1970-02-04

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Jean Chreiien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce today another major step in the development of Canada's north.
Members of the House will recall the announcement made on December 12, 1967, of the government's decision to enter into a unique partnership with 20 oil and mining companies to carry out a joint oil exploration and drilling program in Canada's Arctic islands through the creation of a new Canadian company, Panarctic Oils Ltd.
To finance the first stage of Panarctic's exploration program, costing $20 million, the federal government put up $9 million for a 45 per cent equity, and private capital $11 million for a 55 per cent equity.
Both government and industry recognized, at the time Panarctic was formed, that the program contemplated would require additional funds in the future. Each participant was given the right to extend his equity interest pro rata when the time came to increase the initial investment to $30 million or more.
Last fall Panarctic gave notice of its need to raise an additional $10 million and will give notice this spring of a need to raise a further $20 million to finance the next phase of its exploration activities in the Arctic islands.
The government recently reviewed the extent of its future involvement in Panarctic and whether it should retain its whole 45 per cent equity interest by investing in the next stage of the company's enlarged exploration and drilling program. Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to announce that the federal government will invest an additional $13.5 million in Panarctic Oils Ltd.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The government will be
issued further preference and common shares in respect of its subscription, and this will maintain for the people of Canada its 45 per cent equity interest in Panarctic. This will bring the federal government's total investment in this daring and imaginative venture to $22.5 million.
Should Panarctic's program be further extended and additional capital be required above the present $50 million, the government retains the option of extending its interest pro rata. In addition, the agreement with Panarctic empowers the government to control the transfer of shares and, therefore, the degree of Canadian ownership and control in the company.
Maintenance of the government's 45 per cent equity in Panarctic will ensure for the people of Canada a direct interest in what promises to become Canada's largest oil company and a highly profitable business venture. And it will continue to provide for the original government objectives, namely, stimulation of oil and gas exploration in Canada's Arctic islands, maintenance of Canadian ownership and the control of the oil and gas rights over a very large sector of this potentially very rich oil basin, creation of employment opportunities for northern residents as well as other Canadians, and the development of Canadian technology suitable to northern terrain and climate.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
Since Panarctic was formed the international oil industry has focused its eyes on the Arctic following the discovery of oil at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, 200 miles west of the Yukon border. The recent oil discovery at Atkinson Point, 40 miles northeast of Tuk-toyaktuk in the Northwest Territories, has further accelerated interest in the Canadian north.
Exploration activity has increased remarkably in Canada's north since the start of Panarctic's operations. In early 1968, less than 190 million acres were held under oil and gas exploratory permit north of the 60th parallel. Today, more than 440 million acres are held under exploratory permit in this region. Expenditures on oil exploration in Canada's north were less than $25 million in 1967, rose

February 4, 1970
Panarctic Oils Limited to $45 million in 1969 and are expected to increase rapidly to an annual expenditure of $75 million by 1975.
The Arctic Islands, Mr. Speaker, are believed by many to be the most attractive oil basin in the world remaining to be explored. However, until major oil discoveries are made, Panarctic remains a high risk venture. The government has accepted this risk which clearly demonstrates its faith and commitment to northern development, as well as its determination to ensure active Canadian participation in the development of this last vast resource in Canada's last frontier-the Arctic Islands. The government's investment which I have the pleasure in announcing today is truly an investment in the bright and rich future of Canada's north.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in response to the statement of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. When the government first announced its intention to participate in this venture in 1967 the Hon. Alvin Hamilton, speaking on behalf of this party, endorsed it as a useful way in which the government of Canada could assist in the development of the north. We supported the proposal at that time, and I see no reason why we should take any different position now. It is a vehicle for northern development through which the Canadian people can participate to some extent in the profitable aspects of any development that takes place.
I think the minister might have been a little more cautious in referring to this enterprise as prospectively Canada's biggest oil company. This sounds a little like puffing and I think we should see our chickens before we start to count them. However, Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister's optimism is justified and I certainly wish the minister well. I am glad that the poor tired Minister of Finance is able to find this money, no doubt with great sacrifice to himself, in order to provide this additional support to the venture.
May I just say, Mr. Speaker, that I think the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development might interest himself a little in the pollution or preferably the antipollution practices followed by this company, because the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development drew to the attention of the House one or two rather unfortunate aspects of its work in the far north. I hope there will not be any more of this sort of thing but on the contrary that this company, of which the

government of Canada is a major shareholder, will set an example to all other companies operating in our northern environment.
In addition to its participation in this venture, I hope the government of Canada will recognize fully its responsibility in improving transportation in the north. One of the difficulties in northern development is the high cost of such development, and one of the reasons for the high cost, although not the sole one, is the high cost of transportation which does not appear to be highly organized in any respect. I take this occasion to remind the minister and the government as a whole of their obligation to improve transportation in the north. We are not going to see the sort of development we want to see in the north until there is adequate transportation there. There is no indication as yet that this government has fully recognized its responsibilities in this regard.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, every Canadian is necessarily and unavoidably interested in the kind of development which is reported in our Arctic area. I want, on behalf of my party, to put on record some of our fears about the way this is being done and some basic objections to the way it is being done. We do not object to Panarctic being a consortium involving a large number of private corporations, but we do not see any reason at all why the government of Canada, and through it the people of Canada, should not have majority control in Panarctic instead of having .only 45 per cent control and 2 out of 12 directors on the board. I cannot understand the logic of that and the result has already begun to show, as I will indicate in a moment.
I am not at all certain that the exploration for oil in the Arctic is the best way to develop the north, that oil reserves are the greatest need for the people of Canada or, indeed, the people of the world in view of other oil reserves that are now available. I am not certain that the $20 million-odd spent by the government could not have been spent in some other way to assist the people living in the north. But if we are to spend this money, then surely we ought to be in total control of the operation, instead of only partial control.
The minister reminds us that the government has authority to authorize or to refuse to authorize the transfer of shares between various companies. That is true, Mr. Speaker. Despite that, as the minister well knows and as is shown in a background paper which I have read, Canadian ownership of the enter-
February 4, 1970

prise is now down to 70 per cent, whereas at the beginning it was somewhere around 90 per cent in Panarctic. Already the slide away from Canadian ownership to foreign ownership has begun. Furthermore, when you look at the background paper you will find that Panarctic is engaging in a method of farming out some of its operations in parts of its lands. A sentence in the background paper says, "In this respect Panarctic recently farmed out 945,000 acres of its various farm-outs jointly to Triad Oil Co., Ltd., and B.P. Oil Ltd.". I am sure the minister knows that Triad Oil Company Limited is a subsidiary of B.P. Oil Company Limited. Clearly, these lands are being farmed out to one corporation. The background paper then goes on to say, "These companies will jointly complete exploratory projects estimated to cost about $8 million and earn 50 per cent of Panarctic's interest in these lands."
There is a definite promise that Canadian ownership will be further eroded by this farming-out process that Panarctic conducts. It is that to which we, Mr. Speaker, of the New Democratic Party object. We see no reason why this natural resource should be handed over to foreign controlled companies, to a consortium of private corporations that are inter-related, that have members on each other's boards of directors, that own each other's shares and that have one single objective, to derive as much corporate profit and power as is possible. We see no reason why the Canadian government should not have invested in this corporation at least enough to give it 51 per cent control, in order that all the corporation's operations may be carried on in the public interest.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
Let me make another point, Mr. Speaker. 1 will not be long because I know what the general rule is with regard to these statements. If I recall correctly, Mr. Speaker, the minister made the statement that the government is concerned with the creation of employment opportunities for the people in the north. It is significant and important to note that despite the concern of the government, only two or three native people are now being employed in the whole of the Panarctic operation. This is according to information which I have received. If an operation is going to be carried on in the north, particularly one that is not labour-incentive but capital-incentive, with only two or three native people employed, the concern of the
Labour Unrest at Quebec Ports government for the employment of northerners does not impress me very much.
Finally, I wish to emphasize the point made by the Leader of the Opposition on the problem of pollution. I summarize by saying that every time our country has had an opportunity to exploit and explore the great and rich natural resources of this country, we have leaped to give them away to the private corporations in this country and we have just as readily leaped to give them away to private corporations owned elsewhere. This, in our opinion, is a sell-out of the interests of the Canadian people and we wish to protest against it.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, we can only rejoice at the progress and growth which this investment by the Canadian government is likely to spur. Still, we wonder about the wisdom of a decision to invest an additional $13.5 million in an undertaking which the minister describes as very risky.
The government ventured to invest $22.5 million in Panarctic Oils Limited, a decision which did not fail to surprise the people in certain areas of Quebec where mining and even oil resources are plentiful, because they realize that the paralysis which delays the development of these resources happens to result from a shortage of funds.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, the question is: Should we spend millions of dollars to help a company whose economic viability is questionable, at a time when we are in the midst of an austerity program, as the Prime Minister never fails to remind us?
Let there be no mistake about it. If his department has millions to put in risk ventures, the minister should inform us accordingly, and we will be able to suggest to him some very good investments.
Mr. Speaker, we would like to know more about the terms and conditions of that agreement so that the population may assess its value.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to table in a few moments, in English and in French, what is known as the Smith report, a report of an
February 4, 1970

Labour Unrest at Quebec Ports inquiry into the abnormal causes of labour unrest at the ports of Montreal, Trois Rivieres and Quebec.
I wish to take this opportunity to make a brief statement and point out the terms of reference of this commission which, briefly stated, are as follows: to investigate conditions, conduct and matters not part of normal trade union activities, giving rise to labour unrest. These included such subject matters as pilferage, theft, and corruption. The terms of reference also included employer and business practices not part of or dealt with in collective bargaining but giving rise to labour unrest. These included methods of dealing with cargo at the ports, the methods of exercising discipline and the methods of maintaining a standard of good conduct. The full terms of reference may be found in the report which I am about to table.
The commission commenced its work in the autumn of 1968, after Mr. Justice Smith retired from the Court of Queen's Bench of Quebec. The commission presented to me, as Minister of Labour, its report in October of 1969 and since then the report has been translated, duplicated for distribution and is now being tabled.
On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the commissioner for the efforts he has made to deal with the problems he encountered during this lengthy and difficult inquiry. The inquiry grew out of the settlement of the stoppage of work in 1966 which tied up the St. Lawrence River ports for 38 days. It is encouraging to note that since the settlement of 1966, and more particularly since the recent three year contract signed in April of last year, there has been a marked improvement in labour relations in the port of Montreal. This year there has been no time lost through illegal work stoppage, and the collective agreement is being respected to a much greater degree than in previous years due, in no small part, to the work of Judge Alan Gold of Montreal, who acts as mediator and arbitrator of day-to-day problems in the port.
That there has been shown a greater responsibility on the part of the various union locals involved, as well as a serious effort on the part of management this year to deal with the unions through their newly formed Maritime Employers Association, should also be noted. Last week, the Canadian Importers Association indicated that the number of cases of pilferage reported had been reduced from 400 to 7, indicating that certain meas-

ures introduced in recent years by the National Harbours Board are proving effective.
I am also pleased to note that many of the recommendations of the report have already been implemented. Nevertheless, it would be unfair of me to leave the impression that labour-management regulations at the ports of Montreal, Trois Rivieres and Quebec do not leave much to be desired. The survival of these three important ports depends to a great degree on their ability to compete with similar ports in the United States, and a greater joint effort will have to be made in the future if these ports are to achieve their full potential.
A reading of the report will disclose that the Commissioner has been very critical of labour, management and port administration. The report is a very sobering document to which careful attention will have to be paid. While the government will take no action on any of the recommendations until all parties concerned have had an opportunity to give consideration to them and have made known their views with regard to them, it is my intention to implement as soon as possible those recommendations which the government thinks will improve industrial relations at the three ports, regardless of what temporary disruptive effects this may have on certain groups of employers or unions.


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainie-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to see that the minister has finally agreed to table in the House the Smith report which has been so long awaited not only by members of the House but also by all Canadians. I regret, however, that this report, which was submitted to the minister on October 2, should reach us three months later.
It should, I believe, be pointed out how difficult it is for opposition members, to submit their party's point of view about motions and reports the ministers table here, particularly when they are as bulky as the document that has just been tabled.
I therefore invite the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the government house leader to give consideration to the feasibility of giving at least 24 hours' notice to opposition members before tabling reports or papers in the House. Members would then be able to go through the reports so as to criticize them in a positive and objective way.
February 4, 1970

This being said, I think that the government will want to examine the said report, in order to improve the administration of the nation's business. I can comment on some recommendations only in a very general way, but I feel that the Smith report does not show, at least at first sight, anomalies or facts which were not already known by those who closely followed the events which occurred in the above-mentioned ports.
I hope that the Smith report will not be a source of conflict or disagreement between the employees of the ports concerned, the unions, the owners and the users of those three main ports.
In addition, according to public opinion, the report would tend to emphasize among the general difficulties three specific conditions existing especially in the ports of Montreal, Quebec City and Trois Rivieres, while the government would have been wiser, in my opinion, to make comparative study of all Canadian ports and to relate them to port operations throughout the world, in the United States as well as in Europe. This would enable us to make a true evaluation of the port operations that are mentioned in the Smith report and of those occurring elsewhere. My reason for saying this is that some recommendations contained in the report are such that they question the honesty and efficiency of some workers, at those ports.
Since I represent a riding directly affected by those operations, I am in a position to say that most workers are conscientious and honest, although as it happens in all fields, there may be some questionable things going on.
I hope that the report will not be such as to aggravate or revive the difficulties that have already endangered relations between management and labour.
As I have stated, we cannot make a thorough examination of each of the recommendations on such short notice. For that reason, I take the liberty of pointing out that the report does not appear to give any thought to having, within a committee, a board of directors, or a local or national harbours board, representatives of the riverside municipalities that are directly affected by port operations.
I suggest that this is a glaring omission which the department should remedy.
I hope that the minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) will undertake to take action
Labour Unrest at Quebec Ports in order to assure the Canadian people that port operations will not be troubled again by local difficulties and that following their immediate and efficient action, ports will enjoy an economic activity beneficial to Canada as a whole.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Labour announces that a report he is tabling is a sobering document that is fair warning not to enter into an elaborate comment upon it until one has had an opportunity to study it. In the few minutes I have had to look at the report, I have come to agree with the position taken by the minister that it makes some far-reaching proposals which affect the three parties involved, namely labour, management and the port administration. I notice the minister has given the assurance- and I welcome it-that before any recommendations are implemented an opportunity will be given to these three parties to study the report and make their comments and their recommendations thereon. But I am glad to note the minister has recognized there has been an improvement in matters at the three ports as a result of the excellent work of Judge Alan Gold, as well as the fact that the union has taken a great deal of responsibility with respect to the things that take place at the ports, and the efforts of management in its dealings with labour.
We are glad to have the report tabled. As the minister says, it is a document which requires study. We welcome in particular the minister's statement that the three parties concerned will be able to make their recommendations to him before action is taken.


Mr. Real Caoueiie (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, as mentioned by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey), the ports of Montreal, Trois Rivieres and Quebec were strikebound for 58 days in 1966. At that time, the government decided to institute a commission to study the problems that were leading to labour unrest in those ports as well as those which had nothing to do with regular union activities but which had caused discontent among workers. In fact, the latter had been involved in looting, theft and corruption.
It is undeniable that thieves operated in the ports of Montreal, Quebec and Trois Rivieres as is the case about everywhere. However, as the hon. member for Sainte-
February 4, 1970

Expansion of Airport Facilities Marie (Mr. Valade) was saying, the great majority of the employees in these ports are honest family men who work with courage and objectiveness.
This commission was therefore set up and went to work in 1968. In February 1970 the report is laid before us.
The minister stated a while ago and I quote:
It would be unfair of me to leave the impression that labour-management regulations at the ports of Montreal, Trols Rivieres and Quebec do not leave much to be desired. The survival of these three important ports depends to a great degree on their ability to compete with similar ports in the United States.
It is not a question of competing with Vancouver and San Francisco but with U.S. ports on the Pacific coast. The minister added and I quote:
A greater joint effort will have to be made in the future if these ports are to achieve their full potential.
It is evident that if it costs two or three times as much to use the ports of Montreal, Trois Rivieres and Quebec than that of Halifax or those on the U.S. coast, we will lose a lot. That is why, I think, the minister honestly appealed to employers and employees, particularly the unions, to behave objectively, to open their eyes and their ears, to approach the problem in a constructive way, in order to help the ports of Montreal, Trois Rivieres and Quebec, to win them patrons and to develop their facilities to the maximum.
In my opinion, the Smith report will help the parties concerned to better understand their responsibilities. Even if they assert their rights, they should not forget that they also have duties to discharge.
We have rights in every field. However, we also have duties that urgently need to be fulfilled. In this respect, trade unions, labour, management and the department are all considering together what has to be done to improve the situation, to prevent costly strikes in the future and to stabilize the economy in this particular field, which will enable workers and their families to foresee better days.



AIRPORTS


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, for some time I have been anxious to advise the House of the progress being made in connection with the De-

partment of Transport's over-all planning for expanded airport facilities to serve Toronto and the surrounding regions. From the outset we have been anxious to consult to the maximum extent possible with all of the parties who have a legitimate interest in this important project. I am referring to the province of Ontario, the municipalities in the area in question, and certain business and industrial interests.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
When the decision was made late in 1968 to seek alternative solutions to the original plan which was to expand the existing Malton airport a committee was established jointly with the government of Ontario, and this committee has been working most co-operatively ever since. From time to time we have sought means through which the other interested groups to whom I have referred could be made aware of the progress being made.
Hon. members will appreciate that this is not an easy task. At the outset, close to 60 different locations were involved as possible sites for the proposed airport. These regions are represented by more than 90 different municipalities. It can be seen, therefore, that worth-while consultation with such a very large group was not practical. This is especially true in view of the fact that the great majority of the locations were not in fact particularly desirable from a site standpoint and were therefore eliminated when the first of the long list of criteria was applied to them. As a result of this elimination process, it has now been determined that all but four or five of the sites considered originally are not usable. I want to emphasize that this does not mean that any or all of the sites still being considered will prove to be adequate. Much more investigation must be done on each of them before a final selection can be made.
Some indication of the complexity of the process of investigation can be obtained from the fact that such questions must be considered as passenger origin and destination studies, aviation technology, safety, ground transportation systems, noise capability, pollution, ecology, topography, economics and essential services such as water, sewage, power, etc. It is also essential that we take into account Ontario's long-range regional development plans and the effects of the proposed airport development on these. It can be seen, therefore, that a great deal of further study is necessary on the various potential sites still being examined.
February 4, 1970

Hon. members will appreciate that because of the risk of land speculation it is extremely important that there be no premature disclosure of the specific areas now under consideration. I appreciate that this necessity for secrecy is in conflict to some extent with our already expressed desire to consult as fully as possible with those other parties that have a very great and legitimate interest in this project. I feel, nevertheless, that there cannot be additional disclosure at this time. This view, I may say, is shared by the government of Ontario.
In the case of the so-called waterfront site the same considerations are not present, and therefore it has been possible for us to hold lengthy and detailed discussions with the city of Toronto, Metropolitan Toronto and the Toronto Harbour Commission. I can tell the House also for the reasons I have mentioned that while there will undoubtedly be some type of airport development along the waterfront at some time in the future it is now our judgment that this site is not appropriate for a full scale international airport. Rather, the downtown location is more likely to be developed as a facility limited to the accommodation of intercity and short-distance air traffic. I may say, too, that in so far as our planning for the waterfront location is concerned the various civic authorities to whom I have referred have representation on our technical subcommittees.
I anticipate that by fall of this year the necessary further investigations will have been completed, thus permitting the formulation of an airport system master plan for the Toronto and surrounding regions. At the earliest possible moment between now and then and as soon as it appears appropriate to do so, I am sure that the government of Ontario will agree with us to provide the fullest possible information to all interested parties. We are now exploring with the province the best approach to take in order to have a mutually advantageous exchange of information and views with the political, industrial and business communities.
If the House so wishes, Mr. Speaker, and presumably an opportunity will present itself when the main estimates are discussed, I will be pleased to appear before the Standing Committee on Transportation and Communications to elaborate on the contents of this statement.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, this matter was just brought to my attention but that is not really too impor-

Expansion of Airport Facilities tant in any event because what was stated, of course, was a disclosure of the thoughts that all of us have in mind in regard to international airports. I believe the minister indicated in his closing words that he would be prepared to go into further detail in respect of the generalities and the nothingness in his statement.
One of the most important points in the minister's statement is the fact that there has been consultation. This is extremely important for the simple reason that we are now involved in considering amendments to our constitution. We have set up a joint committee on the constitution. It is extremely important that this continual dialogue or consultation, as the case may be, be regarded as of prime importance and always be a factor in the making of decisions. In other words, what I think is extremely important here is that the government has not acted arbitrarily.
I note there are four or five sites now being considered. I can appreciate the embarrassing position of the minister as a result of not being able to disclose these sites. The minister is now seeking information, through the province, from political and business interests as to the best way to approach this subject. It is most important, however, to obtain somehow a consensus of the views of the residents because it is they who may experience a great deal of frustration in terms of noise, land values and traffic.
I am pleased also that the minister is still interested in the waterfront, though not in terms of an international airport. But there should be a continuing dialogue with Toronto, Metropolitan Toronto, and also Hamilton harbour officials. This is the age of supersonic and jumbo jets. The minister should proceed with all due haste so Canada can play its role in this most important means of transportation, and so that he can make a further statement and, if at all possible, put his entire plans before the House by the fall.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, as one of the representatives of the metropolitan area of Toronto I welcome the core of the minister's announcement. The core, as I found it, was that airport development along the waterfront in the east end of Toronto will not be for a large-scale international facility. This is no longer contemplated. The site should have been a non-starter from the word go. It is perfectly obvious to anyone
February 4. 1970

Expansion of Airport Facilities who knows the area that such a venture should have been rejected as unthinkable from the beginning, and probably would have been if the local people had been consulted. The noise pollution and the immense traffic problems that would have been created seriously would have depreciated the value of an attractive residential area which has been the home of many thousands of Canadians for more than 50 years.
The minister's statement refers to the civic authorities being represented on technical committees dealing with the proposed airport. The large urban areas and municipalities have responsibility for populations larger than some provinces. They must be made *effective planning partners at all stages of dealing with developments of this sort. If there are constitutional difficulties that must he overcome it may be impossible or impractical, as the minister's statement indicates, to deal with all municipalities concerned. But there is no reason why, in the consultation between the federal and provincially elected and politically responsible officials, members and representatives of the major municipalities affected should not be consulted.
I suggest to the minister that technical consultation is not enough. What is involved goes far beyond the question of airports; it concerns all the great problems of urban development facing us today.
The minister spoke of the danger of land speculation. I hope he will consult his colleague the Minister of Justice, who I believe will be able to inform him that under the Expropriation Act any effort to speculate in respect of expropriated land will probably be fruitless. If he will speak to the Minister of Finance and get an adequate capital gains tax we will not have to worry about such speculation at all.
I welcome the core of the announcement which will be received with relief by many of my constituents and other people in the city of Toronto. I hope that the process of consultation will continue and improve as time goes on.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, we are always glad to listen to a statement made in the House about any kind of improvement. The statement made a few moments ago by the Minister of Transport

is one of those. Indeed, we can expect that there will be speculation, that consultations will take place and that the best possible site will be selected in order to improve Toronto's airport. On page 3 of the statement, I read these words, and I quote:

We are now exploring with the province the best approach to take in order to have a mutually advantageous exchange of information and views with the political, industrial, and business communities.

To my mind, the minister should have proceeded the same way with the government of the province of Quebec before selecting the St. Scholastique site. The Quebec government was consulted only after the decision had been taken and not before. Today we are told that discussions are taking place at the federal and provincial levels.
As regards the Montreal airport, the decision has already been taken. However, if there had been previous consultation with the provincial government, the Chambers of Commerce and intermediate bodies, that would have been fairer, more honest and sensible.
The statement further says, and I quote:

We are now exploring with the province-
Not without the province but with the province.
-the best approach to take in order to have a mutually advantageous exchange of information and views with the political, industrial and business communities.
And in this way to take a decision which will be shared by the province with Ottawa.

In my opinion, the same procedure should have been applied with respect to the St. Scholastique airport.
In any event, we are happy to see the government bring about some improvements in Ontario, in connection with the Toronto airport, and we congratulate the minister for consulting the organizations concerned, in short the population of that province, in order to find the most suitable site for the airport so as to control noise, air and water pollution, to the entire satisfaction of the population.
February 4, 1970



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Broadbenl: 1.	Is the Government of Canada aware of the recently announced price increases for Canadian automobiles as indicated by Canada's auto manufacturers?
2.	Did the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs maintain that if there were increases this year of Canadian automobiles, he would undertake an investigation by the Combines Investigation Branch or other types of inquiries by the Prices and Incomes Commission?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. Yes.
2.	No.


SHIPMENTS OF CERTAIN GRAINS FROM PEACE RIVER
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 323
Mr. Borrie:: How many bushels of wheat, oats and barley have been shipped from Peace River, B.C. to the Canadian Wheat Board and the feed market?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: During the crop year 1968-69: 2,472,000 bushels of wheat, 173,000 bushels of oats, and
462.000	bushels of barley were delivered to the Canadian Wheat Board at points in the Peace River area of British Columbia. In addition, shipments of grain in the crop year 1968-69 from stations in the Peace River area of British Columbia to the feed market in that province were: wheat 2,236,000 bushels, oats
1.938.000	bushels and barley 4,920,000 bushels.


INFORMATION AND PUBLIC RELATIONS, PRICES AND INCOMES COMMISSION
Mrs. Maclnnis: 1.	From the date of the establishment of the Prices and Incomes Commission to the end of October, 1969, what are the names of the individuals who have worked for the Commission on information and public relations matters?
2.	In each individual case, what has been the length of working service, and the amount of remuneration?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I have been informed by the Chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission as follows: 1 and 2 (a) Mr. R. A. Ralfe, 11 working days, $653.84. (b) Desroches, Jasmin et Associes Inc., seven working days, $1,650 for professional services and $97.30 for expenses, (c) Girard, Bruce and Associates
Questions
Ltd., two working days, $400 for professional services and $15 for expenses, (d) Hopkins, Hedlin Limited, 16 working days, $4,090 for professional services and $508.59 for expenses, (e) National Film Board (During this period the National Film Board began the preparation of three film clips, in both English and French, for the Commission. However, work has not yet been completed on these film clips and, therefore, an invoice for this work has not yet been submitted.)
In addition, individual members of the staff of the Prices and Incomes Commission have devoted part of their time to information activities.


PROPOSED CPR TRAIN SERVICE WITHDRAWALS-EMPLOYEE LAY-OFFS
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 447
Mr. Orlikow:: How many employees will be laid off by the Canadian Pacific Railway in each region if it is permitted to discontinue the train operations it has proposed to the Canadian Transportation Commission?


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Information not available.


RAILWAY PASSENGER SERVICE ABANDONMENT APPLICATIONS-LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Skoberg: 1.	For each of the 18 applications filed with the Canadian Transport Commission covering all of Canadian Pacific Railways passenger services and discontinuation of these services, what would be the estimated loss in employment for CPR employees involved in these operations?
2.	For each of the 13 applications filed with the Canadian Transport Commission covering some of Canadian National Railways passenger services and the discontinuation of these services, what would be the estimated loss in employment for CNR employees involved in these operations?


Gérard Loiselle: 1. The subject matter being one with respect to which a private company has sole responsibility, the information is not available.
2.	The Management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows: The filing of applications for discontinuance of uneconomic passenger train services is a procedure which the Railways must follow under provisions of the National Transportation Act of 1967 to obtain decision from the Canadian Transport Commission as to the individual services that may be terminated and those which must be continued. It is only after a decision is made by the CTC that it will be feasible to trace

February 4, 1970
Questions
through the seniority rights of the employees engaged in these services and estimate the number, if any, who will suffer loss in employment. Of those affected, many will find work in their own craft (engine and train crews), some will be transferred to other employment and others will be absorbed by normal attrition.


ADVERTISING ON USE OF BREATHALYZERS
Mr. Maiher: 1.	Did the Government of Canada appeal to a wide sector of private industry to finance a $1,334,000 advertising campaign on the use of breathalyzers to test drinking drivers?
2.	When did meetings on the above subject take place?
3.	What firms were invited to attend these meetings?
4.	What individuals representing these firms attended these meetings, and in each case, what was the response to the government appeal for financing this advertising campaign?
5.	Is the Government of Canada now planning any advertising campaign on the use of breathalyzers to test drinking drivers, and, if so, what are the estimated expenditures?


Gérard Loiselle: 1. Yes.
2.	October 27, 1969.
3.	The automotive industry, gas companies, tire manufacturers, insurance companies, distilleries, breweries and the wine industry.
4.	The responses ranged from negative to excellent. Propriety does not permit the release of each reaction in response to the offer of participation in this public education program.
5.	A public education campaign on the Criminal Code amendments is presently being conducted by the Departments of Justice and Transport at a cost of approximately $50,000.


OPERATION OF RAIN-MAKING DEVICES, QUEBEC
Mr. Godin: 1.	How many rain-making devices are in operation at present in (a) the Province of Quebec (b) in the Constituency of Portneuf?
2.	Is there another name for such equipment?
3.	Which company manufactured such equipment?
4.	Did the federal government contribute to the installation of such equipment and, if so, to what extent?
5.	Is the maintenance of such equipment the responsibility of a government department or of private industry?
6.	Does the government regulate the operation of these devices?


Gérard Loiselle: 1. As no
information is normally filed with the Federal Government when a rain-making device is placed in operation, it is not known how many, if any, are in operation in these areas.
2.	and 3. Not known.
4.	No. -
5.	Private industry.
6.	No.


JOB OPPORTUNITIES FOR WORKING POOR AND WELFARE CASES
Mr. Southam: Is it the intention of the government to increase the number of job opportunities as a key element in the program to assist Canada's working poor and hard-core welfare cases?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Yes, in so far as the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is concerned.
The Department of Manpower and Immigration increases the number of job opportunities open to Canada's working poor and hard-core welfare cases primarily by making such persons more competitive in the labour market. In this way, their earning power is increased and their vulnerability to unemployment and underemployment is reduced.
The programs of the Department of Manpower and Immigration increase their productive skills, their employability, their knowledge of jobs and their mobility. The Canada Manpower Centres assist their placement in the labour force market or if unable to place them, refer them to training so that they can be better equipped to fill available employment opportunities. If employment is not available in their local community, it assists their movement to communities where employment is available to them. The Department is also supporting community agencies in experimental projects designed to assist poverty groups not normally reached by manpower services.
Using the Economic Council of Canada's definitions of poverty, the proportion of poor persons for whom the Department provides training is twice as high as the proportion of poor people to the population as a whole. In 1968-69, over $100 million was spent in the provision of training for such poor persons. The proportion of poor people, particularly with larger families is also higher among those helped under the Mobility Program, and almost all of the physically or mentally disabled per-
February 4, 1970

sons prepared for jobs through the Federal-Provincial Rehabilitation Program were poor and without employment. These programs continue to reach more persons each year and in 1969-70, the Department of Manpower and Immigration spent over $396 million in the manpower field alone to help people including a very substantial proportion on welfare or in poverty to find productive and worth while work.


STATUTE REVISION COMMISSION
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 660
Mr. Fortin:: 1.	In what year was the Statute Revision Commission established?
2.	Who are the members of the Commission?
3.	When will the revision of the Statutes be completed?
4.	Who will publish the revised Statutes?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: In so far as the Department of Justice is concerned: 1. The Statute Revision Commission was established on May 4, 1965.
2.	The present members of the Commission are: the Hon. John N. Turner, Q.C., Minister of Justice; Mr. D. S. Maxwell, Q.C., Deputy Minister of Justice; Mr. R. Bedard, C.R., Associate Deputy Minister of Justice; Mr. D. S. Thorson, Q.C., Associate Deputy Minister of Justice; Mr. Jean Miquelon, C.R., President, Crown Assets Disposal Corporation; Mr. J. W. Ryan, Q.C., Director, Legislation Section, Department of Justice.
3.	Except for matters affected by legislation enacted by this Session of Parliament, the manuscript of the revised statutes is completed and at the printers. Proofreading of page proofs from the printers is in progress. Because of technical difficulties encountered in 1969, the printing of the revision is behind schedule; publication is not foreseen now until the fall of 1970 although it is anticipated that the text of the revision will be available before then.
4.	The Revised Statutes will be published by the Queen's Printer as required for the purposes of section 12 of the Statutes of Canada, 1964-65, c. 48.


INCENTIVE GRANT TO BERMATEX INCORPORATED
Mr. Burton: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, under the Regional Incentives Act, authorized or provided an incentive grant to Bermatex Incorporated of Ste. Genevieve, Quebec and, if so, what is the amount of the grant?
Questions
2.	What is the total estimated capital cost of the project for which the grant was provided and what is the nature of the project and its location?
3.	Who are the directors and chief executive officers of Bermatex Incorporated?
4.	To what extent is Bermatex Incorporated nonresident or foreign-owned or controlled?
5.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership of this company?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce as follows: 1 and 2. This information was contained in the monthly report, tabled in Parliament on the operation of the Regional Development Act.
3,	4 and 5. Information requested regarding Bermatex Incorporated is not known.
Ownership of corporations in Canada is determined under the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act; such information is not available for corporations not required to report under the Act, and the company mentioned here is one of them.


INCENTIVE GRANT TO BONAVISTA COLD STORAGE LIMITED
Mr. Burton: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, under the Regional Incentives Act, authorized or provided an incentive grant to Bonavista Cold Storage Limited of St. John's and, if so, what is the amount of the grant?
2.	What is the total estimated capital cost of the project for which the grant was provided and what is the nature of the project and its location?
3.	Who are the directors and chief executive officers of Bonavista Cold Storage Limited?
4.	To what extent is Bonavista Cold Storage Limited non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
5.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce as follows: 1 and 2. This information was contained in the monthly report tabled in Parliament on the operation of the Regional Development Act.
3.	The directors and executive officers of Bonavista Cold Storage Company Limited are as at January 31, 1968: H. A. Russell, President; P. P. Russell, General Manager, R. A. Russell, Director; J. W. Mahon, Director;

February 4, 1970
Questions
J- P* Pike, Director; A. G. Swyers, Director; R. Young, Director.
4.	Four per cent non-resident owned.
5.	Unknown.


INCENTIVE GRANT TO BROOKFIELD ICE CREAM LIMITED
Mr. Burlon: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, under the Regional Incentives Act, authorized or provided an incentive grant to Brookfield Ice Cream Limited of St. John's and, if so, what is the amount of the grant?
2.	What is the total estimated capital cost of the project for which the grant was provided and what is the nature of the project and its location?
3.	Who are the directors and chief executive officers of Brookfield Ice Cream Limited?
4.	To what extent is Brookfield Ice Cream Limited non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
5.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Departments of Regional Economic Expansion and Industry, Trade and Commerce as follows: 1 and 2. This information was contained in the monthly report, tabled in Parliament on the operation of the Regional Development Act.
3.	The directors and executive officers of Brookfield Ice Cream Limited are, as at January 31, 1968: H. R. Luscombe, President; A. G. Luscombe, Executive Vice-President; C. G. MacLennan, Vice-President; G. Butler, Director; H. M. Maddick, Director; H. A. Pike, Director; O. L. Vardy, Director.
4.	None.
5.	None.


INCENTIVE GRANT TO BOULANGERIE REGIONALE DES ILES INCORPORATED
Mr. Burton: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, under the Regional Incentives Act, authorized or provided an^ incentive grant to "Boulangerie Regionale des lies Incorporated, lies de la Madeleine, Quebec" and, if so, what is the amount of the grant?
2.	What is the total estimated capital cost of the project for which the grant was provided and what is the nature of the project and its location?
3.	Who are the directors and chief executive officers of "Boulangerie Regionale des lies Incorporated"?
4.	To what extent is this company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
5.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?


Yves Forest: I am in-

formed by the Departments of Regional Economic Expansion and Industry, Trade and Commerce as follows: 1 and 2. This information was contained in the monthly report, tabled in Parliament on the operation of the Regional Development Act.
3,	4 and 5. Information requested regarding Boulangerie Regionale des lies Incorporated is not known.
Ownership of corporations in Canada is determined under the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act; such information is not available for corporations not required to report under the Act, and the company mentioned here is one of them.


INCENTIVE GRANT TO GLAVERBEL VERRERIE LIMITEE
Mr. Burton: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, under the Regional Incentives Act, authorized or provided an incentive grant to "Glaverbel Verrerie Limitee" and, if so, what is the amount of the grant?
2.	What is the total estimated cost of the project for which the grant was provided and what is the nature of the project and its location?
3.	Who are the directors and chief executive officers of "Glaverbel Verrerie Limitee"?
4.	To what extent is this company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
5.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Departments of Regional Economic Expansion and Industry, Trade and Commerce as follows: 1 and 2. This information was contained in the monthly report, tabled in Parliament on the operation of the Regional Development Act.
3,	4 and 5. Information requested regarding Glaverbel Verrerie Limitee is not known.
Ownership of corporations in Canada is determined under the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act; such information is not available for corporations not required to report under the Act, and the company mentioned here is one of them.


INCENTIVE GRANT TO BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES (CANADA) LIMITED
Mr. Burton: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, under the Regional Incentives Act, authorized or provided an incentive grant to Burlington Industries (Canada) Limited, Lachine, Quebec and, if so, what is the amount of the grant?
2.	What is the total estimated capital cost of the project for which the grant was provided and what is the nature of the project and its location?
February 4, 1970

319S
3.	Who are the directors and chief executive officers of Burlington Industries?
4.	To what extent is Burlington Industries nonresident or foreign-owned or controlled?
5.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?
Mr. Yves Fores! (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council): I am informed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce as follows: 1 and 2. This information was contained in the monthly report, tabled in Parliament on the operation of the Regional Development Act.
3.	The directors and executive officers of Burlington Industries (Canada) Ltd. are as at July 27, 1968: A. B. Grossman, President and Director; C. R. Snively, Vice-President and Director; W. J. Mullins, Vice-President and Director; G. B. Bonney, Vice-President and Director; E. F. Davidge, Vice-President and Director; W. E. Greer, Jr., Director; S. G. Dixon, Director; L. Warren, Director.
4.	94.6 per cent non-resident owned.
5.	Burlington Industries Inc., United States.


AIRCRAFT OPERATING LICENCES ISSUED TO U.S. RESIDENTS
Mr. Penner: 1.	How many 9-4 licences, permitting operation into points in Ontario, have been issued by the Air Transport Committee to residents of the United States in 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969?
2.	What restrictions, if any, are imposed upon these licensees while operating in Canada?
3.	What assurance does the Air Transport Committee have that these licensees are not violating the fish and games laws of Ontario?
4.	What penalties are imposed for violation of Canadian laws by these licensees?
5.	How many of these licensees have been penalized in any way during the past four years?


Gérard Loiselle: The
Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. 1966, by the Air Transport Board, 26; 1967, by the Air Transport Board, 27; 1967, by the Air Transport Committee, Canadian Transport Commission, 18; 1968, by the Air Transport Committee, 20; 1969, by the Air Transport Committee, 34.
2.	Standard restrictions (in addition to usual conditions imposed upon licensees in other classes) relate mainly to type of aircraft to be used (maximum take-off weight on wheels not greater than 18,000 pounds), and to transportation of traffic (prohibition
Questions
against transportation of traffic within Canada, restriction to traffic originating within a radius of fifty miles of the carrier's base, etc.).
3.	None.
4.	No special penalties except as provided in sections 4 and 13 of the Aeronautics Act. In addition the licence of any air carrier who has violated the conditions of such licence may be cancelled or suspended.
5.	In so far as cancellation or suspension of licence is concerned: one.


PLANS FOR DARTMOUTH FEDERAL BUILDING
Mr. Forreslall: Have plans been made for a new federal building in the City of Dartmouth and, if so, when will such plans be proceeded with?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: No. Consideration had been given to the construction of a Federal building in Dartmouth. However, changes in Post Office Department requirements that included the leasing of space for Postal Station East and minor alterations at the existing building eliminated the need for a new Federal building at the present time.


INSTRUMENT RATING EXAMINATION OF AIRCRAFT PILOTS
Mr. Forreslall: 1.	When conducting an examination to determine whether a pilot of an aircraft, that only requires a crew of one, has the skill and competence to meet the requirements for issuance of an Instrument Rating, do inspectors of the Department of Transport, who are conducting the test, accept the responsibility of acting as "safety pilot'' and "lookout pilot" when the pilot being examined is "under-the-hood"?
2.	Do inspectors of the Department of Transport, prior to conducting the examination require that the person being examined sign a waiver and, if so, what is the purpose of such a waiver?


Gérard Loiselle: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes, to release and indemnify the Crown and its agent from claims with respect to the operation of the aircraft.


VETERANS AFFAIRS-SURPLUS STAFF REQUIREMENTS
Mr. MacRae: Of the 26 members of the Department of Veterans Affairs in New Brunswick who were notified they were surplus to staff requirements, which ones have now been placed in alternate employment?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Cooper, G. R., retained or reassigned

February 4, 1970
Questions
within the Public Service. Harquail, T. D., retained or reassigned within the Public Service. Holmes, W. S., retained or reassigned within the Public Service. Lanteigne, Miss M. C. D., retained or reassigned within the Public Service. Mazerolle, J. F. A., retained or reassigned within the Public Service. Oakford, E. C., retained or reassigned within the Public Service. Parlee, Mrs. M. C., retained or reassigned within the Public Service. Waddell, A. D., retained or reassigned within the Public Service. Wilson, Mrs. M. A., retained or reassigned within the Public Service. Doncaster, A. A., accepted outside employment. Clark, J. L. J., resigned to take up training. Campbell, N., retired on superannuation allowance. Cos-man, Mrs. I., retired on superannuation allowance. Wallace, Miss E., retired on superannuation allowance.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-4 CMBG MOVE TO BADEN-SOLINGEN
Mr. Ryan: 1.	By what date will the tanks of Canada's Fourth Brigade be completely moved to the Baden-Solin-gen, Black Forest area In Germany?
2.	Is the terrain in such area, between the Rhine River and the Black Forest, suitable for tank training and tank warfare?
3.	Will such tanks have the same freedom, upon payment of damages, to use the roads, lanes, barns and farmers' fields in such new area as they did in the Soest area?
4.	Where is the nearest repair or servicing base for such tanks when moved to the Black Forest area?
5.	Is there a probable threat in the Black Forest area that requires such tanks at hand?
6.	How is it proposed to transport such tanks to the Black Forest area and what method of transportation will be required when they need servicing?


Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1. The
tanks of Canada's 4th Mechanized Brigade Group will remain in their present area until at least 1 October, 1970. Firm timings for the move have not yet been decided.
2.	Yes.
3.	At this time, there is no indication of curtailment, nor are any difficulties anticipated.
4.	Indications are that almost all repairs and servicing for tanks in the Battle Group will be done within the formation at its new location. The small amount of repairs beyond the formation's capability will be done by British Army of the Rhine Workshops in the Northern Sector to which they will be moved by rail.

5.	On moving south the Canadian formation will be assigned tasks in the Central Army Group area which includes the Black Forest.
6.	Shipment to the new location will be by railroad movement. Local movement in the new area will be by tank transporter or other means as appropriate.


BEAUCEVILLE-WEST, QUE.-POST OFFICE CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Rodrigue: 1.	Is the construction of a post office in Beauce-ville-West, Quebec, in the plans of the Department of Public Works?
2.	How much did the site cost?
3.	From whom was the site purchased?
4.	Will this post office be built during the 1969-70 fiscal year?


Arthur Laing: 1. Yes.
2.	No site has yet been acquired.
3.	Not applicable.
4 No. It is proposed for the 1970-71 fiscal year.


HONG KONG-IMMIGRATION APPLICATIONS
Mr. Ryan: 1.	What is the current backlog of applications, in respect to nominated relatives, in Canada's immigration office at Hong Kong?
2.	At what rate per month is the Hong Kong police force processing applications, for the RCMP, in relation to the security risk aspect of (a) all applications (b) applications for nominated relatives?
3.	How many applications were approved in 1969 by the Canadian immigration office at Hong Kong (a) from Taiwan and Hong Kong (b) from the Chinese mainland controlled by Red China (c) from other parts of the Far East?
4.	Does the government plan to increase the size of the Canadian immigration office at Hong Kong, with relation to the security risk aspect?
5.	Does the government plan to subsidize the Hong Kong police force so that they will be able to process more applications by intended immigrants to Canada?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Department of Manpower and Immigration and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as follows: 1. Statistics compiled by the Immigration office at Hong Kong are based on the number of persons registered for examination. As of October 31, 1969, there were 4,374 applicants for admission to Canada in the nominated relative category in process at the Hong Kong office.
February 4, 1970



Questions
2.	A monthly average of 529 applications sons who have come from mainland China, based on a six month period. Applications for The following table reflects the number of nominated relatives cannot be segregated as visas issued by the Hong Kong office in the all categories are treated in a like manner. categories shown, between January 1 and
3.	The method of compiling statistics at October 31, 1969.
Hong Kong precludes identifying those per-
Sponsored Dependants Nominated Relatives
(a) and (b) 1672	2931
(c) 162	157
4. and 5. No.


DEER LODGE HOSPITAL, WINNIPEG- INCREASE IN RATES
Mr. Muir (Lisgar): Have charges for domiciliary care at Deer Lodge Hospital in Winnipeg been raised from $120 per month to $300 effective January 1, 1970 and, if so, for what reason?


Yves Forest: The answer is yes. The charge has not been adjusted since 1949, at which time a rate of $120 a month reflected the actual cost of providing this care. The new rate is somewhat less than current costs. It is emphasized that this rate will be paid only by those able to afford it. Between 400 and 500 patients out of a total of about 2,000 patients in this category at various departmental institutions across Canada will be affected, the majority of whom will be paying less than one half of the increase.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-REDUCTION IN RESERVES
Mr. Mazankowski: What savings are being effected by the reduction to nil strength of "C" Company, the North Saskatchewan Regiment and the closing of the Armoury in Lloydminster, Alberta?


David Walter Groos: In arriving at an approximate cost of maintaining a militia unit certain factors that are difficult to estimate must be considered. The operating and maintenance costs of the armoury, pay of unit members, are basic costs, but there are other costs which are not as readily identified on a unit basis such as provision and maintenance of equipment, pay of regular force support staffs, travel, rations, clothing etc. It is estimated that approximately $50,000 will be saved by reducing "C" Company, North
Independent Applicants	Total
1774	6377
303	622
Saskatchewan Regiment, to nil strength and the closing of the Armoury in Lloydminster, Alberta.


VEGREVILLE CONSTITUENCY-POST OFFICE BUILDINGS
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Are any new post office buildings being considered for construction in 1970 in the Vegreville federal constituency?
2.	What is the cost of the new post office now under construction at Holden, Alberta?
3.	What firms submitted tenders for the Holden Post Office, what were the respective amounts and who was the successful tenderer?
4.	What was the annual rental paid for the present Post Office facilities in Holden?
5.	What was the effective date and length of duration of the lease for the present facilities in Holden?


Arthur Laing: 1. The program is under consideration.
2.	$29,720.
3.	Holzer Construction Ltd., Edmonton, $29,720; Watson (Tofleld) Ltd., Tofield, $34,000; Nor-Way Construction Ltd., St. Albert, $34,975; Polar Construction Ltd., Edmonton, $35,903; Senco Construction Ltd., Edmonton, $37,873.
Successful tenderer-Holzer Construction Ltd., Edmonton.	.
4.	$2,100 per annum.
5.	Effective date, September 1, 1969. Duration of lease, one month, thence month to month.


AMHERST, N.S.-DISMISSAL OF PUBLIC SERVANTS
Mr. Coates: 1.	How many employees of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion at Amherst, N.S., have been informed their services will no longer be required after March 31, 1970?
2.	What action will be taken to assist them in retaining employment in the Public Service of Canada?

February 4, 1970
Questions


Mr. Marlin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secrelary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1. Six.
2. They will be given first consideration for reassignment to jobs for which they are qualified that are or become vacant in their own or other departments. The Public Service Commission co-ordinates such arrangements.


POLISH SEAMEN DETAINED IN CANADA
Mr. Haidasz: 1.	How many Polish seamen are detained in Canadian ports?
2.	On what grounds did these seamen request permission to remain in Canada?
3.	Has the Minister of Manpower and Immigration applied any of the provisions of the International Convention on Refugee Seamen to meet the request of the Polish seamen now being detained in any Canadian port?
4.	To date, have any requests of presently detained Polish seamen been refused by the Minister or the Department of Manpower and Immigration?


Mr. Rosaire Gendron (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. None, but presumably this question relates to a group of seven seamen who deserted the Polish vessel Pomorze at Halifax in November and December 1969, and one seaman let off the Polish vessel Walsza for medical treatment on August 14, 1969 who subsequently requested permission to remain here, about whom there was some publicity.
2. These seamen cited the economic situation and the denial of basic religious freedom
Location
Armstrong
Beauceville-Est
Beauceville-Est
Saint-Ephrem
Saint-Joseph
Sainte-Marie
Saint-Odilon
Saint-Theophile
V allee-J onction
2. Location
Sainte-Marie


NEWFOUNDLAND-REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Mr. Marshall: 1. How many federal officers are involved in cooperation with the Province of Newfoundland in producing a Regional Development Plan?

in Poland as their reason for requesting permission to remain in Canada. Seven of these people wish to remain permanently in Canada, and the eighth has sought temporary entry until he can obtain a visa for the United States.
3.	No. The International Convention on Refugee Seamen, known as the Hague Convention, deals specifically with the problem of refugee seamen on merchant ships who, owing to a lack of documents permitting them re-entry to any country, are unable to set foot on shore legally. This Convention obliges Canada to grant permanent admission to refugee seamen serving on Canadian ships, and in certain circumstances to refugee seamen who had served on Canadian ships in the past.
4.	The seamen concerned have been allowed to remain in Canada under minister's permits.


BEAUCE CONSTITUENCY-PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS
Mr. Rodrigue: 1.	What projects have been carried out by the Department of Public Works in the constituency of Beauce during the current fiscal year and what was the cost of each project undertaken?
2.	Of those projects for which plans have not yet begun or been completed, how many will be undertaken in the constituency of Beauce before the end of the current fiscal year?


Arthur Laing: 1.
Project	Cost
Repairs	$ 4,060.
Interior painting	1,775.
Landscaping	686.75
Construction of Post Office	29,950.
Landscaping	1,950.
Repairs to heating system	663.46
Construction of Post Office	18,350.
Landscaping	1,595.
Additional postal boxes	1,700.
Project	Cost
Installation of new postal boxes $3,000.
2. Who are the officers and what is their area of responsibility?


Abram Ernest Epp: 1. Three chiefly, with support from others.
February 4, 1970

2. Mr. A. D. Crerar, Planning Division; Mr. J. G. L. Adams, Planning Division; Mr. R. P. Harrison, Implementation Division.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-AMMUNITION AND BOMB EXPENDITURES
Mr. Rondeau: 1. Since 1960, how much has the Department of National Defence spent on the purchase of ammunition and bombs?
Motions for Papers
2.	What kind of bombs were bought and from which company (ies) ?
3.	What became of them?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: 1. From 1 April, 1959, to 31 December, 1939-$238,211,000.
2.	Bomb Type
500 lb. MK 28 GP Bomb 500 lb. Mk 82 Inert Practice Bomb 25 lb. BDU-33A/B Practice Bomb 750 lb. BLUIC/B Fire Bomb 750 lb. CBU-2BA Cluster Bomb 5 lb. MK 106 Practice Bomb
2,000	lb. BDU-8/B Practice Bomb 350 lb. Mk 54 Depth Bomb 16J lb. Practice Bomb 5 lb. Mk 23 Mod 1 Practice Bomb
3. Practice bombs are used continuously for operational training. Live bombs are held in war reserve stocks except for small quantities which are used during Fire Power demonstrations and other special training manoeuvers.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Benjamin: What was the total amount of money paid to the Bell Telephone System by the Government of Canada during the last fiscal year?
Return tabled.


DISCUSSIONS WITH PRICES AND INCOMES COMMISSION
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): What organizations and individuals have been in discussions with the Prices and Incomes Commission?
Return tabled.


ARDA-PROJECTS UNDERTAKEN UNDER AGREEMENTS
Mr. Corbin: 1. How many projects have been undertaken under Federal-Provincial ARDA agreements in each of the following electoral districts (a) Tcmiscouata, P.Q. (b) Madawaska-Victoria, N.B. (c) Restigouche, N.B. (d) Kamouraska, P.Q.?
Source



Kemp Mfg. Co. (Ont.) Olsen Mfg. Co. (Ont.) USN USN
Kemp Mfg. Co. (Ont.).
2.	Where are these projects located?
3.	What was the cost of each?
4.	What was the federal government's contribution to each?
5.	What is the nature of each project?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 42, 61, 337 and 338 are acceptable to the government.
[English]	,



CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE AND HAROLD KENDALL

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 42-Mr. Gleave:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence between the Prime Minister's Office and Mr. Harold Kendall of Manitoba regarding the sale and purchase of farm land.
Motion agreed to.
ELECTRIFICATION OF RIDEAU CANAL LOCKS Motion No. 61-Mr. Mather:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence between the Department of Transport and those protesting the decision to electrify the locks along the Rideau Canal System.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
February 4, 1970
Motions for Papers

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 337-Mrs. Maclnnis:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the Order-in-Council of December, 1969, reappointing members of a Consumer Advisory Council on a temporary basis.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 338-Mrs. Maclnnis:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the December, 1969 Order-in-Council appointing William Dyson to be Chairman of the National Council of Welfare and appointing twenty other members as well.
Motion agreed to.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion No. 335 is acceptable to the government, subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential papers and to the authorization of the government authorities concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations or conditions expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that Notice of Motion No. 335 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION GRANTS, IMPERIAL OIL, REDWATER

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 335-Mr. Mazankowski:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence and other documents exchanged between the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and Imperial Oil Limited, Red-water, Alberta, concerning application and payment of two grants of $5 million by the Area Development Agency.
Motion agreed to.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions Nos. 1, 43, 90, 171, 174, 186, 202, 216, 246, 284, 300, 308, 343 and 348?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.

COPPER EXPORTS Motion No. 1-Mr. Saltsman:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all export permits granted for copper exports

for the period January 1, 1969, to September 30, 1969.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



WORLD FARM MACHINERY PRICES

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 43-Mr. Gleave:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the report on world farm machinery prices by Dr. Clarence Barber.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture I may advise the hon. member that as indicated by the minister in his statement on motions on January 16, the final report of the Royal Commission on Farm Machinery is not expected to be available until late summer. When available it will be tabled. Under the circumstances the hon. member may wish to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Gleave:: I agree, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



FINANCING OF PAN-AMERICAN GAMES

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 90-Mr. Orlikow:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence between the Government of Canada and/or any minister or department and the City of Winnipeg, including the mayor, the city clerk and the city treasurer, since January 1, 1968, dealing with the financing of the Pan American Games in Winnipeg.
Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the papers called for by this motion passed between the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the city of Winnipeg, and are considered to be confidential. Under the circumstances the hon. member may wish to withdraw his motion.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept that suggestion. I would like to have it transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY COST STRUCTURE STUDY

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 171-Mr. Saltsman:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study by economist David F. Smith of the
February 4, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Mechanical Transport Branch, Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce on ''The Effects of Canada-United States Wage Parity Upon the Cost Structure of the Canadian Automotive Industries".
Stanley Howard Knowles: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



PROGRAM TO ENHANCE PRODUCTIVITY

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 174-Mr. Saltsman:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the preliminary cost-benefit study on the new program of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to enhance productivity (PEP) as referred to in reply to Question No. 1,955 as reported in Hansard of June 4, 1969.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



LONG-TERM DEVELOPMENT STUDY, CITE DU HAVRE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 186-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report undertaken for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation regarding the planning for a long-term development study of Cite du Havre in 1968, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the past Session.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Andras) responsible for housing wishes to inform the hon. member that the study contains recommendations to ministers and such documents are deemed to be internal and therefore privileged. In view of this the minister would ask the member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Skoberg:: I call for a vote, Mr. Speaker.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



TRADE PROMOTION COST-SALES RATIO

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 202-Mr. Broadbenl:
That an Order of the House do Issue for a copy of the study on the Department of Industry Trade and Commerce trade promotion policies showing a 12:1 cost-sales ratio as stated by Mr. P. Schutte, Chief of the Trade Fairs Abroad Division of the Department.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
Motions for Papers



GUIDANCE AND ASSESSMENT OF TEXTILE INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 216-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report by the Economist Intelligent Unit on guidance and assessment of the Canadian textile industry, undertaken for the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce in the fiscal year 1966-67, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the past Session.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce wishes to inform the hon. member that this study is of a confidential nature, the release of which would be detrimental to the future relationship between the department, the consultant and the industry concerned. In view of this the minister would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


John Leroy Skoberg: I cannot agree to that, Mr. Speaker. I call for a vote.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



CANADIAN APPLIANCE INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 246-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report by the University of Toronto on the Canadian Appliance Industry undertaken for the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce for the fiscal year 1968-69, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the past Session.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce wishes to inform the hon. member that this study has not been comple ed yet. There is an agreement between the University of Toronto and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce that a report, not including commercial confidential material, will be published within one year of data collection and analysis. It is expected that data collection and analysis will be concluded some time this year. In view of this the minister hopes that the hon. member will withdraw his motion.


John Leroy Skoberg: I agree, Mr. Speaker, but retain the right to reintroduce it.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is withdrawn.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.

February 4, 1970
Motions for Papers
FIXED COMBINATIONS OF ANTIBIOTICS	TARIFF BOARD REPORT ON BINDER TWINE
Motion No. 284-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do Issue for copies of all correspondence between ahe Department of National Health and Welfare and Canadian manufacturers of certain antibiotic combinations as mentioned by the Minister of National Health and Welfare in his statement to the House on November 27, 1969 and reported in Hansard, page 1297.


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, with reference to this motion my minister has requested me to inform the hon. member that the correspondence referred to does not exist. My minister's statement in the House on November 27, 1969, referred to discussions between officers of the Food and Drug Directorate and various drug companies. Officers of the department have offered to meet with the hon. member at his convenience to provide him with information. In view of this it is requested that the motion be withdrawn.


David Orlikow: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is withdrawn.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



REPORT ON ATTITUDES OF INDIAN PEOPLE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 300-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the report on attitudes of Indian people based mainly on a visit to the Six Nations Reserve on July 16, 1969, submitted to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development by Berger, Tisdall, Clark and Lesley Ltd., as referred to on page 6 of the quarterly report on public relations activity, June, July, August, 1969 by the said Berger, Tisdall, Clark and Lesley Ltd.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



FEASIBILITY REPORT ON ALBERTA-MONTREAL PIPELINE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 308-Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the feasibility report prepared in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce regarding the construction of an oil pipeline from Alberta to Montreal.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.

Motion No. 343-Mr. Saltsman:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the Tariff Board Report on Binder Twine and Twine for Baling Farm Produce.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



INTERDEPARTMENTAL REPORT ON FARM MACHINERY

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 348-Mr. Gleave:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the interdepartmental report on farm machinery referred to by the Minister of Agriculture as mentioned in Hansard of January 19, 1970 at page 2530.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture I may advise the hon. member that there has been no report made by the interdepartmental committee dealing with the Special Report on Prices of Tractors and Combines in Canada and Other Countries tabled on Friday, January 16. Since there is no such report the hon. member may wish to withdraw his motion.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is withdrawn.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask, as I did a week ago today, when I might expect motion No. 80, standing in my name since October 23, to be called? I might say that its subject matter is relevant to a recent statement on pollution of the sea made by the Minister of Transport, and it would be very useful to have this correspondence.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inquire when I might expect that Notice of Motion No. 11, which I put down on October 23 last, will be brought forward? It deals with correspondence about tax concessions to Shaheen Limited of New York. In view of the interest in regional development and taxation matters, I think it is pretty important that we get that correspondence.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, I will look into this.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, with respect to Notice of Motion No. 32, in answer to question No. 2165 last year it was said that it was
February 4, 1970

expected that this work would be completed by the fall. When can I expect an answer to this motion?


Yves Forest: I will look into this matter as well.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining Notices of Motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased indeed to see the Minister of Finance back in the House today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the difficulty we have had getting information we look forward to the exact, precise and informative kind of answers that the minister always gives.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I ask the minister when we may now expect the supplementary paper on tax reform, which he had previously indicated elsewhere would be available, he hoped, by the end of January?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, what I said, and I explained it fully in the House, was that information would be provided to the House committee. My officials, from what I have read, are still appearing before the House committee. As soon as they have information they will provide it to the House committee.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is a very disappointing start by the minister. I would ask him a supplementary question. Since it is now conceded by his officials that the white paper on tax reform has inflationary tendencies, are he and the government reconsidering the white paper with a view to eliminating these tendencies?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to suggest that perhaps the question as asked is not in order. The hon. member's question contains an allegation, and to this extent it would not
Inquiries of the Ministry be in order. Perhaps the latter part of the question might be replied to by the minister.


Edgar John Benson: Having gone through one election my hon. friend is used to disappointing starts.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Don't
worry, you did too.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Whom are you going to support at the next convention? The boys are already at work over there.


Edgar John Benson: You mean the next Conservative convention!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, if I might answer the question, the hon. member knows that the whole question of the white paper is before a committee of the House and the Senate. We expect representations to be made there with regard to the effects of the white paper, not only on savings and inflation but on business and a great many things. When these representations have been made to the committee, we will give them consideration.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister whether he has consulted the Prices and Incomes Commission as to the inflationary or non-inflationary aspects of the white paper proposals? I should also like to ask the minister whether he considers it sound policy, as no doubt he does, for him to put forward a paper containing admittedly inflationary proposals, while at the same time the government has retained the services of the Prices and Incomes Commission to advise us how to fight inflation?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend knows full well, the earliest possible date for the white paper proposals to come into effect, or legislation arising out of them, is January 1, 1972. If we have the continued co-operation of the opposition, I am sure we will have the inflationary situation under control by that time.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Finance.
Now that he is back, can he tell the House whether he is pleased with the talks that have just been held in Quebec City, since he managed to keep all the things that the provinces wanted to take away from Ottawa?
February 4, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct what I said just a minute ago; the earliest date would be 1971. However, I should like to point out to my hon. friend that we had very constructive meetings with the ministers of finance and provincial treasurers in Quebec City. We have approved a report of the tax structure committee which is to be submit ed to the first ministers' conference which will take place later this month. I should also like to say that I enjoyed the carnival. It is just terrific.


Mr. Bell:: On $30 a week?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Finance would arrange with the Prime Minister that there be a long weekend at Harrington Lake for the provincial and federal computers to arrive at some form of agreement?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, now that we have the details of the calculations from the province of Ontario, we are looking at them very carefully. I should point out that in just glancing at them I found an error of several hundred million dollars because they had assumed revenue from oil and mining would come in earlier than proposed. These proposals would not go into effect until after the five-year period.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Finance advise the House how many people have asked for the opportunity to present briefs to the Standing Committee?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt if that question would be in order.



AVAILABILITY OF COPIES OF WHITE PAPER ON TAX REFORM

André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
In view of the importance of the white paper on tax reform and also, in view of the limited number of copies available, could the Minister of Finance indicate to the House if he is in a position to order more copies to meet the government's wishes to inform and consult the public on matters related to the tax reform?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it we had

approximately 150,000 copies printed. I will look into the availability of copies now, since I have been away for a few days. However, we do provide copies of the White Paper to anybody who writes and asks for them. It is proving to be a best seller.


Mr. Baldwin:: So is Dante's Inferno.


David Lewis: It is a best seller because it is a soporific, I suppose.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance dealing with the relationship between the Prices and Incomes Commission and government policy. In view of the fact that the Prices and Incomes Commission is meeting next Monday and Tuesday with representatives of the business community of Canada and is going to make, I assume, certain representations on policy, may I ask the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister, whichever wishes to answer, whether there has been any discussion between the commission and the Minister of Finance as to the policy to be presented to this meeting next week?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, as I have made clear to the House on several occasions, the Prices and Incomes Commission is endeavouring, and the meetings on Monday and Tuesday are the culmination of this, to .obtain from the business community an agreement to restrict their discretionary price increases.


Gerald William Baldwin: How is the price of milk?


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I suggest this is an important matter for Members of Parliament to know about. I have heard it all before but I want to know from the minister if he knows, and perhaps he does not, in which case I will forgive him as usual, whether the Prices and Incomes Commission has been given authority by this government to make certain suggestions on policy when it meets representatives of business and labour, setting limits on profits or wages, or are these suggestions on policy made by the commission without consultation with the government?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, there has of course been discussion between officials of the
February 4, 1970

commission and officials of the government, but the Prices and Incomes Commission is independent and speaks for itself, not enunciating government policy.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if I may-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member it might be in order to go on to another subject.



FINANCE


Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Finance about the possibility of Quebec imposing a double taxation system.
Would he consider giving back to Quebec the amount of the so-called social development tax of 2 per cent?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, we pay to Quebec far more than the amount raised in equalization every year.



PARTICIPATION IN PANARCTIC OILS LIMITED BY ADDITIONAL CANADIAN CORPORATIONS

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of his statement today with reference to Panarctic, and in view of the fact that the federal government has participated to the extent of 45 per cent with certain petroleum corporations in the development of the Arctic under a corporate syndicate known as Panarctic Oils Limited, would the minister and the government consider participation and sharing by more independent Canadian corporations in this development for the purpose of assuring continued Canadian investment? It is true you have listed the companies that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I put the
question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me the question has been put. Perhaps the minister might be given the opportunity to reply.
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I did not understand very well the hon. member's question. If he could rephrase it a little more clearly, I might answer it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will be very happy to put it more clearly. With reference to the 55 per cent that is owned by corporations, and the minister used the word "international" today, will he assure the Canadian people that those corporations will be Canadian corporations and that further participation will be by Canadian investors?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we would be most pleased if Canadians wished to buy shares in the Panarctic Oils Limited and we would also be quite willing to transfer the shares, if necessary.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I put a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker? Would the minister be prepared, in view of his lengthy statement today, to give us a statement as to how many Canadian investors there actually are in those companies which carry Canadian names and which are participating in the 55 per cent?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister should not attempt to give that information now. Perhaps he should wait and give it by way of a statement on motions.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I did not ask that he give it now, I asked that he give it later in a statement.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it is quite easy to understand. At the present time, 70 per cent of the shares are controlled by Canadians, that is, 45 per cent by the federal government and 25 per cent by Canadian interests.
3206

February 4, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry



FINAL PAYMENTS ON DURUM WHEAT-DEFERRED WHEAT DELIVERIES

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple
Creek): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Since none of those ministers is here, may I ask whether the minister responsible for the Wheat Board will make a statement on motions regarding the Durum wheat accounts in order to explain the lack of final payments on this type of wheat and to clarify and update information with regard to the deferred wheat deliveries for the 1968-69 crop year?
Winona Grace MacInnis: Nobody answers for the Wheat Board on Wednesdays.


Mr. Florian Cote (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am taking note of the question and I shall pass it on to the minister responsible.



TRANSPORT


Hon. J. W. Monteilh (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the minister's statement of January 13 to the effect that the railways had agreed to suspend any increase in freight rates at least until March 1, will he determine whether or not the rail rates for white beans moving to western Canada from Ontario have been increased by 2 per cent as of January 22?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that beans were included in the agreement, but I will look into the matter.


Mr. Mac T. McCuicheon (Lamblon-Kenl):: May I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. Will he use his good offices to discourage the suggested further rate increase, reported to become effective as of March 1, on shipments of white beans to western Canada?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to look into this and pass on the information to the railways.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Can he tell the House how soon the Canadian people can expect ingredient listing on food products?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, we announced some time ago that this was the direction in which we hoped to go. Since that
time we have received a great number of representations from different manufacturers about some of the technical and complicated problems that might arise. We will be introducing, during the present session as previously announced, a packaging and labelling bill which I hope will allow us to make more progress in this matter than has been made so far.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Transport.

Has the minister received representations to the effect that all stations on the CPR railway line between Montreal and Quebec are closed in the evenings, thus forcing passengers waiting for trains to stay outside in severe weather?


Mr. Speaker:: I think this question could be put on the order paper. However, if there is an emergency the Minister might answer it.


Mr. Mongram:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I do not want to question your ruling but-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will agree that I have suggested the minister may answer the question if he thinks there is an emergency. He might do it now.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I will try to get the stations opened before the weather warms up.
February 4, 1970


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
Since we care very much about the truthfulness and accuracy of what we say, in justice to the CPR I should like to correct an inaccurate statement I made a while ago, to the effect that all railway stations between Montreal and Quebec are closed in the evening. I must say that the station in the most beautiful city of the province of Quebec, Trois Rivieres, remains open.



STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice? Some time ago the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville presented to the House the report of the Parliamentary Committee on Statutory Instruments which contained a number of important recommendations about the control by this House over delegated legislation. Can the minister say whether the government proposes to take any action, and if so how soon, with a view to implementing the report and some of its recommendations?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have had discussions with the President of the Privy Council about the substance of that report. The Department of Justice is currently drafting a proposal which we want to discuss together and present to our colleagues.



FISHERIES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Would he inform the House whether he plans to take any action on the protest made by the Canadian sealing industry concerning his announcement on negotiations with Norway on the killing of whitecoats?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I have no indication that any of our vessel owners who previously indicated they were going to sea have decided not to participate in the hunt this year.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the minister does not seem to be too well informed on this matter, would he consider meeting with the Canadian sealing industry to find out exactly what the position is in the industry vis-a-vis the statement made by the minister last Friday?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, we have had several meetings with the industry. I have been hearing from the industry in recent days as well.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Fisheries. Can the minister say what is the position of Canada on the request by the World Federation for the Protection of Animals-friends of the minister-that Canada should ban what is left of the seal hunt?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Red Deer.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, maybe the minister did not understand my question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member asked the question clearly, but under the rules the minister is not obligated to reply.



POST OFFICE


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Communications, may I ask the Acting Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary whether it is the policy of the government to continue the closing of low-income post offices throughout the country in view of the general protest of the population against this policy?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the hon. member is reiterating a question which has been asked on a number of occasions. If the minister wishes to reply to this kind of question, he can do so by way of a general statement on motions.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, may I transfer this matter for debate at ten o'clock tomorrow night.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minis-

February 4, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry ter of Justice? Has his attention been drawn to the case of the young man who was held in the Toronto jail for some months without having his case brought to trial? If so, will the minister look into the matter to see whether the rights of this person, as guaranteed under the Bill of Rights, were violated or whether new legislation is required?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we will have to discuss that with the Attorney General of Ontario as well.


David Orlikow: Why, Mr. Speaker?



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Has the minister received from the La Sarre Chamber of Commerce a letter requesting financial assistance from his department for the construction of the Villebois-James Bay road, and can he indicate to the House whether a favorable reply has been given in that respect?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that this question could be put on the order paper. I take the liberty to suggest to hon. members that such questions appear normally on the order-paper, and when there is any urgency, hon. members can notify the Chair so that they may be debated at the time of adjournment.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Considering that for some time now the Prime Minister has apparently been giving thought to the establishment of a presidential system in Canada, and that he has stated, as shown on page-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member knows the Standing Orders. He knows that he must ask a question. It would seem to me that his remarks are not necessarily relevant to the question he wants to ask.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, my question is related to the following remarks made by the Prime Minister in the House yesterday: "That

is how you get a presidential system". My question is as follows:
Will the government submit to the committee responsible for reviewing the constitution a working paper on the possibility of establishing a presidential system in the country?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Oui, monsieur le president. In fact, we have already submitted to the constitutional conference a working paper stating the government position on this matter. I am surprised that the hon. member, who keeps up to date on these questions, has not read this document which is very explicit and states our position very plainly.
I might add that, as far as I am concerned, it is true that I am going to establish a presidential system and this is why I always address you as "monsieur le president" and not as "monsieur l'Orateur".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister discuss with the President of the Privy Council the question of referring to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization ways and means of permitting members on both sides of the House to combat the very alarming and dangerous increase in executive power?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as I just said to the hon. member for Charlevoix, the government's position on this has been made public. Documents tabled in the House of Commons on the constitution show what the attitude of this government is vis-a-vis parliament. But if the hon. member has not bothered to read these documents, I cannot suggest that going before another committee would be the solution.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he speaks on behalf of the Liberal party or that of the Canadian government when he says that the position of the government is clear in this regard?



TAXATION


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like some further infor-
February 4, 1970

mation from the Minister of Finance. I ask the minister whether the government is standing behind the proposal in the white paper to refuse to shareholders in gas and electric utilities in Canada any credit for taxes paid by their respective corporations? This proposal has already caused very substantial losses to shareholders in these corporations and is putting pressure on the provincial governments concerned to take over these companies.


Edgar John Benson: As
I have already indicated, our proposals in the white paper are exactly that, proposals. It is proposed in the white paper that all the taxes from these particular utilities go to the provinces. Therefore, it is not proposed that the gross up and credit be allowed to the shareholders by the government of Canada for money it has not received. That is the proposal in the white paper. We expect to have submissions on it to the parliamentary committee, which the hon. member will admit is the proper way of dealing with the matter. It is presently before this committee.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it the policy of the government to pursue tax policies which encourage takeovers of these companies by governments in order to avoid the injurious effects of the minister's tax policies? Is it the minister's intention to pursue this unfortunate proposal or is he prepared to take it back and bring something forward along the lines in the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. Minister of Finance will allow me to suggest to him, and to the House, that perhaps what he is being invited to do now is to make a statement which is much too general in scope and which should rather be made by way of an announcement of policy.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Winona Grace MacInnis: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I wish to assure the minister that I will not ask the nature of the decision but simply whether a decision has been reached to prosecute or not to prosecute in the case involving Casino cigarettes?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I am
Inquiries of the Ministry informed that charges were laid in Edmonton on February 2 against Imperial Tobacco Products Limited arising out of alleged monetary prizes of "$5 in every pack of New Casino". Charges were laid under section 33D(1) of the Combines Investigation Act. It would be improper for me to go any further.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Ray Perrault (Burnaby-Seymour):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Can the minister inform the House when it will be known if the members of the International Longshoremen's Union have accepted or rejected the collective agreement signed on their behalf by their committee recently?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, they are voting on that particular contract today. Having gone through this agony on two previous occasions, I imagine the final results will not be known until about eleven o'clock tonight, Ottawa time.



NEGOTIATIONS WITH LONGSHOREMEN AT EASTERN CANADIAN PORTS

Thomas Miller Bell: A supplementary question to the Minis'.er of Labour. Can the minister give us a progress report on negotiations with longshoremen at eastern Canadian ports?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be accurate in my answer in view of the hon. member's particular interest in the subject matter. I would prefer to make a more detailed answer tomorrow.



TRANSPORT


Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In light of the series of questions put to the minister last week with respect to the return of our wayward boxcars from the United States, can the minister advise the House what success he had with officials of the Canadian railroads in this regard at the meeting he indicated would be held with them at the first part of this week?
February 4, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Some success, Mr. Speaker, but perhaps not enough to satisfy hon. members opposite. They assured me they would do everything possible to repatriate as many of these cars as possible. In the meantime, both railways are undertaking a crash program to return to service a number of cars which I understand have been out of service for some time. There is a special effort under way in Winnipeg. I might add there is a search being made for additional locomotives in the United States which it might be possible to hire for use in this regard.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State.
Can he tell us when he expects to be in a position to give us the name of the Commissioner of Languages?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: In the very near future, Mr. Speaker.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question. Indeed, whenever, in the past two months, we have asked the Secretary of State when he was going to appoint the Commissioner of Languages, he invariably answered: "Very soon".


An hon. Member:: Be patient!


Martial Asselin: Quite recently, he has appointed three directors for this organization without, however, appointing the president or the chief commissioner. I believe hon. members have a right to expect as soon as possible a clear and definite answer from the government since it has been two months-


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Cenlre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a two-part question to the Prime Minister arising out of his answers last Monday concerning the United States anti-ballistic missile system. In the course of his remarks, the Prime Minister said that evidence which the government has
[Mr. Southam.l

does not show any evident escalation. Could the Prime Minister advise the House what his evidence constitutes since there has been no decision or no action by the U.S.S.R. and other countries which would indicate a similar view? Also, could he advise the House if it is the intention of the government, in a more formal and direct manner, to give notice to the United States government of the unhappiness of the Canadian government about the decision of that government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the first part of the question, Mr. Speaker, I can only say that we have no evidence that the Soviet government, if that is the one the hon. member is thinking of, has considered this move as an escalatory one. I cannot add much detail to that. We have to rely on what information we get. The answer to the second part of the question, Mr. Speaker, is no, not at this tune. I am not considering any further statement, nor is the minister.



PUBLIC WORKS


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. In mid-November I directed a question to the minister asking him if he would enlighten the House in relation to the federal government's plans for the future development of the townsite of Churchill. At that time, the minister said it would depend entirely upon the relations between the federal government and the government of the province of Manitoba, and that discussions were then being held. I ask the minister if he has anything further to announce at this time or if he expects to make an announcement shortly.


Arthur Laing: Not at this time, Mr. Speaker.



TAXATION


Alfred Dryden Hales: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Now that the minister has had a chance to communicate with the provincial treasurers, particularly the treasurer of Ontario, is he in a position to say whose computer was the most accurate and whether he proposes to make a new estimate on the proposed tax?
February 4, 1970


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the impression that the question asked by the hon. member is substantially the same as the one asked by the hon. Leader of the Opposition earlier this afternoon.



TRANSPORT


James Aloysius McGrath: wish to rephrase a question I directed to the Minister of Transport yesterday. What is the policy of the government regarding the expenses of icebreaker services through Canada's northwest passage for ships of the Humble Oil Company or any other United States oil company that may be using Canada's Northwest Passage?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: There are no firm rules, if I might describe them that way, in this regard. I think we have to measure the benefits that may come to us from any experimental activity. I may say on the last and only occasion that we have been asked for that kind of help, there was a good deal of reciprocity. For example, some of the fuels for the icebreaker were provided by the Humble Oil Company. We do not have a policy. If it becomes a matter of fairly regular use, I presume we would come to some specific arrangement.



AIR CANADA


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: have a question for the Minister of Transport. Will the minister, at an early date, make a statement in the House with regard to the changes in the senior administrative positions of Air Canada outlining the motivations behind these changes?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that is a proper matter on which I should make a statement. It is an internal arrangement within Air Canada. I will examine it. If it appears sensible for me to make a statement, I will do so.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Might I point out to the minister that he answers to Parliament on behalf of Air Canada and Parliament is asking the question.
Inquiries of the Ministry HEALTH AND WELFARE



PROGRAM TO COVER COST OF DRUGS FOR OLD AGE PENSIONERS AND OTHERS

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the very severe hardships being suffered in many cases by old age pensioners and those on social services payments who find themselves covered by medicare but not for drugs, will the minister take immediate steps to implement a program of drug care so that these people will no longer suffer neglect?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I would advise the hon. member that under the provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan the provinces can initiate such measures themselves to provide drugs, and in some cases they do provide drugs to the poor and to the elderly under the plan. We share 50 per cent of the cost.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I was addressing to the minister the question of urgency. I realize that this can be done, but in the case of urgency-


John Carr Munro: It can be done tomorrow.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Can he tell the house whether the text of paragraphs 1 and 3 of section 93 of the British North America Act has been changed in order to enable the Quebec government to modify the education system according to the language used by the population and no longer according to its religious denomination as is stipulated in the British North America Act?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member must admit that this question as put is not in order. He is asking a minister for a legal opinion and this is why, I think, the question is out of order.



THE MINISTRY


Robert James Borrie: I have a question for the Prime Minister. Is the right hon. gentleman aware that
February 4, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry Canadians across the country want their Prime Minister to travel by a means befitting his office, that is, by government aircraft?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether the question is in order and I do not think a supplementary question would be in order. However, I will give the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster the opportunity to ask a question in a few moments.


Thomas Miller Bell: One more question on the subject of air travel by the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister realize that while the Canadian people do want him to have the best while he is on government business, they never want him to use these planes for Liberal party trips?



PAN-AMERICAN GAMES-INQUIRY AS TO FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO WINNIPEG

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is the minister now in a position to tell me the status of the letter he promised me many months ago concerning the possibility of a further government grant to Winnipeg in connection with the deficit on the Pan-American Games in Canada's centennial year? Or perhaps he is in a position to say now that a favourable decision has been reached?


Edgar John Benson: had mailed the letter, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should take up this question with the Postmaster General. Seriously, though, I did not mail the letter, because I was not satisfied with it. I promised it to the hon. member as soon as possible and I hope he will give me some leeway-the usual leeway.


An hon. Member:: At least two more years.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: My question is intended for the Minister of Labour. In view of the long delays which have occurred, and the complaints all through industrial Ontario concerning the processing of unemployment insurance claims, would the minister use his good offices with the Unemployment Insurance Commission to get these things speeded up?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has made a representation and he has to assume the minister will take note of it.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairwealher@Fundy-Royal: My question is directed to 1he Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the minister recall that he stated, relative to the first atomic tests on Amchitka Island, that the results would be assessed by Canadian scientists, and will he assure us that the results of this study will be made public well before any other tests are made?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Our ambassador in Washington is inquiring of the United States government to obtain the results of the tests. This is in line with my answer the other day. These results will be examined by Canadian seismologists and other scientists. I am not sure whether the results of that study will be put out in a form sui able for publication, but I am satisfied I shall be asked the relevant questions in the House.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Has the Treasury Board Secretariat advised the major bargaining agents for the public service that extra contributions will be made by those now working, and that part of those contributions will be used to help cover the cost of forthcoming increased benefits for those who have retired?


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt whether the question is in order as asked. The hon. member is asking the minister whether such a statement has been made and the question cannot be put in that way.


Mr. Drury:: I think I made it clear-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting the privileges of Parliament, because I have documents and evidence of what is contained in forthcoming legislation. As far as I know, this is the only means I have of asking the responsible minister whether certain proposals or statements
February 4, 1970

have been made. I am getting something through the back-door route which Parliament is not getting through the front-door route.


Mr. Speaker:: Because of the circumstances he has outlined, the hon. member may have a grievance against the minister, but I do not think this would make it possible for him to ask his question in its present form at this time.


An hon. Member:: Better lock your back door.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darimouth-Halifax East):: My question is directed to the Leader of the House. Does the absence from his list the other day, containing 74 items of business, of a measure to deal with the unanimous report of the Special Joint Committee on the Royal National Anthems indicate it is not the inten.ion of the government to deal with this matter during the present session of Parliament as was promised?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I regret to say that some complications have developed in connection with copyright. Negotiations are now under way to resolve this problem but it looks very much, now, as though we shall not be in a posi ion to place proposals before the House during the present session.


J. Michael Forrestall: Could I ask whether this matter of negotiations with the copyright holders is something which is in process, or whether it is, in fact, dead?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It is my understanding that it is in process, but I have not received a recent report on the subject.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has an application for further flooding of Canadian territory near the Skagit River, which is an international river in British Columbia, been received by the federal government from any source?


Mr. Speaker:: This question should be
placed on the Order Paper.
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Harding: A question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. This is a current question which is vital to the people of this area. Rather than wait two or three months for an answer, I feel we are entitled to a reply from the minister on this important issue.


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Since the Prime Minister seems very well disposed towards presidency and presidents as a whole, I wonder whether he is thinking today of inviting President Pompidou to visit Ottawa when he goes to New York.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I had not thought about it, Mr. Speaker, but I thank the hon. member for that good idea. I will consider it.



HOUSING


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister yet reached a decision regarding building societies and, if so, when can the House expect a statement from him?


Edgar John Benson: will look into this matter. I have reached a decision with respect to special tax advantages for building societies. I, personally, would not be in favour of special tax advantages for particular types of enterprises. There is nothing to stop them-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Minister of Transport. Can the minister indicate, in view of the request for an inquiry into CN operations in Newfoundland some three weeks ago, whether we can expect his decision in the near future?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes Mr. Speaker. Some material

February 4, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry relevant to the question asked is being prepared by Canadian National and I undertake to make it available to the hon. member as soon as it reaches me, which should be early next week.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to direct this question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister tell the House whether the Atlantic provinces task force on transportation is still in existence? If so, has he received any recent progress report from the task force?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: It is still in existence, Mr. Speaker. I have not received any report recently, but I understand there was a meeting in Moncton, if not last week, this week, and I have prodded and asked them to give me some recommendations as soon as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to the hon.
member for Dauphin and the hon. member for South Western Nova for not recognizing them. We have already gone three minutes beyond time. I have personally referred to these hon. members so that I will remember tomorrow to give them precedence over other members.



PRIVILEGE

[Stage Direction]
MR. NO WLAN-FAILURE OF PRIME MINISTER TO CORRECT [DOT]'HANSARD"
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: 
Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member I believe has made his point. I do not think we should have a lengthy debate on the matter raised by the hon. member concerning whether the Prime Minister did or did not have an opportunity to make a correction to Hansard. I do not think we should go into all other aspects. At the same time, I think the Prime Minister may have some comment to make and I will invite hon. members after that not to pursue the matter further.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My comments will be very brief. I am told I did not have the courage to speak in the House and went outside and cried foul. For the record, may I say that I did try to get the attention of the House to speak and it was because of some member in the hon. member's party that 1 was not given an opportunity to correct Hansard. Surely, under these circumstances, I cannot be blamed for having answered some questions outside the House which were asked of me on the subject on which I rose to get your attention, Mr. Speaker, concerning the fact that I said I wished to correct an error in Hansard which had just been brought to my attention. That is the fact of the matter. I had not seen Hansard earlier. I think an explanation is therefore in order.
DEBATES	3215
Yukon Placer Mining Act
The hon. member for Edmonton West referred to the unexplained absence of Hansard. The House did not have Hansard nor did I, at the time that we were on motions. Therefore I could not make my correction at that point. Hansard was just brought to my attention later. This is the very simple explanation.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I ask the hon. Prime Minister what correction he wishes to make in Hansard?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a question or has a point to make, I think he has a right to do so. I would suggest to hon. members that there is not much point, and I really do not see what can be gained, in pursuing the matter further.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Donald Stovel Macdonald: that Bill S-4, to amend the Yukon Placer Mining Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill is relatively simple and straightforward, but I think I probably should take a few minutes in introducing the second reading of the bill to explain and outline what is proposed in this amending legislation.
This bill was passed by the other place on November 17, 1969, and after second reading in that place the bill was considered in the Senate Standing Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce and was reported back without amendment. Today, the placer mining industry in the Yukon does not have the importance it once held. As you know, Mr. Speaker, placer mining was at one time a thriving industry, particularly in the Dawson area, and represents an important and historic phase in the history of the Yukon. It is this phase that we intend to commemorate with the historic sites program to which I will refer in a moment.
February 4, 1970

Yukon Placer Mining Act From the period of 1897 to 1904, it is reported that the value of gold production exceeded $100 million. Most of this production was recovered by hand methods, such as pans, rockers and sluice boxes into which bold bearing gravel was shovelled and then washed. As transportation improved, thousands of tons of equipment were brought in and the scale of mining increased. Many claims were acquired and consolidated by corporations, with the individual miner being gradually replaced by large companies operating hydraulic and dredging plants. At one time, the Yukon Consolidated Gold Corporation had 9 dredges operating in the creeks in the vicinity of Dawson City. However, all dredging operations were closed down in the fall of 1966 when recovery of gold in this manner became uneconomic. Today, placer mining is conducted on a very small scale, comprising some 30 small one and two man operations, using bulldozers to push the gold bearing gravels into sluice boxes. Most of the creek beds in the Klondike area, where for the past 72 years placer mining was concentrated, have now been mined in one way or another. There is, of course, still some gold in the benches and in the hills, but it is extremely unlikely that further large-scale recovery of gold could be economical.
Under the Act which is proposed to be amended by this bill, the person staking a claim has all rights, not only to the minerals but all surface rights. The government does not even have the authority to set aside lands for roads, railways or pipeline rights of way, an historic site, national park, or any other public purpose. In the Yukon, all surface rights which have not been alienated for private purposes are still vested in the Crown in the right of Canada. All of these lands, at the present time, are now available to the placer prospector for claim staking. Under bill S-4, the government will have the authority where it feels there is a need for a road, airport, national park, or what have you for public purposes, to withdraw such lands as are required for such public purpose from the operation of the Yukon Placer Mining Act. Then, those lands could not be staked for placer mining purposes.
Of course, this legislation is not retroactive. In the case of existing claims under placer mining regulations, if the government required the land on which the claims were staked it would have to deal with the claim owner in the regular way by purchase or expropriation. Under the existing statute, 
which we propose to amend, only lands within the boundaries of a city, town, village, land occupied by a building, or forming part of an Indian reserve, are not subject to claim for placer mining purposes. I might give hon. members the following example of the application of the present law.
On November 1, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) announced in Whitehorse that the government had approved his recommendation for a $1.7 million historical sites program in the Yukon territory and also stated that the government had reached an agreement with the Yukon Consolidated Gold Corporation to purchase the "Gold Room" now located at the company's establishment at Bear Creek near Dawson City and which the government, through the department, proposes to move to Bonanza creek. There is already a commemorative plaque erected near the site of the "discovery claim" and a considerable amount of public funds have been spent in maintaining this site. As previously stated, there is no provision in the Act to protect such lands from its application.
Considering, therefore, the limited extent of the industry to-day, the amendments proposed in the Bill are of minor significance. As I have mentioned, these proposals are not retroactive and cannot, therefore, affect existing rights. As hon. members know, after second reading the bill will, of course, be referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Of course, hon. members of the committee will have an opportunity, if they wish, to examine this measure in more detail.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I have a few brief comments to make on this bill because, as the parliamentary secretary has said, it will be referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, where questions in detail will be asked.
It is my hope, and perhaps the parliamentary secretary can give us some assurance in this regard, that there will be people from the Yukon who may wish to make representations before the committee. While I realize that this is up to the committee to decide, I hope the parliamentary secretary will use his good offices to ensure that those who might wish to make appropriate statements to the committee Will have the opportunity of doing so. I hope such arrangements will be made for those from the Yukon who are interested in doing so.
February 4, 1970


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, in introducing the bill the parliamentary secretary was, in effect, telling the House that there is no more gold in "them thar hills". I suppose this is one way of announcing the passage of an era that made Canada famous around the world at the time the original rush to the Klondike occurred. I am not sure that one should feel he is optimistic in hoping there might yet be some places within the boundaries of the Yukon or in some other part of Canada where the kind of activity that is characteristic of a placer gold mining rush might again occur.
The bill, as it is proposed, should find general acceptance by members of the House because it does meet some of the situations which arise, other than historic ones, in respect of placer mining in the Yukon. It does clarify the prior right for land use and other purposes, particularly public purposes. I was glad to hear the reference to the proposal, which this bill will safeguard, for the development of the Dawson area as a national historic site in Canada. Those of the members of the committee who had the privilege of visiting Dawson, and being entertained there, I think would all agree that it has an attraction which is unique and can properly be considered to be part of our national heritaee. I suppose in discussing this bill one could raise the issue of whether or not the legislative jurisdiction which is being exercised by this Parliament should not more properly be put in the hands of the Territorial Council of the Yukon. However, I think perhaps there are, and will be, other more appropriate occasions on which to discuss this issue in a broad way.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
There is one particular point that I would like to mention because I did not hear the parliamentary secretary touch upon it. I did some research into the proposed changes, and it may be important to note that the bill does not change the exemption of Indian lands which is provided for in section 17 of the Act. I took the trouble to check the meaning of the section, which refers to the Territorial Lands Act, paragraph (d) of section 18, and noted that reference is made in that section of the Territorial Lands Act to lands for the use of Indian people. Therefore, the bill does not forfeit, as I was initially afraid that it might, the exemption that is provided in the present act for lands that form part of an Indian reserve. This is a subject matter which we
Yukon Placer Mining Act may wish to explore and have more fully clarified in the committee. As I understand the situation, however, that is the meaning of paragraph (d) as it appears in clause 1 of the proposed new legislation. The parliamentary secretary might wish to make some comment to clarify my understanding of it when he closes this debate.
Having said that, I agree with the proposal that full opportunity should be given to anyone, particularly from the Yukon, who wishes to make representations on the bill, to the committee, to do so when the bill is before the committee.


Mr. Rene Maile (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, at first sight at least, there should not be any objection to this bill, particularly in view of the fact that the Creditistes have been telling the whole world, and even our leading economists, that our currency was not based on gold.
Money should at least be based on real credit, on real values, on true potential. This is what is meant by confidence in money.
They used to poke fun at us a few years ago when we said to the people that the value of our currency was not based on the famous gold standard. Since then, everyone has recognized that gold has practically lost all its value. It costs more to mine than it is worth. Therefore, it follows that this bill-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I would suggest to the hon. member to confine his remarks to the bill which is now before the house because I think that he is now out of order.


René Matte: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I thought that the bill was dealing with gold.
As I was saying, we will not oppose this bill. However, it would be advisable to bring in a few amendments since, in any case, gold today has practically no value compared to the cost of mining it.
When the bill is before the committee, I might add a few other comments.


Mr. Rod Thomson (Bailleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to raise one or two points with regard to this bill. I was wondering perhaps whether the minister would consider allowing the Yukon Council to help define what land should be set aside for public purposes rather than have this done by the Governor in Council. It seems to me that some of the unhappiness with Ottawa stems
February 4, 1970

Yukon Placer Mining Act from the fact that decisions are made in Ottawa rather than by representatives who are closer to the developments in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. I discussed some of these matters with these people and they argue, rightly or wrongly, that Ottawa does not understand the problems that they have in that area and that perhaps decisions could better be made by local representatives, people who live there and who are going to suffer or benefit from some of these recommendations or laws that we pass here in Ottawa.
I wonder if the minister would consider this point? I also wish to ask him whether the Yukon Council made representations on this or any other matter. Have they asked for some voice in this type of local legislation in which they are vitally concerned? I support the bill. I think that there are probably considerable amounts of minerals in the Yukon, but perhaps we will have a chance to have a closer look at the bill when it goes to the committee. However, I raised a point and I hope the minister will care to comment on it.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, this is in fact becoming a northern day in the House of Commons. Earlier this afternoon the interesting announcement was made that the government has decided to continue its participation in Panarctic's exploration in the Canadian Arctic. Now, we have a further indication of the government's growing awareness of the importance of the north in the form of Bill S-4, and also in some of the comments that were made by the parliamentary secretary when he introduced the bill before us.
I would like to join those who have spoken briefly this afternoon in encouraging the closest possible consultation with the Council of the Yukon Territory with reference to this bill and, of course, with reference to all the interesting developments that are taking place in the Yukon at present.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
One of the growing concerns of Yukoners is the fact that they are not being permitted by the government to exercise sufficient control and influence in determining their own destiny. All they are really asking for is the acceptance of a fundamental principle of democracy, and that is the right of self-determination. I think that when this bill goes before the committee it would be an excellent idea if a member of the Council could appear

before it so that he might comment on the attitude of the Territorial Council with reference to this important development.
The comment by the parliamentary secretary that drew my attention when he was introducing the bill was the fact that at long last the government is deciding to continue the program of historic restoration that was begun back in 1960. This has been a sensitive and delicate point to the Yukon Territory. I am sure hon. members are aware that following the upsurge of interest in historic prospects of the Yukon, largely centred in the old city of Dawson and the route that was made immortal by the gold rush of 1898, interest subsided. It was only the continuing enthusiasm of the Yukoners themselves that maintained interest in the historic prospects, and in the meantime other areas of Canada which I shall not mention-


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Like Edmonton, for example.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: -which I shall not mention to avoid being controversial, had picked up the idea of the Klondike theme and were exploiting it for commercial rather than historic purposes.
The result of that development, as those of us who are interested in the north are fully aware, was a Yukon Protective Society. Many of us joined it and gave financial support. We are proud owners of certificates which indicate we are a part of that relatively small number who are anxious that the historic rather than the commercial aspects of the historic past of the Yukon Territory should be preserved. I think it was largely due to the efforts of this Yukon Klondike Protective Society that certain parts of Canada, again that we shall not mention in order not to be controversial, were prevented from using the Klondike theme at the Great Canadian World Fair that was held at Expo in Montreal during our centennial celebrations.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Judy La Marsh wasn't very kind.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I would think that this unfortunate and very diversionary tactic which detracted from the exact locale of the gold rush of 1898, could have been avoided if the government had shown more continuing interest. Perhaps I am a little over-sensitive on this issue because, when I was the responsible minister the expenditure of a sum of some $500,000 for historic restoration was severely criticized as being extravagant and wasteful. It was said the Yukon Territory was
February 4, 1970

not worth that sort of expenditure, even though we were putting millions of dollars into the preparation of Expo, an event which lasted for one year.
The then Liberal opposition had the audacity to criticize this relatively small expenditure on the commemoration and preservation for posterity of what has now become regarded by all Canadians as our historic gem. The criticism at that time of course was more politically based than it was historically based, because the Yukon Territory, like other parts of the north, does not represent any substantial political force in terms of membership in this House of Commons. There have been these significant developments in the past few years in the north and the government has belatedly decided now to continue the program that began in 1960. We have already heard today that the government is continuing its support of Panarctic Oils. Last week the Anvil Mining Corporation officially began its operations in the Yukon. This represents a development that will have the same economic impact on the Yukon that the Pine Point Mining Development has had on the Northwest Territories.
It was rather an ironic twist of fate and fortune that the part of the north which gave the most enthusiastic support to the idea of commemorating the gold rush of 1898 during the festivities of 1961 was the State of Alaska. Alaska, a part of the United States, was far ahead in its development of its part of the north, further ahead than we were. As a result, again unhappily and unfortunately for the economic prospects of Canada, they were the first to discover a large reservoir of oil up on Prudhoe Bay. Now everybody wants into the northern act.
I am sure that if the government of Canada, since 1963, had continued to support enthusiastically the work that had begun in the north, without the long years of delay, it is quite possible that Canada would have had the first oil discovery rather than the United States of America in the State of Alaska.
In 1961 a ceremony took place at Bonanza Creek which officially declared the whole complex of Dawson City to be an historic site. The $1.7 million that the parliamentary secretary has mentioned as being made available for the continuation of the restoration in Dawson City and along the gold rush trail, will at least make up for some of the years that have been lost over the long period of the government's negative response to this positive program for the north.
Yukon Placer Mining Act
The tragedy is that some of the pioneers who were still living in 1961 are no longer with us. There were still some of the old sourdoughs who had crossed the trail of 1898 in the land of the living when the cairn was unveiled on July 1, Dominion Day, in 1961. I had the privilege, as the responsible minister, of presiding at the ceremony on that occasion. They have gone but the story of romance and adventure that they left behind has been written for all to read in the works of Jack London and in the poems of Robert Service. I would commend the government for its decision, even at this late date, to carry on this important work of historical commemoration.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say just a few words on Bill S-4, to amend the Yukon Placer Mining Act. I have listened with interest to the explanations of the legislation given in short talks by the other members. However, there is one section here to which a reply should be given in closing the debate. I notice that section 19, which relates to surface rights, has been knocked out of the act. I feel that a little further information on this section could be given to the House when the debate is closed.
There are a couple of other points that I should like to draw to the attention of the department. I see that people can stake placer claims in most areas in the Yukon but one of the forbidden areas, of course, would be a national park. We have had occasion to set up additional national parks, and I do not think there is any doubt that some more will be opened in the Yukon area. There should be some provision in this bill to deal with the situation where an individual has a claim, and then a park is established around it. Now that the act is open, I see no reason why a technicality of this nature should not be dealt with.
When we talk about placer claims, Mr. Speaker, most people imagine that it means an individual going out with a little gold pan and testing the rivers and streams that abound in that area. But this is not always so. Sometimes placer mining is done on a huge scale, with dredges and sluicing though I believe most dredges in the Yukon have been shut down. The chances are, however, that in the years to come there will be very extensive dredge work in this area because there is no doubt that there is still lots of gold there. People will go back at a later date with more refined equipment to attempt to recover it.
February 4, 1970

Yukon Placer Mining Act
In my opinion, every piece of legislation affecting this area should first be discussed fully with the Territorial Council. Some day the area will be self-governing, and we should be seeking the advice of people on the spot with regard to legislation such as this bill.
The other point that I should like to draw to the attention of the department relates to pollution regulations, in which I am extremely interested, but I am not trying to stop any placer miner from getting a panful of gravel or from carrying on a sluicing operation. This government has already indicated that during this session there will be a bill which will deal with oil and other pollution in the Arctic. This is urgently needed. Oil drilling and exploration is just one phase of the mining activity carried on in the north. There is no reason why some sort of pollution regulations should not be included in this act. As I say, I am not thinking in terms of the very small operation but in terms of the future when new equipment can be brought into the area, new techniques can be used, and when pollution could become a major hazard. I do not think there is any legislation that should not have this type of protection in it. It should not be so restrictive as to stop people from carrying out the normal operation of placer mining, however.
There is not very much more I want to say, Mr. Speaker. The amendments are fairly simple and the government seems to have made one or two steps forward in the changes they are making. I think there are other sections of the act, however, that should be looked at now that the act is open. I trust the two or three suggestions I have made will be considered by the department and perhaps followed up by some minor amendments to the bill before us.
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Bechard): I must advise the House that if the hon. Parliamentary Secretary speaks at this time he will close the debate.


Russell Clayton Honey: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to deal with the several items raised by hon. members opposite in the helpful participation of this debate, and possibly I should try to deal with them in the order in which they were raised.
The hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) suggested that he would be hopeful, and I join him in that hope, that interested people
(Mr. Harding.]
from the Yukon would be heard by the Parliamentary Committee. The hon. member knows that it is not within our respective jurisdictions to direct the committee, but I know that the chairman and members of the committee will be aware of his suggestions in this regard. I might just comment in passing, Mr. Speaker, that I hope, and I know my hon. friend from Oxford would agree, that there might be more interest shown than there was when this legislation was before the Senate Standing Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, when there were no witnesses or representations other than the departmental officials.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) asked me to reassure him that the provision withdrawing Indian reserves from the operation of this legislation, which did exist in the previous legislation, was not removed in the amending legislation. I can give him that assurance and confirm what I gathered were the results of his research in this regard.
The particular section of the amending legislation now before the House, Mr. Speaker, is section 1 (2) (d) which says in effect that staking of placer claims will not be carried out in various areas, and one of them under subsection (d) does not apply to lands set apart and appropriated by the Governor in Council for any purpose set out in section 18 (d) of the Territorial Lands Act. Maybe I should read that particular subsection into the record. It provides that the Governor in Council may:
set apart and appropriate such areas or lands as may be necessary to enable the government of Canada to fulfil its obligations under treaties with the Indians to make free grants or leases for such purposes, and for any other purpose that he may consider to be conducive to the welfare of the Indians;
I think that answers the concern expressed by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the parliamentary secretary will permit a question? If I heard him correctly, he made a reference to legislation respecting the Territorial Council. My understanding is that the Territorial Lands Act passed by this parliament is in relation to the Territories. Is this correct?


Russell Clayton Honey: Perhaps I could deal with that question within the context of the matter raised by the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Thomson). Under clause 1 (2)
February 4, 1970

of Bill S-4, there is reference, to lands that are set apart and appropriated by the Governor in Council, that being the Governor in Council with respect to the federal authority, for any purpose described in paragraph (d) of section 18 of the Territorial Lands Act. The reference there, of course, is for purposes for which Indian reserves are set aside for the benefit of Indians. In that regard, the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley raised the question of whether the Council of the Yukon Territories is consulted, particularly with respect to lands to be withdrawn for public purposes. I am assured that that is the case.
I think I might spend a minute to draw a distinction, because the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley asked if the Yukon Territorial Council had a say in what lands are to be withdrawn from the operation of this act. Of course, I can assure him that there is consultation. It is important for us to keep in mind that under the Territorial Lands Act, the Council of the Yukon Territory may withdraw, appropriate or set aside lands for its purposes. Passage of Bill S-4 which we are now considering will not interfere with that right of the Territorial Council. That is not the intention. Subclause 2 of clause 1 of the bill refers to lands to which the Yukon Placer Mining Act does not apply. It refers to lands which are to be used in the right of Canada and, if I may use the expression, for federal purposes. It is important to keep that distinction in mind.
The next question or suggestion was made by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), who is concerned about the question of close consultation with the Yukon Territorial Council and groups in the Territory. I was in Whitehorse with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) in November last and had the opportunity personally of meeting with the executive of the Yukon Chamber of Mines. Among the things discussed was this legislation. The Chamber has copies of the legislation and I am sure it has considered it. So, I think I can put the legitimate concern of the hon. member at rest in that regard because the people who would be most directly affected, those whose mining interests are represented by the Chamber of Mines, have been consulted and are aware of this legislation.
Lastly, may I refer to the questions raised by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding), who asked why section 19 of the placer mining act has been removed by this amending legislation. If hon. members will look at the explanatory note they will see
National Parks Act
why section 19 is being repealed. When section 19 was in force, it was possible for a mine owner to tie up not only mineral rights but surface rights in a particular piece of land indefinitely, because he was given, and the Crown was required to give this to him, the first chance of refusal of the purchase of the surface rights. The effect of this legislation, together with the removal of section 19, will mean that it will be possible to have multipurpose uses of a particular piece of land, as is the general practice throughout Canada where mineral rights may be vested in one person or corporation and property rights in another. By repealing section 19, the effect of the amending legislation is that one person cannot tie up a whole estate in a particular piece of property. I do not say necessarily that this would happen, but there was that freedom of action.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The parliamentary secretary is filibustering his own bill.


Russell Clayton Honey: Mr. Speaker, I think these are the only remarks I wish to make about the questions that have been raised. Perhaps I could deal with other matters in committee, when officials of the department will attend.


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


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (for Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved: that Bill C-152, to amend the National Parks Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


Russell Clayton Honey: Mr. Speaker, in introducing this legislation for debate on second reading may I spend a moment or two in referring to some of the legislation background of the bill. Hon. members who were in the House in 1967 will recall that the standing committee on northern affairs and natural resources dealt with this matter. No doubt they heard the minister of the day indicate to the committee that it was his intention to bring forward legislation with respect to a leasehold corporation within the reasonable future. He indicated he would

February 4, 1970
National Parks Act
recommend this type of legislation to Parliament. The minister of the day had under his name on the Order Paper a resolution indicating his intention to introduce this type of legislation. On May 10, 1967 the resolution authorizing the establishment of a Crown corporation for leasehold purposes in national parks appeared on the Order Paper. For reasons that are not relevant here, that particular notice of motion was not proceeded with. I expect hon. members have had an opportunity to read Bill C-152-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I hope that the parliamentary secretary today will not leave the impression that the standing committee he referred to met in Banff and Jasper, that briefs were presented by citizens of the area and that in one of those briefs they asked for this kind of legislation. I was a member of the committee and I say that if the minister made the kind of suggestion to which the Parliamentary secretary referred, it was not made in front of the people of Banff or Jasper. This is a cover up.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Russell Clayton Honey: Mr. Speaker, I take it my hon. friend heard my remarks a moment ago and that he can understand them as well as anyone. They are on record in Hansard. I say to the hon. member that I did not intend to leave the impression that the remarks meant anything more than what the plain, ordinary sense of them on reading will indicate.
As I said before the interjection of the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, members have had an opportunity now for some time to read Bill C-152. I would like to say something about the bill and the reason we are asking Parliament at this time to amend the National Parks Act.
During the past few years the rate of social, economic and technological change has increased the complexity of administering Canada's national parks. Visitation to the parks has increased tremendously and is continuing at the rate of approximately 10 per cent per year. In addition to the basic requirement for additional visitor accommodation in the parks, the increased visitation has also underlined the need for many new national parks and for rationalization of the use that is made of existing parks. In other words, it has become more important than ever before to ensure that our parks are used consistent with the best national interest.
The department's leasehold policy, covering both private dwellings and commercial estab-

lishments in the national parks has gone a long way to ensure that private interests in the national parks do, in effect, serve the needs of the nation and the visiting public. Under departmental policy, persons in business or employed in the parks may reside there. Commercial leases are granted only where, in the minister's opinion, there is a need for this or that particular visitor service. Assignment and reassignment of leases are controlled by the department. Also under our policy, the duration and conditions of leases, and particularly commercial leases, must be such that full control is exercised by the government, on behalf of the people of Canada, on what services are provided, where they are provided, how they are provided and for what duration.
There is yet another aspect of our policy dictated by the underlying principle that national parks are public lands held in trust for the benefit, enjoyment and education of all Canadians. That aspect, Mr. Speaker, is the question of financial return to the Crown as a result of private commercial activity in the parks. Such activity thrives and grows, to a very large extent, by virtue of the very presence of the parks and the millions of dollars invested by the Canadian taxpayers in their acquisition and development. Consequently, it is important that there be a commensurate financial return from the commercial opportunities offered within the parks.
The point I wish to make here, Mr. Speaker, concerns not only the merits of our policy, but the need to choose the best instrument available to implement the policy. The minister thought it important to show, in a general way, how our policy is essential to the best use of Canada's national parks. I now want to show in more detail how and by what instrument this policy can best be applied. The instrument that is being proposed is the National Parks Leaseholds Corporation. The institution of this corporation is the main object of Bill C-152. The bill also deals with several other matters that I shall mention later.
The National Parks Leaseholds Corporation is conceived as a commercial Crown corporation to administer all leases in the national parks and those public park lands intended for commercial uses that may be entrusted to its management. It is not intended that the corporation engage itself in any way in the administration or management of park lands as such, or what may be more generally described as "green areas". We are convinced that a commercial organization is indeed best
February 4, 1970

National Parks Act
suited to administer what are essentially commercial interests. However, it must be a publicly owned commercial organization, accountable to the government and ultimately Parliament, because it will serve objectives that must be consistent with the purposes of national parks and more generally with the best public interest.
The establishment of the Leaseholds Corporation will have an important effect on the national parks administration. It will free the parks organization from the complex and specialized business of commercial property management, thereby enabling it to concentrate its efforts on the planning, development and preservation of national parks. Bill C-152, in so far as it concerns the National Parks Leaseholds Corporation, provides for the constitution, organization, financing and the powers of the corporation. The objects and powers of the corporation are such that it will be able to assume the control and management of such public lands in the parks, and of such commercial facilities within the parks as may be entrusted to it.
The powers of the corporation will be sufficiently broad to enable it to construct and operate commercial facilities in the parks or alternatively to arrange for the construction and operation of such facilities if it so chooses. The intention here is that the corporation be in a position to satisfy the requirements of the parks for visitor services in the most advantageous way within the context of the National Parks Act and Regulations. Thus, development could range from construction and operation by a lessee, through a partnership arrangement with the corporation to a situation where a facility is constructed and operated by the corporation itself.
In the latter regard, there have been and presumably will continue to be, instances where there is a need for visitor service facilities but where economic and/or social conditions are not conducive to an investment by the private sector of the economy. I am reminded of at least two instances in the relatively recent past, Terra Nova Bungalows, Terra Nova National Park and the Alpine Chalets and Motel, Fundy National Park, where a demand existed for public accommodation but where the prospective rate of return on an investment by the private sector was such that no one could be interested in fulfilling this demand. In these two instances, the department financed the construction of the required facilities and, in due course, leased them to private groups for their operation.
In all matters assigned to it, the corporation will operate within the context of the National Parks Act and regulations, and such other governing legislation as may apply. In the discharge of its responsibilities, the corporation will, with the approval of the Governor in Council and in respect only of limited estates or interests in public lands in the parks, have the powers of the Crown as provided for in the Expropriation Act. Thus, the corporation's powers of expropriation are less than those now available to the minister. The right of expropriation will enable the corporation to assemble public lands in the parks for redevelopment purposes or to extinguish, with compensation, certain rights previously conveyed by the Crown.
The corporation will be subject to legal recourse by its lessees, agents, contractors, or the general public; in other words, it may sue or be sued in any court that would have jurisdiction if the corporation were not an agent of Her Majesty.
It is intended that the corporation be allowed to borrow money from private sources at its discretion. Under such circumstances, however, these loans would not be guaranteed obligations of the government of Canada. This authority precludes the necessity of the corporation looking to public funds for such things as short term borrowings, working capital requirements, etc.
The financial provisions of the bill enable the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) to make loans to the corporation on terms and conditions approved by the Governor in Council. Such loans cannot exceed $20 million in aggregate. The corporation will be able, however, to borrow money from other sources, thus precluding the necessity for it to come back through government machinery for capital. This will provide the flexibility and initiative necessary for the corporation to develop, within the limits of what is appropriate in a park, all of the commercial possibilities with a maximum return to the corporation.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
While the corporation must have considerable latitude in these and other matters, it will not have unlimited scope. The control of capital and operating budgets, as provided under section 80 of the Financial Administration Act, will apply. In other words, it is envisaged that the Leaseholds Corporation will function in a budgetary control sense in the same way as the Northern Canada Power Commission, Crown Assets Disposal Corporation and

February 4, 1970
National Parks Act
others. Also, Treasury Board may establish the maximum amount in terms of the Corporation's gross receipts that it may spend annually for administration purposes. I particularly want to emphasize that while the corporation should have as much freedom as possible in the conduct of its business, it will by law be restricted to enterprise that is consistent with the purposes for which the parks are dedicated. Inasmuch as the corporation will be subject to the National Parks Act and regulations, and inasmuch as the Governor in Council and the minister retain the right to remove from the corporation's control any lands or facilities, the minister will always have the authority necessary to control the activities of the corporation in all parks.
The net earnings of the corporation will be credited to a fund to be known as the Parks Development Fund. This fund will be used by the corporation in the conduct of its business. Provision is made whereby the Governor in Council may establish the maximum amount that the Parks Development Fund may contain, and earnings in excess will be deposited in the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to summarize the remaining aspects of Bill C-152. The bill provides authority for members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to collect volun ary penalties for infractions of the National Parks Highway Traffic Regulations. Present regulations require that traffic violations be heard before a court of law. In many cases, this represents delays and inconvenience to visitors, especially to those who live far from the park and who are travelling on a schedule.
The bill also provides for new legal descriptions of Banff, Jasper, Waterton Lakes, Yoho, Kootenay, Mount Revelstoke, Prince Albert, Riding Mountain, Georgian Bay Islands and Prince Edward Island National Parks. As well, it provides for the deletion of Fort Beausejour Historic Park and Fort Anne Historic Park from the schedule of national parks. It is proposed that these two parks be set aside as national historic parks by the Governor in Council pursuant to section 10 of the National Parks Act.
The amendment further provides for a legal description of Terra Nova National Park in Newfoundland to be added to this schedule. When Terra Nova was proclaimed a national park on May 11, 1957, a legal survey under the Canada Lands Surveys Act had not been completed. The legal description should now be included.
[Mr. Woolliams.l
Bill C-.152 also provides for the establishment of a national park in the area of Kejim-kujik Lake in Nova Scotia. Since 1963, negotiations have been taking place with the Province of Nova Scotia for the establishment of a second national park in that province. Agreement has been reached with the province on the boundaries of the proposed park and the province has made the land available, free of all encumbrances. The area of the new park, to be known as Kejimkujik National Park, is approximately 145 square miles.
The bill further provides legislative authority for the Governor in Council to add, from time to time, Crown-owned lands to the national parks. Under the existing legislation, additional lands acquired for park purposes can only be added to the schedule by amending the National Parks Act. Until such amendment is made, the lands cannot be managed under the authority of the act or regulations. Bill C-152 will enable such new lands to be brought under the National Parks Act and regulations by order in council. While the amendment will facilitate the addition of lands to the system, an act of Parliament will continue to be required before any lands may be removed.
I have to thank hon. members for allowing me this opportunity to introduce the bill on second reading. When it has been given second reading it will, of course, be referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Interested people-and I know that a considerable amount of interest has been shown in this legislation, particularly by those in the parks area-will have an opportunity to appear before the committee as, of course, will senior officials of the department.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Before commenting on the substance of the bill before us, I must at this point register my strongest objection to the manner in which this legislation is being presented in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: This bill has been put forward and presented by the government, with all the publicity available to it, as one of the major pieces of legislation to be dealt with during the present session. What happens? It was brought in this afternoon, and there was no minister here to present it. This is no reflection on the Parliamentary Secretary, who is doing his job very well. But there is no minister here to present the legislation, and it is my understanding that the minister
February 4, 1970

National Parks Act
concerned will also be absent from the House when the debate continues tomorrow. In all the years I have been here-and their number is considerable-I have never known Parliament treated in this cavalier fashion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Deachman:: On a point of order. If this is such an important piece of legislation, where are your members? Why are they not listening to it?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I was just hoping somebody across the way would ask that ques.ion. I think they were so disgusted at the don't-give-a-damn attitude of the government with regard to this legislation that they didn't feel like coming; they chose to do other work. A few moments ago there were only 11 Liberal members in the House. It is up to you to keep a quorum.


An hon. Member:: There are 15.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They are coming in, now. Here is the beard boy.


Mr. Langlois:: I should like to see you with a beard.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Members over on that side do all their talking from their seats. I have a great deal more to say on this subject.
This whole performance, this whole effort to play down the bill in front of us, may have something to do with the manner in which the minister was received when he was out visiting the national parks area of Banff and Jasper recently after he had addressed his wellknown admoni ion to the leaseholders out there: If you don't like it, get off the property; go east, go west, but don't stay here. This whole attitude is typical of what we have seen in the last few months in this Parliament.
As I say, this bill was announced as one of the great pieces of legislation to be presented to Parliament this session, though, of course, the government must have changed its mind in this regard because they do not seem to be treating it now with the importance they had previously ascribed to it. What does it do? It makes some relatively minor adjustments in the boundaries of the national parks, reducing the size of most of them, from what I have been able to gather. What else does it do? In a nutshell, it sets up a corporation to carry out the administration and to make policy for the national parks. If ever I saw a glorious, grand and blatant opportunity for patronage, this is it.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
This is a deceptive bill. At first glance it does not appear to give an unwarranted degree of power to the National Parks Leasehold Corporation. The object of the bill, apparently, is to put into the hands of the corporation the day to day management of the properties of the federal government in its national parks. As the parliamentary secretary put it, this would have quite an effect on the management of the parks. I think that is putting it mildly. The bill is drafted in such a vague manner that in practice the powers to be exercised by the corporation may be considerable. There are many examples of such dangerous vagueness. I know it is not the custom at this stage of a bill to go into the detail of the clauses. I do not propose to do so, other than to illustrate the point that the bill is very deceptive and vague. In my view it is purposely drafted to mislead members of the House into voting for something for which they would not otherwise have voted. One example is new section 15(1) which reads:
The objects of the Corporation are to develop, manage and maintain, on a basis that is economically sound and consistent with the purposes for which the National Parks are dedicated, property in the Parks the direction of the administration, management and control of which is entrusted to it.
Who is to decide what is an economically sound basis? What will be the situation if the public does not agree with what the corporation thinks on this question? Is the corporation itself to decide what is consistent in respect of the purposes of the national parks? What can be done should a citizen feel that the corporation's interpretation in this regard leaves something to be desired?
Another example of excessive vagueness is new section 15(2)(b) which states that the corporation may lease or otherwise make available on a commercial basis and subject to such terms and conditions as it considers necessary or desirable any property under its control. Again, this would seem to involve a rather wide authority. Presumably, the corporation could grant leases in such a way as to nullify zoning regulations in the parks. If it should set such lax terms in respect of leases that shoddy buildings are erected in the midst of great natural beauty, what can be done. There are a great many more sections to which I could refer. However, I think this might more properly be done before the committee.
I am concerned about new section 20 (1) which says that no by-law shall come into

February 4, 1970
National Parks Act
force until it is approved by the Governor in Council. Here we have a lovely situation. For all practical purposes, the administration and policy in respect of our parks is to be turned over to a Crown corporation. This is similar to the situation of a few years ago when, in respect of transportation, the power of this Parliament was removed and placed under the Canadian Transport Commission. In this case, the government is attempting to have the best of both worlds. It is setting up a corporation with a president, a vice-president and five directors.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A great patronage pool for the Liberals.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: You can bet your bottom dollar they will all be friends of the government. If something should go wrong which causes public controversy the government can shrug its shoulders, as a certain member of the government frequently does, and say this is a Crown corporation with which the government cannot interfere. The government can say it has been set up to deal with parks, leaseholds and everything else without interference from the government. On the other hand, if the government should not like what is done by these boys whom it has chosen, the cabinet has a veto over what is being done. That is having things both ways.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is called the musical ride.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: My colleague says that is the musical ride. I would call it a musical snow job. There are quite a number of other items here .on which I might comment. We have seen government press reports and have heard rumours to the effect that the minister hopes to undertake a vast program of expansion of our park system so that the land area encompassed in national parks will be doubled in ten years. Such reports also indicate that the minister plans to develop a series of non-wilderness parks located close to centres of heavy population and suited to intensive public use. It would seem from this bill that so far as actual parks are concerned, all the government is doing is altering the boundaries of existing parks so that there will be a net loss of park area. The bill is a downright dangerous piece of legislation in so far as the provisions for a leasehold corporation are concerned. The granting of power is extremely poorly defined. Secondly, where the granting of power is clear it is also clear that the corporation will have responsibilities in 
respect of what amount to policy making activities.
I say that this is a dangerous and repugnant situation with regard to the administra* tion of our parks. The corporation is given power under section 95 (2) (b) to lease or make otherwise available on a commercial basis, and subject to such terms as it considers necessary or desirable, any property under its control. But the power to set the conditions of leases is the power to set over-all policy for the parks and to effect to a large extent the way in which the parks are developed. Suppose, for example, the corporation should decide, as the parks department has in recent years, to offer no guarantee to commercial leaseholders that their leases will be renewed or even that they will receive compensation for capital improvement to the land. This caii only encourage the commercial developers to adopt a get rich quick attitude. Scalping of tourists is likely to result.
There are a great many other things with which I should like to deal. However, a number of other members of the House I and informed are anxious to speak on this bill. Many of them represent areas in which there are national parks. These members will wish to discuss in great detail the many complaints, fears, worries and apprehensions people have as a result of this bill. When the time comes my colleagues and I -will certainly find it necessary to vote against this legislation. In our opinion it is a bad bill. It simply provides an opportunity to the government to evade its responsibility by establishing a corporation behind which it may hide. This corporation will be able to do what it likes in respect of leases and conditions of leases. It is such a blatant example of potential patronage I am surprised the government would bring it before the House. I suppose one becomes bolder and bolder as time passes.
More important from a long range point of view is the fact that for all practical purposes this bill would take the administration of our national parks virtually out of the control of Parliament. This is another example of what this government has been doing and which its immediate predecessor has done for a number of years. It has cut down the power and responsibility of Parliament. The government would appear to have one particular desire. I am not referring to government backbenchers. They have been very conscientous in committee work and in respect of matters such as this. I am referring to the members of the treasury benches. The intention would appear to be to cut down the responsibility of
February 4, 1970

this House and the effective participation of members in the running of our country. This is being done consistently all the time. It is another example, if this activity is not stopped, of the fact that by the time this government's term of office has expired there may not be any use for this House at all.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I have heard the comment that the motto of this government is peace, power, patronage and perpetuity. If ever there was an example of this motto, this is it. As I mentioned earlier, the members of this party take great exception to the way this bill has been presented to the House. The minister has other engagements and I am not questioning the importance of those engagements. What I am objecting to is the way the business of this House is run by the government and the house leader. It is so bad that provision is not made to have the responsible minister in the House to present important legislation.
Possibly there is an excuse for the minister's absence this afternoon. We are told that all day tomorrow as well, the minister will be gallavanting, or perhaps attending to important business, out west visiting Indian reservations. There is just no excuse for this. It is the minister's duty to be in the House when measures as important as this are presented. No one would object or complain about his absence. What we are complaining about is the fact that when this major piece of legislation is presented he is not here. Representatives of his department are here, but he has responsibility for the bill. I think the minister should return to his duties. We are not prepared to continue the debate on this motion until he does return.
For this reason I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dins-dale), that this House do now adjourn.


Mr. Sulaiycky:: Mr. Speaker, I should like-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I do not know whether the hon. member is rising on a point of order, but the motion is in order and it is not debatable. Is the member rising on a point of order?


Allen B. Sulatycky: Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to ask the previous speaker, the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), a question.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the motion by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Division
Nesbitt) that this House do now adjourn. All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those against will please say nay.	(


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. Order, please. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I think the situation has been very-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I just wanted to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the minister was not here this afternoon but he is here now.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: On the
point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I think I have a very good parliamentary secretary. I have confidence in him but I understand-


An hon. Member:: Honey for president.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I do not know whether the hon. member for York South wishes to comment on the point, but I might say that I do not consider this a question of privilege unless-


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the minister has answered-


Mr. Korchinski:: The minister will go to the Senate.


David Lewis: The minister's answer on the point of order, Mr. Speaker, entirely misses the point. It may well be-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, there may not be any point of order or any question of privilege, but there is certainly a question of debate involved in what has just been happening. I supported the motion that the House adjourn because it was an attempt-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I wonder if we can have order, please. I recognized the hon. member for Comox-Alberni because I assumed he wanted to continue debate on Bill C-152. I wonder if we can have order, please. If he does intend to do that, I am certainly prepared to recognize him but I prefer that he confine his remarks to the bill before the House at this time.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, had I had the opportunity of making the speech I intended to make this afternoon, I would have said that this bill had been on ice for a long time. I felt that once the ice thawed, it would appear to be a somewhat fishy proposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: What has happened here this afternoon has, I think, underlined the point I intended to make. As far as I am concerned, the members of this House are entitled to hear from the responsible minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am afraid it is now six o'clock. This House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, February 5, 1970