in this movement since its inception would be liable to prosecution.
Mr. Speaker, this provision of the bill is altogether opposed to my idea of liberty. This example can be applied to my party as well as to any of the opposition parties, either federal or provincial.
Therefore, if this bill is not amended so as to be applicable to all provinces, if it is not drafted in proper French as requested by the member for Matane (Mr. De Bane), and if the retroactive provision is not amended, I will vote against it.
We were told "Enough of this nonsense", but which nonsense? Ours or yours?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, as we come to the conclusion of this debate I think it is important to reflect for a moment or two on what has been happening to us during the autumn. I think this period may well be regarded by those who look back on it as the autumn of extremes, because quite truly over the past two months, perhaps even more, we have been battered by two very dangerous and extreme elements present in our society.
November 30, 1970


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, the painful circumstances we have known prompt us to define our position accurately so that later, when everything has cooled down, when reason prevails again, we shall not regret decisions taken hastily because of highly deolora-ble circumstances. Mr. Speaker, to prove that the position

Public Order Act, 1970
taken since last week by the Ralliement Creditiste is not unfounded and that it expresses at least in an avant-garde fashion the ideas that will soon be shared by the people of Quebec and of Canada, I would like to quote an excerpt of an article published in he Devoir on November 27, 1970:
When Mr. Turner was asked what would happen if a terrorist organization should spring up in another province to defend federalism by violence, the minister answered that "the Criminal Code certainly has provisions with respect to the use of this type of violence".
This statement is rather disquieting with regard to the scope of the future emergency powers act. Will the future act also apply exclusively to Quebec? If the Criminal Code is adequate, according to the Minister of Justice, to fight possible terrorist outbursts in other provinces, why is it necessary to resort to special legislation in the case of the province of Quebec?
Let us not forget that this measure suspends some fundamental rights of citizens and goes further than the Criminal Code.
This article appeared in the newspaper Le Devoir under the name of Paul Sauriol.
From this statement, we clearly see that we are right in defending Quebec. Too many government members believe that once the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has agreed, everybody follows suit. Some are so full of dictatorial power that they think they will get instantaneous and universal support, without reservation or limit, under the pretext that all are indomitably against force, violence and terrorism. It is thought that an emergency powers legislation can be adopted as if we were a bunch of simple-minded, traumatized, frightened people, ready to accept anything upon the word of a government of which the least we can say is that it has shown inefficiency, conceitedness, casual arrogance well hidden under the protective wing of one of the three famous doves, the right hon. Prime Minister.
Mr. Speaker, in order to spare all kinds of feelings, the bill under consideration circumscribes and demarcates its purpose to the sole province of Quebec. The honour, the pride, the vanity of the entire country are involved; we hasten to restrict the problem to Quebec. The Quebecer becomes this scabby, repulsive animal referred to by Lafontaine in one of his fables as the source of all evil. Who is responsible for all the troubles. We, Quebecers! What have we to defend ourselves against such charges, such an evil? Nobody ever thinks that the many Quebec Liberal members, whose number is inversely proportional to their worth,-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


René Matte: -could take in hand the defence of the vital interests of the province.
We have seen the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) acting alone for a while. Since then, he has returned to the ranks. Nothing doing; the party is above the individual. There is no choice; it is "believe or die".
Thus we on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, through circumstances, are the only ones who may in all freedom criticize objectively. No minor consideration will keep us from doing what has been entrusted to us. If

DEBATES ___________________November 30, 1970
other members are not prepared to consider this law with all the seriousness and thoughtfulness required, we do not have to do the same. In fact, we are the official opposition as far as Quebec is concerned. Therefore, we shall not let our rights, privileges and pride be ignored through the irresistible impulse of a Prime Minister who wants to break the Canadians from Quebec once and for aU.
Why have we been in favour of the war measures? Merely because we thought that we were dealing with leaders who could assume their responsibilities, who knew what they were doing, who were aware of facts and details that we did not know, and because, in those tragic circumstances, it seemed appropriate and altogether normal to leave this government absolutely free to arrest the terrorists and, thus, to bring back peace in this country.
Unfortunately, we must, after due consideration, ask ourselves whether responsibilities were actually assumed. Of course, an escalation had to be avoided. Already a diplomat and a minister had been kidnapped. Other kidnappings could be expected. This is why we were in favour of invoking the War Measures Act.
However, when it is a matter of voting for a measure aimed at ending violence and terrorism, then, we must take our responsibilities. The War Measures Act was not drafted by us. Besides, it was never directed exclusively at Quebec, that I know, and it being the case, we would still prefer the War Measures Act to other legislations which would place sole responsibility on Quebec.
Therefore, it is essential to fully analyze the situation and to ask ourselves to what extent our leaders could have been mistaken and have not, in their own way, resorted to terrorism.
I should like to endorse a statement by Mr. Fernand Daoust, of the Quebec Federation of Labour, before a delegation of the Quebec Labour Council, contained in a release to the newspaper La Presse. He pointed very accurately to the various responsibilities of the government I quote:
The labour movement squarely opposed the War Measures Act because it never believed that the reasons put forward by the Trudeau government were grounded.
To try and make the Quebec people believe that there was, at a given time, a state of apprehended insurrection amounts to a practical joke, he added. The history of revolutions throughout the world proves beyond doubt that when insurrection broke out in some countries, the workers were largely part of it and were involved in demonstrations aimed at overthrowing the government.
In Quebec, since the Cross-Laporte crisis, at no time did the organized workers consider coming down into the streets and overthrowing the government. In factories and offices, the workers, though worried, had no intention to start partial or general strikes. That is why the labour spokesmen started to question the reasons put forward by the three governments involved to invoke the War Measures Act.
And Mr. Daoust added:
This unbelievable rumour spread by the government is quite in the line of thought of Canada's Prime Minister who had said a few months before his famous words "Enough of this nonsense." This appeal from the Prime Minister pointed to a certain
November 30, 1970

form of political repression and the action taken by the government in the last two weeks reveals that the political strategists of the Trudeau government chose to condition the Quebec people psychologically.
All in all, continued the FLQ's leader, it is an attempt at brainwashing designed to connect terrorism and violence with all those who, in our society, are opposed to the present status quo. It will be recalled that the leader in this field was Senator MeCarthy who, in the United States, launched the widest witch hunt in modern times. It is unbelievable that after 15 years, McCarthy has still so many imitators among the politicians of this country.
The FTQ, recalled Fernand Daoust, was violently opposed to terrorism as a political means of action. The FTQ has repeatedly denounced the FLQ over the last few years; it cannot however yield to collective hysteria and operate with those who, in the name of the fight against terrorism, are prepared to trample the most sacred liberties of a community.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
That is why our organization has deemed proper to make its voice heard and to caution the Quebec society against the dangers of any interference with the civil liberties in a society like ours.
That is a quite appropriate clarification, in my opinion, of the circumstances surrounding the violence unlatched in Quebec in October. And when it is suggested-and I agree with that suggestion-that it is the lack of responsibility on the part of the leaders that is to be condemned, I would like once more to give as proof some facts which show beyond any doubt that the leaders- particularly those of Quebec-had every possibility to crush the FLQ at the very beginning, but that they failed to do so.
When one reads in the Friday November 20th issue of Le Soleil an article by Lionel Bernier dealing with the Maison du Pecheur at Gaspe, it is obvious that the statements made in the past two years by the mayor of Perce and that nobody believed or pretended not to believe, marked the beginning of the ensuing crisis.
I would like to quote that article in order to make the situation quite clear.
About the people of Perce, it says:
Attacked in their own town by strangers who wanted to lay down the law, the people of Perce got their backs up. They already felt that the action of those young people who lived beyond the fringe and who had an obvious taste for destruction was a bad omen.
They appealed to the government for help. However, they were told that they were witch hunting in broad daylight. Annoyed, the people decided to take the law into their own hands. Then came the famous night of the water spraying.
Then events occurred in quick succession. The Maison du Pecheur and its leaders made the headlines and posed as Robin Hoods in a latter-day Sherwood. Rose, Simard, Arene, Lortie, Beauchamp were in the limelight.
Last summer, a new start, a new Maison du PScheur . .. libre this time, and the citizens of Perce and Grande-Riviere were hit again. There was an uproar in the court-house, repeated insults against authority, and to top it off, during a Court of the Sessions of the Peace hearing, after the judge had had to put up with rude interruptions, someone wrote in a window-pane looking into the court-room, the word "merde". And in red paint, on the outside brick wall of the building, facing the road, the words, FLQ will overcome.
Public Order Act, 1970
Is this not clear enough? Was this not obvious enough? Perhaps some people thought that FLQ stood for Federation liberale du Quebec. And the story goes on as follows.
Officials of the town of Perce, after doing every effort to prevent the opening of the Maison du Pecheur, after denouncing the promoters of the project repeatedly and warning government authorities against their negative action, had to put up with it after all.
Mr. Abnerd Biard whom we met at his home a few days ago, made this meaningful comment: "I had warned the government. They replied that these people were harmless,
-the Rose brothers, Simard "harmless" peoplethat they were school kids. I was told not to attempt to use any violence to drive them out of Perce. Today, we see what is happening. Prevention is often better than cure."
When people go as far as threatening he who precisely wants to expose the real terrorists, we start wondering. '
Mr. Biard squarely accuses the two successive Quebec governments with failing to assume their responsibilities when there was still time.
"Nobody ever believed me when I stated that La Maison du Pecheur was a terroists' retreat. Yet the FLQ sign was written out in full over all their walls. What is more, they painted it over our signs and our walls. Their whole behavior bore the impress of hatred and violence.
"They laughed at us when we told them that those fellows had no morals, that they indulged in drugs, that they lived as hogs".
"And again this year, when I requested police help, the Minister of Justice implied that I wanted to build a ghetto in Perce, that I was a fool. According to him, we were the ones causing all the trouble in our own community!
"I received threats by mail once during the summer. I heard people saying it was just a joke.
"The Maison du Pecheur did publish and circulate two manifestos like the one that came out before the Labour Minister's murder. Violence was strongly advocated as the sole means of overthrowing the government. Slogans like this one appeared in writing; "People of Gaspe, let us unite and hit wherever it seems proper".
And where was the hon. member for that constituency at that time?
"In spite of all this, the authorities never did anything. They waited until the FLQ made its move.
"Instead of coming to my assistance, a policeman called during the summer and checked my rifles, warning me that if a shot was fired I would be first on the list of suspects, because of some old guns that were never used. That is the kind of protection I was offered.
"That is why, all summer, we settled for enduring the hippies, letting them insult us, threaten us and carry on their propaganda in favour of destruction and hatred. We were alone to defend ourselves, we had to make up our minds to that."
Mr. Biard goes on at length in this tone. He fails to understand why the Justice Department did not take action while it was still time. Or rather he explains it through infiltration of FLQ members within the government itself. According to him, the FLQ members in Perce enjoyed the protection of top men in the Quebec administration. He repeats that in the final analysis. The events simply confirmed his predictions over the past two years. He explains that violence was preached with the blessing of the authorities and of the police force. One day or another, according to him, it was bound to end like it did.
And he thinks that it is not over because too many influential people are involved. However, there will not be another Maison du Pecheur at Perce. In addition, he states that there will be no more youth hostel, as he thinks both institutions are to be

November 30, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
put in the same bag. And if, this time, Perc6 does not obtain adequate protection, they will take the necessary measures to ensure it themselves.
Mr. Speaker, if I took the trouble to read all this report, it was indeed to clarify the situation and prove that there was negligence on the part of officials in all this story, that they were afraid to stop these trouble-makers from the start. It is to be wondered if some did not want to take advantage of that in order to establish a system aimed at absolute control. In other words, Mr. Speaker, it seems that this situation is taken as a stepping stone towards dictatorship. That is what I think when I read about such events. And when nothing was done to stop them while it was not too late, it is easy to see that the agitation of these recent times was to be expected and that the authorities seemed to anticipate it. They were eager to see it happen so as to use it afterwards to establish another kind of terrorism.
And I come back to this statement in order to confirm the eagerness with which they tried to exploit the whole terrorized population. Furthermore, when the right hon. Prime Minister announced on the very day of the unfortunate murder of Pierre Laporte: Madam, it could be you or your children tomorrow, and where he was engaging in this gross demagogy, in order to break and to control all the better, Quebec, we had us part of it.
If the government is able to explain in a serious and credible manner that there has been effectively a real conspiracy, an insurrection, we will understand why all these measures were taken.
1 But, when we know that it was aware of what was going on and did nothing about it, even pleased with the fact that it had happened, in order to take a better control, that makes me quite unhappy. As a member of Parliament, I feel I must denounce this attitude.
In view of all those considerations, I am forced to vote against that bill which is absolutely inadequate, and which, in addition, constitutes a slap in the face of the Quebecers who in the end have to pay the piper. So, the time has come for the members, and especially those from Quebec, to denounce those methods. We still hope to convince the government, so anxious to pass another emergency measure to replace the War Measures Act, to display some wisdom. We understand quite well that because of all it implies the War Measures Act is not quite adequate, but this bill-as all my colleagues pointed out-does not in any way take our suggestions into account. As the leader of the Ralliement ereditiste (Mr. Caouette) said himself; What is the use of asking for Suggestions when the bill is already being printed?
We have been so ridiculed and downgraded that we are beginning to have enough and to ask that logic and reason prevail. It is too easy to say that the people support the government, because they merely want protection. This is an emotional and spontaneous reaction. Of course, the people want to be protected and all trouble makers to be arrested. That is obvious. It is not because 80 per cent of the Canadian people agree that terrorists are arrested. It only means that the population supports the government. Because it is in power, the

present government gets support, considering the circumstances. And taking the situation into account, I think the government did not act with the required competence, with honesty and once again failed in its duty. Sooner or later, the people will recognize those facts and share my view.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker,
I did not want to speak on third reading and I shall only take a few moments.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We have come to what appears to be the end of the debate and we are in this position: Before this bill came to the House, the War Measures Act was implemented by Order in Council of the government. Then the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his government came into the House and asked the House to approve the War Measures Act and whether they had the confidence of Parliament and the country.
We in this party took the position that we would vote for the War Measures Act on the ground that another bill would be introduced. We now have that bill before the House. Most members must find themselves in a dilemma, because if they vote against this bill and it is defeated, we are back to the War Measures Act. I am not going to attack the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) personally tonight in any way, shape or form. We have had our say, we have moved our amendments and they have all been refused. But if this bill were to be defeated by a vote of the House, then we are back to the War Measures Act.
This bill is far from what we would like. In Toronto, where the game between the Alouettes and Calgary took place, in which Calgary did not seem to do as well as might have been expected, the Prime Minister lumped the whole opposition together, so I should take a few moments to put our position straight.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We intend to vote for the bill. If we do not, we will be back to the War Measures Act and its all-encompassing powers. I should like to read into the record figures on the time spent in this debate. I think it has gone on far too long, and I am sure the Minister of Justice would confirm that many times we have asked that it come to an end. The government have spent 603 minutes, or 10 hours 3 minutes, on the debate. The total opposition have spent 1,656 minutes, or 27 hours 36 minutes, of which the Progressive Conservatives have spent 565 minutes, or 9 hours 25 minutes. One of our members took an entirely different viewpoint to that of the party, so if you subtract his time you might say we took about 465 minutes apart from tonight.
In Toronto the Prime Minister said that the opposition has been holding up Parliament. But it certainly has not been the official opposition. The Progressive Conservatives have not held up this debate in any shape or form.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
November 30, 1970


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We feel that we have taken a very responsible position. If the Prime Minister wants to misrepresent that fact, that is his privilege. When he made that statement he knew he was hiding the true facts. He will not get on with solving unemployment and all the other economic problems of the nation and he needs an excuse for his own and his government's inadequacies. I think it is time, on third reading, to point out where we stand as far as this debate is concerned.
I emphasize that none of us in this party likes this bill. Our amendments have been turned down. However, we are realistic enough to know that if we vote against the bill and it is defeated, we back to the War Measures Act which gives extraordinary powers in every field, without any remedies. Every Member of Parliament is in a dilemma when it comes to voting, and the responsibility for this is on the shoulders of the government.
In this House, during the question period and on other occasions, we have asked and asked and asked what the position is so far as prisoners are concerned and those who have been arrested under the War Measures Act. Today the mistreatment of those prisoners was exposed. Whatever their crimes may be, whatever they may have done-even those who have not yet been caught, like Rose and his cohorts-in a democratic state, under the rule of law, they are entitled to be treated with dignity and humanity. They have not been treated with dignity and humanity, and the government has refused to shoulder its responsibility.
We know the trick. When this bill supersedes the War Measures Act the government will say it is a provincial problem if prisoners are being mistreated. When I asked the question today I was glad to see that the Minister of Justice stood up and took his responsibility. I hope he will continue to answer questions in the House in reference to these matters.
As far as I am concerned, the mistreatment, the secrecy and the lack of responsibility of the government is something they will have to explain, not only to this chamber in the future but to the people of Canada and particularly to the people who have been arrested without charge and detained. If the amendments proposed to the bill had been accepted, there would have been a remedy for these abuses; they could have been brought to light; the parties in question would have received redress had they asked for it.
Tonight we are faced with voting to approve a bill we do not like. If we turn it down, we will get something worse. That is the dilemma facing the opposition, and the responsibility for the situation lies with the government. When the government moved to implement the War Measures Act, we asked for a bill with these remedies and they have been refused. This is the situation, Mr. Speaker. We in this party are prepared to vote and have been prepared to do so for days.
If the Minister of Justice wished, he could confirm that on behalf of this party I have asked and asked that the debate come to an end so we could get on with the other business of the country, particularly that aimed at solv-
Public Order Act, 1970
ing our economic problems. The people of Canada know they are facing the toughest winter since the 1930s. The number of students who did not find employment last summer will be doubled by next spring when they get out of university and college.


An hon. Member:: Two wrongs do not make a right.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to explain a situation which should once again be made quite clear.
I understand the point of view of the previous speaker, but I am amazed that time should be so precious when we are discussing such an important matter.
We have taken a logical attitude, when we asked that the new legislation be given a country-wide scope. Has the War Measures Act, which is national in scope, not been put in effect at the request of the Quebec government?
In my opinion, when Bill C-181 becomes law, it should be applied at the request of any provincial government. We have sufficiently devilled on the matter, I believe, to be well understood.
Secondly, we are told that if the present bill is not passed by Parliament, the War Measures Act will be enforced until it is recalled.
Well, for honest people, for people who are at peace with their conscience, the War Measures Act is nothing to worry about as it is solely directed at those who are against common sense, who approve of disorder and terrorism. In fact, it only applies to a very small minority.
And I wish the ideas of our country were taken into consideration in this matter. We did not plan any filibuster in this regard, but through democrat.c means and according to parliamentary procedure we have tried to have the word "Quebec" crossed out so that the act would apply to the whole of Canada rather than to one province in particular. In fact, I feel that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) has a great enough sense of justice to have appreciated our point of view quite well, because we have had the opportunity to discuss this matter not only in the House, but also outside, and in a most private manner.
So, I would like us to be considered not as people trying to delay our proceedings but as members wishing to fulfill their obligation as objectively and as sincerely as possible.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The question is on third reading of the bill. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?

November 30, 1970
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Yes.
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Laniel): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Pursuant to the special order made earlier this day, the recorded division on the motion now before the House will be deferred and will be set down as the first order of government business for tomorrow's sitting.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Bell:: Mr. Speaker, would a member on the government side give us a rundown of the business for tomorrow?


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, as the first item of business tomorrow we shall proceed with the vote that was the subject of the order of the House this afternoon. Following that it will be our intention to call the co-operatives measure of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Then we shall call the Buffalo and Fort Erie bridge bill, followed by the merchant seamen compensation bill and then the packaging and labelling legislation. We prefer to leave open the possibility of our making a further announcement concerning the business for Wednesday.


Stanley Ronald Basford: There is also the weights and measures bill to be considered.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Does the House agree to call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, on October 26 I asked the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion
(Mr. Marchand) if he would make public the report of his department concerning the regional economic implications of Canadian forces base closures. The minister's reply was as follows:
-there is no question of making a public report. Nevertheless, this question is under consideration since the cabinet decided to close the two bases and, by the way, I shall be going to Manitoba very soon to review with the Manitoba government the best means of correcting the unfortunate consequences of these two base closures.
There are three points to note in the minister's reply. Firstly, we still do not know whether or not there is a report on the regional economic implications of base closures, although I have it on good authority that there is. If there is no such report, I suggest that that fact represents gross negligence and an appalling lack of interdepartmental co-operation by the government. Secondly, if there is a report, the minister has decided not to make it public; and thirdly, the minister intends to assist areas affected to overcome the adverse effects on their economies.
With respect to the third point, Mr. Speaker, I would say that the minister has been most co-operative, and if results measure up to the degree of co-operation which he has manifested we shall be most happy. However, I must also say, with all deference, that government offers of aid to achieve economic recovery are really beside the point, because citizens have the right to expect no less from their government; they are entitled to the kind of assistance which the government is prepared to offer.
The point to which I wish to address myself is the second, the seeming unwillingness of the minister to make public the information pertinent to a proper assessment by the public, and especially by residents of the areas affected, of a government decision having a profound effect upon the economy and social structure of a number of communities in the nation.
I should like to illustrate my point by referring to the effect of the closure of Canadian forces base Gimli upon the community of Gimli and the economy of the Interlake. The closure means a loss to the Interlake in excess of $7.3 million a year in salaries and wages. It means a reduction of 35 per cent per annum in total federal government expenditures in the Interlake. Closure of the base will mean a population reduction in the Interlake, mainly in the town and rural municipality of Gimli, due to the migration of military personnel and their dependants. The total number of persons involved is 2,394, or 42 per cent of the town and rural municipality of Gimli, the population of which totalled 5,660 persons. These figures are agreed to by officials of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.
In short, Gimli is fighting for its life and the economy of the Interlake, an area selected for special attention for economic upgrading by the federal and provincial governments, has been dealt a body-blow. In such a situation it is only logical that the people affected should demand to know how and why their area was selected to suffer. They want to know the criteria which were employed in
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel).]
November 30, 1970

selecting the bases in their area for closure. They want to see the studies which ostensibly justify the closure, so that they can assess the accuracy of the information which such reports contain. These people are fighting against a potential economic disaster and they have been denied access to information which could make their fight effective, information which was accumulated-I emphasize this-at public expense.
To the best of my knowledge, there are three reports extant dealing with the subject of Canadian forces base closures. Two of them have been produced by the Department of National Defence and one by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. Not one of these reports has been made public. This leads one to ask, why not? It also leads one to suspect that the government's decision was brought down on the basis of considerations other than those contained in the reports.
I am not saying that there is of necessity anything wrong with the government's rejecting the advice of its public servants. What I am saying is that when the government makes a decision, the public has the right to know upon what facts it based its decision. The public also has the right to sufficient information, to be able to judge the wisdom of that decision. In short, such reports should be made public and if the government's decision can be questioned on the basis of information in the reports, then the government should be expected to explain its position.
This country is troubled, as are most other countries in the world, by a growing mistrust on the part of the populace of the institutions of government. It is troubled by an increasing reliance, by the young especially, upon extra-institutional means of expressing opinions and seeking changes in policy direction. I speak of demonstrations violent and otherwise. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that one of the major contributing factors to this unrest, to the attitude of the public that the government stands apart from it, that it is not a means through which the community acts collectively in its own interest but is, instead, an opponent, a vague "they" which imposes decisions upon the public, is due to the hoary old tradition of keeping internal reports secret and not trusting the public with the information they contain.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
This government has talked about participatory democracy. Meaningful and effective participation by the public in the governmental process must be predicated upon the public having adequate access to key information. Why not make such reports public as a first step in this direction? The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion has often indicated a lack of respect for sacred cows. This is one that could be abandoned, with immensely beneficial effects upon Canadian society. I call upon the minister to begin breaking the tradition of secrecy by making public, the report of his department dealing with regional economic effects of Canadian forces base closures.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Mr. Martin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland) for not being in the House when he began his remarks. Perhaps the adjournment proceedings began a little before ten o'clock and I was a few moments late.
I share with the hon. member the strong interest in having maximum information available, not only to the members of this House but to all Canadians, particularly those affected by economic circumstances which bring very painful effects to their communities and those who find themselves struggling to arrive at solutions. The Department of Regional Economic Expansion participates very actively and keenly in the multidepartmental teams that are formed to examine the adverse social and economic consequences of base closures. Such was the case with the two bases being closed in Manitoba. We are concerned and interested in doing everything we can within our departmental jurisdiction to mitigate the difficulties. Everything possible is being done under the incentives program to attract new industries to supplant the economic activity that is lost through the closing of bases.
The hon. member referred to some formal studies. I have been informed that no formal studies such as the type referred to at page 553 of Hansard exist in the department. There are necessarily studies of a nature in which officials are involved from the point of view of the department examining how its responsibilities can be brought to bear upon the dilemmas faced by these communities. As far as I am aware, there is no formal study of the nature suggested by the hon. member.
I know the hon. member attended, with a delegation from Manitoba, upon the minister and senior departmental officials to put the case of these communities before the government. This was very useful. The department is actively involved and concerned with finding solutions. It is a very beneficial process. We are doing everything we can to attract enterprise.
Fortunately, the two bases referred to by the hon. member are in the designated region of Manitoba. There have been from organizations some very interesting proposals on how to develop Rivers, in particular. One such organization is the Manitoba Indian Brotherhood, with which I am sure the hon. member is familiar.


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



FINANCE-SIZE OF INCREASE IN GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT-TAX RELIEF MEASURES TO STIMULATE ECONOMY

Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I think I am supposed to talk about the budget of next Thursday night and somewhat lift the veil of secrecy that has surrounded it until now. On the other hand, I think if I were Minister of Finance, one of the more difficult positions to fill in the House, I would approach the budget on Thursday night from several standpoints. First, I think I would approach it from the standpoint of

November 30, 1970
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion housing, in which I have had an interest lor a long time.
I think we can, that we must, do more to give every Canadian his or her fair share of housing. I do not think there are many shibboleths to be cast aside when one deals with that matter.
I think one has to realize one cannot do this sort of thing by adopting the traditional marketplace approach to housing. Housing must be something that a person can afford and that a person must have. While one must rewrite certain rules in the book in that regard, they are not terribly difficult rules to rewrite. I think I could do it.
I think CMHC could do it if given free rein. I think almost any member of this House could do it.
The second thing I would do if I were called upon to present a budget to the country on Thursday night is deal with the field of income tax. I do not think there are very many things to be worried or bothered about in the field of income tax. I think one has to have due regard to incentive. If I had to present a budget on Thursday night,
I would give Canadians the thought that they could keep a little more of what they had or what they earned.
On those two things I would rest my case. If a person can earn as much as he wants to earn and be allowed to keep a fair amount of it, then that is fair enough. Secondly, if he wants to house his family in a certain way, that is also fair enough. On those two points I would be inclined to rest my case and see what the world could do against it.


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should like very much to thank the hon. member for his sneak preview tonight. I can assure him that the government always listens with care to his concerns and his recommendations, and no doubt he will have noted that from time to time they have been reflected in legislation and policy.
The hon. member has also noted that a budget speech is to be delivered by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) on Thursday evening. In view of the short lead time, it may be difficult to credit him fully with such of its contents as may accord with the sneak preview he has given us tonight. Nevertheless, the hon. member, reasonable as he is, may agree to wait until Thursday evening for a definitive response to his question.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY-TAKEOVER OF RYERSON PRESS BY UNITED STATES COMPANY

John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I asked the government whether it had reconsidered its approach concerning Ryerson Press and whether it was going to take action to prevent this concern, important to Canadian culture, education and the maintenance of a Canadian identity, from being taken over by a United States publishing firm, McGraw-Hill Company. Previous to that I had asked for leave to move for adjournment under Standing Order 26 on this subject. Today is the last day prior to the completion of the sale. This is the second firm within recent months to be taken over by a United States publishing concern, the other being the textbook division of W. J. Gage and Son.

[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
The issue before us is critical. Much has been said about foreign ownership in the Canadian economy. For the most part this involved production and handling of goods and materials. Now the question of Ryerson Press involves the question of Canadian education, culture and identity. It is a matter of national concern that a major Canadian publisher of school textbooks should be sold to foreign interests. It is important that there be Canadian-owned facilities for printing textbooks for Canada.
The government has sloughed off many questions by claiming this industry does not lend itself to federal action and that it is a provincial responsibility. Indeed, the record of the provincial government of Ontario is no better than that of the federal government. It was pointed out that the federal government was able to take action concerning Denison Mines, and there are other examples in fields of broadcasting, banking and so on. The reply was that the federal government did not have the same authority as it did in fields such as uranium and banking to deal with this particular problem. This might be granted, Mr. Speaker, but it does not exhaust the avenues of action open to the government. I suggest that where there is a will, there is a way. The Liberals of Ontario wanted to take action. The federal Liberal conference wanted to see action taken. Even the other place wanted to see action, but the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and members of the government hid behind the Constitution.
I suggest that we cannot stop the erosion of Canadian independence by saying we will start tomorrow. If the government's attitude on this matter is a forerunner of its long-promised policy statement on foreign ownership, we do not have much to look forward to. If in fact there are jurisdictional problems, this has not stopped the federal government from undertaking a study of the printing and publishing industry which has not yet been made public.
It has been shown that even the threat of action is sufficient to stop some undesirable developments. If we had a Canada Development Corporation, to examine another alternative, it could provide the capital necessary to maintain Canadian control. Other means could have been found to enable potential Canadian buyers to obtain sufficient cash to complete a deal.
It may be noted in this regard that the management of Ryerson Press may not be entirely free of criticism for its past practices. The Combines Investigation Act will come up during the current session and revisions are to be made. I suggest we need to expand on its provisions to prevent this type of takeover. Another alternative is to establish a Canadian book-publishing corporation similar to the film development corporation. In fact, an attempt was made to present a bill in this regard by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard).
The government has tried to indicate that it did respond to Ryerson representations last spring, and correspondence was tabled. I have checked into that correspondence in this regard. First of all, the United Church
November 30, 1970

officials wrote the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) as follows:
During the past three years in particular, the Ryerson Press has experienced almost disastrous difficulties which undoubtedly would have culminated in the wind-up of the business were it not for the fact that the United Church, as sole owner, guarantees its line of credit with the bank, and this enabled it to obtain financial assistance which, on the basis of its own assets, would not have been available.
The letter went on to analyse some of these basic difficulties and stated:
It is a matter of considerable concern that colleges and universities, either being newly established or experiencing mushrooming growth, have quite frequently stocked their libraries entirely through American book jobbers.
Then later on the letter stated:
We have therefore decided that if a purchaser can be found, the Ryerson Press must be sold. At the present time, the only firm showing genuine interest is American.
The letter goes on to state they would be most unhappy about this development, and asks the government to accept a proposition whereby this could be avoided. The minister replied in a very non-committal way and said his officials would be around to see them. The United Church gave its reply on June 29. These representatives did not keep up the pressure as I thought they might have, but this still does not excuse the government for refusing to accept its responsibility and failure to take eleventh hour action that might have saved the situation. This lack of action until now must be classed as criminal negligence. There is still time in which to act, although only an hour and a half remains. I say, act now.


Mr. Bruce Howard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to make a few remarks in respect of the proposition suggested this evening by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton). I wish to say the government is concerned about this very serious matter and has expressed its concern in a very tangible way. It has instituted a study by a responsible firm of business consultants. That study has been received by the government. It is being studied at the present time. As soon as it is printed and available, the report will be considered in consultation with the principals of the industries concerned in Canada and with the provincial governments concerned.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion As has already been pointed out, the area of school textbooks is one which is under provincial jurisdiction. The government is not hiding behind the Constitution; it is respecting it. We believe it is our responsibility to see that the province of Ontario in particular is consulted in respect of this very important matter.
The hon. member referred to a letter from Dr. Brisbin of the United Church of Canada in which some of the problems regarding the operation of Ryerson Press were outlined. However, the hon. member failed to read the whole paragraph. There are other problems regarding Ryerson Press. I should like to read the part of Dr. Brisbin's letter which refers to some of the other problems. He states:
Some of the factors contributing to these difficulties were located in our own management and in adverse developments within the church which reduced the church's needs both for printing and for publications.
He goes on to mention some of the problems referred to by the hon. member. I want to point out that these are concerns and problems which are beyond the control of the government in any event. The government, however, is concerned about the matter. The same concern was also registered at our Liberal policy convention about ten days ago where in two resolutions the members of this party expressed very firmly their concern about this matter by an overwhelming vote. This is an indication of the seriousness with which we view the matter on this side of the House.
As soon as the report is printed, which will be very soon, it will be studied by those concerned outside of government and in government. I can assure the hon. member it will be acted upon as soon as policy can be formulated. I remind the hon. member, also, that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray) is preparing an in-depth study of this particular subject as it relates to problems of foreign ownership in Canada, which will be submitted to Parliament in the form of legislation in the near future.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I must advise him that his allotted time has expired.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.21 p.m.
2356S-32!

Tuesday, December 1, 1970