Mr. Bell (Carleion):

Mr. Chairman, I

observe that clause 7 seeks the authority to raise a loan of $2 billion. Would the Solicitor General indicate the necessity for this particular requirement and what this means by way of authorized loan total in appropriation bills which are outstanding.

Mr. Pennell:

Mr. Chairman, as the committee is aware it is customary at the beginning of a new fiscal year to request $1 billion in net new borrowing authority. This bill before you requests $2 billion. The additional amount of $1 billion is being sought at this time to enable the government, if circumstances require it, to borrow substantial sums in terms of foreign currencies. The full amount of this authority may not be required. It is important, however, for the government to have flexibility in its debt management planning and operation.

To assist the committee I would point out that the total borrowing authority authorized annually by parliament in the last few years have been as follows: 1960-61, $1,500 million; 1961-62, $2,000 million; 1962-63, $2,500 million; 1963-64, $2,000 million; 1964-65, $1,750 million; 1965-66, $1,750 million; 1966-67;

$1,750 million.

I respectfully suggest that this bill follows the usual form of the last few years.

Mr. Bell (Carleton):

Mr. Chairman, I merely wish to say that in passing this bill at this time and under these hasty conditions we are not to be taken as concurring in this extended borrowing power.

Mr. Pennell (for the President of the Treasury Board) moved:

Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $1,118,202,797.17, being the aggregate of-

March 27, 1968

Interim Supply

(a) two-twelfths of the total of all of the items set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending the 31st of March, 1969, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament-$1,051,635,522.17;

(b) four-twelfths of the total amount of Atomic Energy item 5 and National Research Council of Canada including the Medical Research Council item 10, (Schedule A) of the said main estimates -$30,666,333.33;

(c) two-twelfths of the total amount of External Affairs item 35 (Schedule B) of the said main estimates-$23,566,666.67;

(d) one-twelfth of the total amount of Office of the Chief Electoral Officer item 1, Consumer and Corporate Affairs item 25, Indian Affairs and Northern Development item 20, Legislation items 5 and 20, and Transport item 30, (Schedule C) of the said main estimates-$12,334,275.00,

-be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending the 31st of March, 1969.

The Chairman:

Shall the resolution carry?

Mr. Knowles:

Mr. Chairman, before this resolution carries I should like once again to say a few words concerning what some of us regard as a very important issue, namely the question of increasing the pensions of retired civil servants. A few minutes ago when the item for the Treasury Board was called I indicated I had something to say but that I would defer my remarks until this point.

[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)

Mr. Chairman, it has been something of a temptation to me today to speak to this matter with cynicism and a sense of utter despair. In fact, I am almost tempted to copy the style of the hon. member for Carleton in respect of some of the things he has said on this issue. I realize, however, that while I could express my outrage and get something off my chest, perhaps that is not the way to get something out of the government opposite. Therefore I shall refrain from that kind of approach and once again make the strongest appeal I can possibly make to the government to deal with this matter before the present session ends.

We already have the assurance that when we rise this evening we will be adjourned, not prorogued, and that when we come back on April 23 we will deal with high priority matters. I recognize that no commitment has yet been made by the government to deal with this matter among others having high priority, but I urge this is of very high priority and that it ought to be dealt with before this session is prorogued, I presume sometime toward the end of April.

I am sure you, Mr. Chairman, representing a constituency in this area, as well as your

colleague who sits to your right, the hon. member for Ottawa East, and your friend to your left, the hon. member for Carleton, as well as others, are aware of the importance of this problem. Indeed, we are terribly aware of how bitterly disappointed some 50,000 or 60,000 federal superannuates, counting retired civil servants, retired R.C.M.P. personnel and retired members of the armed forces, feel because this matter has not been dealt with before now.

I will not take the time to recount the efforts that some of us have made with regard to this matter over 20 years or more, but I do draw attention once again to the fact that the hon. member for Ottawa East tabled on May 8, 1967, a report of a joint committee of both houses on which were representatives of all parties, in which it was unanimously recommended that there be an immediate increase in the pensions of retired civil servants, including civil servants as we know them by that name, retired members of the armed forces and retired R.C.M.P. personnel.

I know it is awfully difficult to document by reference to Hansard the kind of promises that were made to us, but the promises were implicit in the things that were said on the floor of the house, and the promises given to us outside this house were very explicit. This matter was going to be dealt with last summer. Indeed, I was told on several occasions it was going to be dealt with before the end of June. Hon. members know that on July 7 when some of us tried to get the house to stay here to deal with this we lost the vote and we were sent home with the assurance by Liberal members that it was just a matter of waiting until the fall. We came back in September, and I suppose there has not been a week since that some of us have not raised this question, but in vain.

Shortly after the Prime Minister announced his intended resignation I began to urge him to put this matter on his personal priority list as a matter that should be dealt with before he became a retired civil servant himself. Reference was made to this today, and he suggested this gave him a vested interest. I think that hardly applies. The fact of the matter is that on Friday, December 15, 1967, as recorded in Hansard at page 5474 the Prime Minister told me that he hoped to be able to reconsider sympathetically this very difficult problem, and he used these words:

I hope the situation will so improve during the remainder of my period on this side as Prime Minister that this may be possible.

March 27, 1968

Likewise on January 31, 1968, as recorded at page 6207, the Prime Minister assured me that the matter was one of great importance and was continuing to receive consideration. On Friday, February 9, 1968, I again asked the Prime Minister whether there was hope that this matter would be dealt with before he relinquished his office as Prime Minister. His reply to me was, as recorded at page 6558 of Hansard on that day, was "I certainly hope that the situation will improve." Again on Wednesday, March 13, 1968, I asked a similar question, and on page 7586 of Hansard the Prime Minister replied as follows: "Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must never give up hope."

That is a pretty hard admonition to follow in this case, because here we are very close to the end of this session and very close to the end of the present Prime Minister's regime, and nothing has yet been done. Maybe I should accept the fact that there is no hope that anything will be done while the present Prime Minister still occupies that office, but I refuse to do so. I refuse to give up hope.

On Wednesday, March 20, 1968, I asked a similar question. This is the last sentence of the Prime Minister's reply to my question as to whether something would be done before we resume in April, as recorded at page 7863 of Hansard:

We will certainly give the matter consideration and do what we think is right in the circumstances.

That is a pretty ambiguous reply. Doing what is right in the view of the Prime Minister might be doing nothing, but I cannot imagine that the Prime Minister would play with words in that way. Surely when he said "we will" do something he meant something, rather than nothing. 1 call upon the Prime Minister, as did the hon. member for Carleton today, and as several of us have done during the past few weeks, to crown his career as Prime Minister of this country by dealing with this very important matter.

I recognize that it was not possible for the Prime Minister to remain in the house this afternoon, but I am told that the Minister of Industry is here representing the President of the Treasury Board on this matter. I notice other members of the cabinet in attendance as well, and I hope that in spite of their preoccupation during the next couple of weeks with other matters they will in their cabinet discussions face the fact that in all honesty, decency and fairness they must deal with this issue.

Interim Supply

It is not my intention to take the time to go over all the arguments which have been placed on the record time and time again in favour of increasing the pensions of retired civil servants. The figures have been placed in Hansard repeatedly regarding the number of people involved: 30,000 retired civil servants, 15,000 widows of retired civil servants and several thousand in the other two categories. There are also figures on the record showing the huge amounts of money credited to the public service superannuation fund, as well as to the other two funds.

In the case of all three funds, for retired civil servants, for retired R.C.M.P. personnel and for retired armed forces personnel, the interest that is being paid each year on the amount in the funds is by itself greater than the amount that is being paid out in pensions to retired people. It seems to me that there is no argument against the capacity of the government to pay these increased pensions, and I insist that action should be taken now. There are those who resist doing something for these people on the ground that we should not do something for one group of people that we do not do for all. In reply to that I say again that the government has a special responsibility to its own employees, the responsibility of being a good employer. I also say that this business of escalating pensions is an issue facing us in the pension field in respect of which we will have to do something substantial in the next few years, or our whole pension structure will collapse.

I suggest there is no better place for the government to begin the escalation of pensions that have been put in pay than in respect of its own employees. The government has already accepted the principle in part by putting an escalation clause in the Old Age Security Act and in the Canada Pension Plan. I suggest this ought to be done here as well.

[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)

The time is limited and I see two or three others who may wish to get to their feet and support this plea. I hope they will. I hope the hon. member for Carleton will have a few appropriate words to say. I hope the hon. member for Ottawa East will also rise and say something about this matter, because I know how strongly he feels about it. I know he feels as disappointed as I do that the report which we tabled on May 8, 1967, was put on the shelf, only to be covered with dust. I hope that hon. member will use his influence, as a member on the government

March 27, 1968

Interim Supply

side, to press the government to act on this issue.

I said last July, when we were speaking on this matter, that to delay it till the fall was unfair; that many people would not live to receive any benefit that might come later. Many hundreds have died in the meantime, as you will see if you check the figures from one year to the next. These people have not enjoyed the benefit of the proposed increases. This will continue to be the situation unless action is taken.

There is no excuse whatsoever for this delay. I say again that if ever there was an opinion expressed that ought to be recognized, it is the opinion of the special joint committee on the public service of Canada, which represented both houses of parliament and all parties. This committee met for many months-I think it was about a year-dealing with four or five different pieces of legislation. It was thoroughly seized of the problems of the federal public service, and I think the recommendation it made was a well thought out and responsible one.

As I say, I want to leave for others the opportunity to comment on this question if they wish to do so. I hope the Minister of Industry has been taking this in, as the acting President of the Treasury Board today. I am glad to see that the Solicitor General is also present, and the Minister of Labour. We are favoured at this particular time by having in the chamber ministers who are not involved in the leadership race that is taking place. They can attend to good, solid business. I see that the parliamentary secretary to the President of the Treasury Board is here as well. I call on all of them to face up to the seriousness of this issue. Let us not disappoint these people any longer. The government should not any longer have the reputation of being the kind of employer that does not come through with what is deserved, and what these people have a right to expect.

As I have already pointed out, the Prime Minister said to me in reply to one of my questions: The hon. member must never give up hope. Well, Mr. Chairman, I am not giving up hope. I trust that action will be taken before the present Prime Minister leaves office in April. I urge that this be done without fail.

Mr. Richard:

Mr. Chairman, it is perhaps a little late in the day, but I should say a few words on the subject raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. As hon. members know, for the past 20 years I have been

[Mr. Knowles.)

one of those pleading the cause of the retired civil servants. So this problem is not new, and it should have been settled a long time ago.

About two years ago I accepted the chairmanship of the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons which inquired into the public service situation, and more particularly dealt with legislation which was presented to this house. We had a very good and very able committee. There was agreement on all sides. When those bills had been disposed of we were requested to deal with the question of retired civil servants. I agreed to continue as chairman of the committee, not with the hope but with conviction that I was doing a job. I was fully convinced we would prepare a plan that would be accepted in due time by the house.

Hon. members will recall that we made haste in the committee and on the last day, just before the closing of the session, on May 8, 1967, I presented a unanimous report of the committee. I agree that something has to be done in this regard. I hope it can be done before this session is ended. There is absolutely no financial reason why this matter should not be dealt with. It is a small matter in the budget of this country. Figures were presented to our committee which have not been challenged or denied, because they were presented by officials of Treasury Board. The people affected by this delay have been suffering because of the inequitable treatment being afforded them. I am sure I speak for many members of the house when I say that I cannot see how we can delay action any longer.

More and more representations from organizations are being made to me. But what can an ordinary member do at this time, except tell these people that consideration is still being given to the report, which is clear and is not out of line with regard to the possible cost? The implementation of the report would be doing only what this committee decided should be done, at the request of the government.

I am sure there are many cabinet members in agreement with the findings of our committee. The dissidents, or those who have been in the way of progress in regard to this legislation, should rise in their places and tell us all why the legislation should not be put through.

Mr. McCleave:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to make one point and draw to the attention

March 27. 1968

of the Minister of Industry the result of a recent study in the Atlantic provinces. I shall be very brief in so doing. I refer to a study conducted by the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, entitled "Recent Population Trends, Atlantic Provinces". The study was prepared by Arthur C. Parks, the chief economist for APEC. In the foreword of this report we find the following paragraph:

One general conclusion of the examination is that the population of the Atlantic region, relative to other parts of Canada, continues to be rural, rural population accounting for about 46 per cent of the total in 1966. Another general conclusion is that, with a few exceptions, the population of the larger regional communities is growing much less rapidly than is that of larger communities in the rest of the country. Thus the trend to population concentration is not as pronounced as it is elsewhere. A third conclusion is that much of the population movement which might be expected to result in a greater concentration in larger regional communities is a movement out of the region.

I should also like to quote from page 6 of the report as follows:

-in all of Canada urban population rose from 69.6 per cent of total population in 1961 to 73.6 per cent in 1966, and rural population declined from 30.4 per cent to 26.4 per cent. Thus while almost three quarters of Canadian population resided in urban areas in 1966, only a little more than half of the population of the Atlantic provinces was located in urban areas.

So far I have not told the committee the purpose of my putting these two quotations on the record, but I think anybody who has followed the request of Atlantic provinces members will realize that it is rather compelling evidence that the area development and industrial incentive program should be extended to all parts of Atlantic Canada, rather than leaving out the metropolitan areas of Saint John and Fredericton and the metropolitan area of Halifax-Dartmouth which I serve.

[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)

I want to put it on record because the Minister of Industry has turned down requests from Atlantic Canada that the cities be placed within the program, and the APEC study shows quite conclusively that if any real approach is to be made to Atlantic Canadian problems and any desire shown by the government to help build up that area, we must start with the natural growth centres and give them the benefits of the incentive program. As it is now, we frequently find that important industries are leaving Halifax or Saint John and moving out into areas where this program is in existence. I hope

Interim Supply

that the points I have presented this afternoon will commend themselves to the present or the future Minister of Industry-who may perhaps be one and the same gentleman-and to the next Prime Minister of Canada.

I should like to note in conclusion that under the present act the minister has the power to cure the situation with a stroke of the pen.

Mr. McLean (Charlotte):

Mr. Chairman, I have been sitting here two days and two nights trying to get a word in edgeways. I wanted to speak on the fisheries estimates, but due to the agreement to close the debate at four o'clock I could not speak until now.

I want to bring to the attention of the Minister of Fisheries or his parliamentary secretary the fact that the herring reduction industry is now being transferred from the west coast to the east coast and that no conservation measures were introduced on the west coast. Now restrictions have been imposed on the west coast. Herring on the east coast are being fished in great abundance and are being reduced to fish meal and oil and not being used for human consumption. The female herring produces 80,000 eggs each year of which only about 25,000 survive. Spawn herring are being fished in millions and they would produce billions and billions of small fish.

In the bay of Fundy we have an industry which has been there for upwards of 100 years and which has greatly increased its production in the last 25 or 30 years. Its raw material is small herring, and it does business all over the world. No one knows, not even the Department of Fisheries where these small herring originate. All we know is that they originate from the spawn herring. When they come to the bay of Fundy, they come in different sizes each year, so they are not all spawned in the same areas. I think the minister should have sufficient foresight to realize the necessity of protecting the spawning banks and protecting the spawn herring from being fished before they spawn. Otherwise an old established industry may be put out of business.

This industry employs upward of 2,000 people in the summertime, but the reduction plant employs only five or six people because the process is almost wholly automatic. The reduction industry is established in a designated area and it receives subsidies from the government, so that after five years they make a sufficient profit to be able to get out of business. But the established industry must stay on the job. As I said, no one knows

March 27. 1968

Interim Supply

where these herring are spawned, but we do know that it the spawning banks are interfered with we will not be able to get the small fish.

We had an example of this when years ago the spawning bank was protected on the island of Grand Manan, sometimes by British warships. Finally, some people became somewhat greedy and invaded the spawning banks. In a few years time, the herring fishery was exhausted. So we know from experience that if spawning banks and spawn herring are not protected, the industry disappears.

The small herring not only supply the canneries but also supply other fish with food. When you reduce the herring supply, you also reduce food for other ground fish. So naturally the herring fishery affects all fishery. Therefore it is an absolute necessity that the herring fishery be protected. We do not want the industry on the east coast to suffer as did the industry on the west coast as a result of the failure to impose restrictions in time. A number of reduction plants on the east coast are now superfluous. Some of them were subsidized by the federal government. I think the Department of Fisheries should investigate any reduction plant before it is established in the Atlantic provinces to see whether or not it is economical.

Of course the provinces are anxious to get any money that is going, and if the federal government is ready to come forth with aid, the provinces will naturally try to profit from it. However, this matter should be reviewed, and the Department of Fisheries should have some say as to the grants made by the Department of Industry to establish reduction plants. It is very important that the herring industry be protected.

A few years ago I spoke about the clam industry and I outlined what I thought should be done to protect it. However, nothing was done and the department continued in the same old way. Last year the last clam factory in my constituency was torn down. This came about as a result of the lack of attention given to the views of the local people. We do not want this to happen to the herring industry, particularly to the small herring industry which employs a great many people. We will not get the small fish if all the spawn herring are taken away and the spawning banks are left unprotected.

[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)

Mr. Peters:

Mr. Chairman, like the former speaker I wanted to say something on supplementary estimates but owing to the agreement found it impossible to do so. However, I should like to raise the question of gasoline prices and the problem posed by gas and oil distribution across the country.

Mr. Forresiall:

How many more speeches are you going to make?

Mr. Peters:

There will be one more in a few moments, if I hear such comments.

Mr. Forresiall:

How many times were you on your feet during the last two weeks?

Order.

Mr. Peters:

If the junior member for Halifax wants to make a speech he should stand up and make it. If not, let him go and have a smoke or otherwise sit quietly in his seat, in which case he will be appreciated more than he is vocally.

The Minister of Industry, who was previously responsible for the National Energy Board and for energy in general, will recall a number of charges and countercharges having been made about the pricing of gasoline, especially imported gasoline. I have been particularly interested in an inquiry made about two years ago by the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission into gas and oil pricing in northern Ontario. This matter has been raised not only in this house on several occasions but also in the Ontario legislature. There seems to be general agreement that the matter is one mainly for the federal government, I presume for the new consumer affairs department; and incidentally it fits into the same category of problem that was raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway in relation to milk and other commodities.

The problem can be fairly simply stated, Mr. Chairman. It involves what I consider the unfair price of gasoline in northern Ontario. The question affects not only northern Ontario but every other area outside metropolitan areas where the mark-up on gasoline appears to be agreed upon by retailers. These retailers cannot take advantage of bulk buying as do their competitors in other parts.

The Restrictive Trade Practices Commission investigated the cause of a gasoline price war in Toronto in connection with the Texaco Canada Limited service stations of Mr. Edmunds and Wilky's Sales and Service Ltd. The company was supporting the price of the

March 27, 1968

gasoline up to as high as 7J cents. The commission was aware of the arrangement that was made but was unable to do anything about it. It does seem to me that the new consumer affairs department should be able to do something to correct this sort of situation.

I was in Toronto last week and saw cut-rate gasoline advertised at 40.9 cents a gallon. In my particular area, Mr. Chairman, No. 2 gasoline sells for as high as 56 cents a gallon. I checked with my colleague from northern Quebec and he told me that the price in his area was about two cents less, so I presume the difference is the result of the two cent tax recently imposed in Ontario.

It appears from my inquiries, Mr. Chairman, that a tank wagon price is charged from the refineries at Sarnia. In addition there is about one cent a gallon transportation cost to Toronto. The journey to northern Ontario adds about one-third of a cent. This gasoline can be transported by rail for less than one cent a gallon to all parts of northern Ontario and northern Quebec. The charge for shorter journeys would be lower.

I am at a loss to understand why there is as much as a 16 cents spread between these two areas, Mr. Chairman. Although the matter has been investigated no report has been made. I think it is only fair to the service stations to make a report shortly because they are being blamed for a situation over which they have no control. The price to the consumer is governed by the price the service station owner has to pay, not to the company that supplies his gas but to the distributor from whom he is required to purchase it.

This problem has also come before the United States federal trade commission, Mr. Chairman. I have a report before me that was made by what some might call a disreputable magazine, Male, but no doubt the facts are correct. This particular copy is not dated but the report indicates that service stations have been established by the oil companies and made economic serfs. Many citizens do not realize this. I should like to put on the record several paragraphs of this article.

By leasing instead of selling their stations, the oil companies hold the operator in a tight bind. If he refuses to handle unsafe "cheapie" tires or overpriced worthless additives the company is pushing, they can cancel his lease and wipe out his entire private investment in stock and equipment.

Their latest gimmick is to stick the station operator for a large part of the cost of the current give-away games. Standard of California made its dealers buy a specified high quantity of tickets handed out in its cash-on-the-line game-at $12

Interim Supply

per 1,000. And Sun Oil soaked its 9,000 Sunoco dealers two cents for every sunny dollar coupon he handed out. All the various games cost individual station operators hundreds of dollars they can ill afford.

The part-owner of a chain of stations in Detroit recently told a reporter bitterly, ''These games are crammed down our throats. We have to participate or spend all our time explaining why we don't. If we don't play along with the company, up goes our station rent".

A number of the points made by the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission are reported in this magazine. One of them is that the companies build service stations without consultation with the authorities. I think municipalities have some responsibility in this field. They seem to allow service stations to be built almost one next to another. A woman in Kirkland Lake wrote to me that her husband when travelling to work observed in a one mile stretch nine service stations. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that the quantity of gasoline sold in service stations in Kirkland Lake is nowhere near the volume of stations in the United States or in metropolitan Toronto. I think it would be difficult to find any service stations in northern Ontario that sold 300,000 gallons a year, let alone compare those stations with those in Toronto which sell the same quantity in one month.

The investigations that have been conducted have not, in my opinion, been conclusive. However, they have established that gimmicks, give-away programs and stamps add to the cost of the gasoline. In northern Ontario the people are victims of a set of circumstances over which they have no control but which, in my opinion, constitute a very grave abuse of the concessions granted the major oil companies.

As the article in Male points out, the major oil companies are given all kinds of concessions in the United States. However, this magazine should investigate the concessions they receive in Canada. In spite of this, Mr. Chairman, they still fleece the general public by means of unfair practices. As I say, this is one field to which the new consumer affairs department should turn its attention.

[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)

When considering the matter of gasoline prices in northern Ontario and elsewhere we must remember that under the present system gasoline stations are tied to their supplying companies. In northern Canada station operators have to supply their own pits, and their operations are costly in winter; every

March 27, 1968

Interim Supply

time the door opens the heat goes on, and their overhead goes up.

In my home town I saw one ol the greatest swindles in the gasoline business that was ever perpetrated. The distributing company owned by a man called Flemming, I think, over a period of years bought up in the general area each outlet that the Shell Oil Company had been selling to. The distributing company was able to buy the leases, borrow money for mortgages and so on, and when B.P. came along the company sold to B.P. the whole shooting match, making a profit of a million dollars.

Three new service stations were built in New Liskeard, even though the town could not carry two stations originally. Needless to say the three new stations did badly. In fact, one of them now is being used as an office building by the Ontario government. It never could be rented as a service station. The municipality must take some share of the blame for what happened. It wanted business taxes from three new businesses; never mind if other businesses went broke. That was very unfair to those who were already operating gas stations in the town. Owning a gas station there is a risky business.

Since there is a price spread on gasoline of up to 16 cents per gallon between our northern communities and Toronto, it is pretty obvious that the gasoline companies are carrying out restrictive trade practices. That contention is reinforced when one realizes that commercial trucking firms pay about 18 cents a gallon less for their gasoline than orthodox service stations pay their distributors for it. That shows that the entire industry ought to be investigated; the investigation should not be confined to any particular service stations.

It is unfair for service stations to charge motorists in northern Ontario as much as 63 cents a gallon for low grade gasoline. I think the entire matter ought to be looked into by the consumer affairs part of the department. They should develop legislation to protect our motorists from the unfair practices of oil companies, unfair practices which work especially to the detriment of motorists in northern areas.

Mr. Orlikow:

I wish to ask two questions; I hope the Solicitor General can answer one and I think that the Minister of National Defence, who is not here, can at some time answer the other. Both questions are important. My first question was raised on previous occasions by my colleague from Skeena and

[Mr. Peters.)

by the right hon. member for Prince Albert. I also raised this question. The Prime Minister said that a member of the government would make a statement of policy arising out of a case the Supreme Court dealt with, that of Mr. Terence Whitfield. Mr. Whitfield, who worked in northern Canada, was dismissed by the Canadian Marconi Company because, contrary to a clause in his employment contract, he was seeing socially an Eskimo girl. It seems to me, as it seemed to the right hon. member for Prince Albert, that the inclusion of such a clause in an employment contract is contrary to the basic tenets of human and civil rights which the United Nations has endorsed and which this country, I hope, will support.

Such a clause is contrary to the spirit of legislation which the federal and provincial governments have enacted in the field of fair employment and fair accommodation practices. It is against the spirit of the Bill of Rights the former government introduced. Perhaps the minister will make a statement on the matter today.

I hope the Minister of National Defence, who is not here, will take note of the next question I am about to ask and make a statement at the earliest possible opportunity. I have been informed that the Minister of National Defence has written to some, or perhaps all, provincial premiers, informing them that beginning April 1 of this year aircraft of United States strategic air command will begin, as part of their manoeuvres, overflights over Canada and that these will continue for six months. I raise this question because I think we all remember the United States aircraft which crashed off Greenland while carrying hydrogen bombs. The people of Canada have a right to know whether the United States aircraft flying over Canada will be carrying nuclear bombs. If so, has the Canadian government given its approval to such flights?