1966-06-17

COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Jean-Eudes Dube (Resligouche-Mada-waska) presented the second report of the standing committee on external affairs, in both French and English.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. Pit Lessard (Saint Henri) on behalf of Mr. Macaluso (Hamilton West) presented the eighth report, in French and in English, of the standing committee on transport and communications.
[English1
First report of special committee on drug costs and prices-Mr. Harley.
[Note: Text of the foregoing reports appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)


Mr. Ron Basford (Vancouver-Burrard) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-202, to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act (prevention of pollution of navigable waters).
He said: Mr. Speaker, under the Navigable Waters Protection Act the Minister of Transport has power to deal only with wrecks that are a hazard to navigation. This act empowers the minister to deal with wrecks, etc., that pollute navigable waters or constitute a danger to waterfront, marine life and coastal property. This measure is recommended at pages 82 and 83 of the Auditor General's report.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I rise merely for the purpose of securing information from the Minister of Labour in connection with the settlement effected in the threatened Air Canada strike. What is the present position? Has the minister been advised by certain representatives of the union affected that the terms of settlement were not acceptable, and can he say whether the present state of affairs is that the strike is now in a state of suspension or postponement for a few days?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minisier of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, as far as the minister is concerned, he has received no such representations. I have read and heard over the air news comments to that effect. How serious it is, I do not know.


John George Diefenbaker: Has the minister made any inquiry to ascertain whether there is any
basis for the reports?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiflam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. The minister has had a very busy and very successful week, on which I congratulate him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I therefore hesitate to add to his worries. However, on May 24 I asked him a question regarding the longshoremen in Vancouver against whom an injunction was taken for seeking to exercise their right to a statutory holiday on Victoria day, as provided under the Canada labour act. This morning at 10.30 ten longshoremen were to appear in court for exercising this right. I want to ask the minister whether the Department of

June 17, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry Labour intends to intervene in order to protect the men who are seeking to exercise the rights which they were given by this parliament.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I am rather glad this question has been asked, because I have been speaking to Vancouver by telephone on the subject this morning. It is not so much a question of interpretation but whether an order of the court has been obeyed. In my opinion that is not a question for the Minister of Labour, it is a decision for the court or judge who is involved. What representations should be made to the court on that occasion will be for the respective sides to decide, but I understand that it is a straight question of whether an order of the court has been obeyed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister intend to take any action, either in the matter of the regulations or by proposing an amendment to the legislation, to clarify the situation so that men will not be threatened with a jail sentence when they seek to exercise the right which parliament has given them?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: As I said when this question was first asked, I would want to wait until the judge has had a chance to construe this section, as two interpretations may be involved. In my view it is for the court first to decide. Then we will consider whether it will be necessary for the department to take action by amending either the act or the regulations.
1Translation1

OBSERVANCE OF ST. JEAN BAPTISTE DAY On the orders of the day:


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that next Friday, June 24, the house will get a holiday to celebrate St. John the Baptist day, can the Prime Minister tell us if a special manifestation has been arranged to celebrate it with French Canada?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: I do not know of any special arrangements, Mr. Speaker, but I am sure members will want to take notice of this important day. I do myself.
[Mr. Douglas.)



NELSON RIVER-INQUIRY AS TO COMPOSITION OF COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. I have sent him notice, but I think he has just received it. I wish to ask whether any agreement had been reached or any announcement made regarding the composition of the committee studying the Saskatchewan-Nelson river basin.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: This should be announced very soon, Mr. Speaker.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I wish to address the following question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the reported intention of the United Nations to continue its peace keeping operation in Cyprus, is it the intention of the Canadian government to maintain our troops there at the same strength as at present?
My second question is whether any progress has been made in obtaining reimbursement for Canada for the cost of this operation.


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The security council of the United Nations has decided to renew the mandate of the force. I assume that the Secretary General will now invite the participating members to agree to continue to serve in the force. The current mandate ends on June 26. When we have heard from the Secretary General the government will deal with the matter, and then I will make a report to the house. There has been no change in the financial situation.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister undertake to tell the house that determined efforts will be made by the government to obtain some reimbursement for this force? Canada has certainly been carrying more than her share of the load.
June 17, 1966



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: wish to address my question to the Prime Minister. Having in mind the several wage increases which have been granted in various parts of Canada in line with federal mediation, will the government give consideration to the equity of improving the old age pension in Canada by the provision of a bonus to the present pension?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is a question on general policy, and I suggest it cannot be asked at this time.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Ronald Basford: wish to ask the Minister of Fisheries whether he has received a reply from officials of the government of British Columbia, or whether he has anything more to report to the house on the Stellako river situation.


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: I received a reply to the telegram I sent yesterday to the minister of lands, forests and water resources. The reply was to the effect that the department of the Attorney General had been served with a notice of motion for a writ of mandamus to compel our fisheries officer, John Tuyttens, to comply with section 11 of the British Columbia logging order. As the matter is now before the court and constitutional questions may be raised, there is nothing I can add at this time.


Mr. Howard:: May I make a supplementary comment, Mr. Speaker. Is this not like locking the barn door after the horse has been stolen?



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Max Salisman (Waterloo South):: I
should like to address my question to the Minister of National Revenue in his capacity as vice chairman of the Treasury Board. My question is as follows. Has the minister received a communication from the central
Inquiries of the Ministry branch of the Canadian immigration staff association in which they indicate that a critical stage has been reached with regard to employee morale? If he has received such a communication will he indicate what steps he intends to take to remedy the situation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is not an urgent one, and should be placed on the order paper.



INQUIRY AS TO SALARY ADJUSTMENTS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CLASSES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue if he can indicate to the house when he will be making an announcement regarding salary adjustments for administrative support and related classes.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: The latest information I have is that the Civil Service Commission will put recommendations to the Treasury Board about July 15.



COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION OF PENSION OF RETIRED EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. He will recognize that I am trying to be helpful. In view of certain procedural difficulties that we had this morning at the meeting of the joint committee on the public service, will the government consider giving that committee a term of reference from the house which would enable it to discuss the question of adjusting the pensions of retired civil servants?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would have no objection to doing that providing the committee completes the huge amount of work it now has before it in considering four very complicated bills.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is fine; we can do it after we have completed the other bills.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct this question to either the Minister of Transport or the

June 17, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry Prime Minister. What is the status of the government's plan to establish a super transport board to take over the functions of the various boards we have now in this field?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: The government has no such plan. I have indicated publicly, as Minister of Transport, that I am giving some consideration to an idea of this kind, but up to now I have not placed any proposals before the government.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has received a resolution passed by the New Brunswick legislature in favour of the inclusion of areas in the maritime provinces, particularly Fredericton, Saint John, Dartmouth, Halifax, and so on, in the designated area program. If so, and in view of the document that has been put out by the Department of Industry entitled "Doing Business in Canada" and the apparent qualifications of these areas for designation, will the Prime Minister reconsider this matter which has been drawn to the attention of the government on several occasions by various colleagues of mine?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have not, at least as of 10.30 this morning, received any such resolution.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: May I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Industry with respect to this matter. If any new consideration is given to it, will the minister take into account the fact that this new position of Premier Robichaud is directly opposite to the approval he gave formerly in connection with this matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is argumentative.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask the
Prime Minister, however, whether the resolution comes or not, is the government giving reconsideration to what would appear, on the basis of a report put out by the Department of Industry, to be areas that qualify for designation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: These matters are under continuous consideration but I do not believe, in accord with the criteria put forward by the Department of Industry, that these particular areas would qualify.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, and I know he is dying to answer. Will the minister inform the house if the advisory council on science intends to recommend a study of Canadian water resources and their development, prior to any further commitments by the federal government for the export of Canadian water to the United States?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question appears to be of a general nature regarding policy and should not be asked at this time.



UNITED KINGDOM-REFERENCE TO REDUCTION OF GAP

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: have a question for the Prime Minister. Is he in agreement with the statement made in Halifax on Wednesday by the British High Commissioner, Sir Henry Lintott, that a reduction in the almost two to one trade imbalance as between Britain and Canada is in the interests of both countries? If so, what action does he propose to take to strengthen trade relations between Britain and Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question is not acceptable. It is of a very general nature and cannot be put at this time.



GRAIN-INQUIRY AS TO FURTHER SALES TO RUSSIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melforl-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance under v/hose jurisdiction the Canadian Wheat Board falls. Has the minister anything to report on the negotiations that are under way at the present time sponsored by the Canadian Wheat Board and Mr. McNamara, who is in Moscow? Has he anything to report on new deals or sales?
June 17, 1966


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have had reports from Mr. McNamara. The discussions are proceeding very satisfactorily, and I hope there will be an announcement shortly.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Technical Surveys whose competence is recognized everywhere.
Following the statement made yesterday by the president of DOSCO Steel Ltd. to the effect that SIDBEC would be one steel plant too many, can the minister assure the house that, even if the steel complex is not built at Becancour the thermonuclear plant will be erected there?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would ask the hon. member to put that question on the order paper.



PRINCE RUPERT, B.C.-INCREASE IN ELEVATOR CAPACITY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture and ask him whether he is aware that his colleague the minister of northern affairs will be travelling to Prince Rupert in the first few days of July. If so, will the Minister of Agriculture complete his favourable consideration of the Prince Rupert grain elevator extension so the minister of northern affairs can make such announcement when he is there?



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. In view of mounting curiosity, has the minister any information as to how much this extravaganza on Parliament Hill under Sir Tyrone Guthrie will cost the Canadian taxpayer?
Supply-Privy Council


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


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, with my apologies, I thought it might give the Ottawa papers something to chew on for the week end.


Miss LaMarsh:: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member did not mean that he wanted them to chew on me.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the statement by the federal deputy minister of health to the C.M.A. convention in Edmonton to the efEect that the role of the federal government in medicare would be that of banker, and that it has no intention of providing any detail whatever to the provinces for the design of their provincial health plans, could the Prime Minister assure the house that the government has no intention of bringing about any diminution or dilution of the four principles which he enunciated at the federal-provincial conference last July regarding a federal medicare program?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to give that assurance.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.



PRIVY COUNCIL

[Stage Direction]
1. Maintenance and operation of the Prime Minister's residence, $35,000.
[DOT] (11:30 a.m.)
The Chairman:: Shall the item carry?


Mr. Winkler:: May we have a statement from the minister in regard to the stewardship of his responsibilities?


Mr. Starr:: It should not take more than three words.
[Translation1


Mr. Favreau:: Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of making an introductory statement because, first of all, many of the items included in the present estimates have been and still are the subject of discussions in this

June 17, 1966
Supply-Privy Council house. For instance, those concerning The Company of Young Canadians and also the matter of the secretariat of special plans in charge of co-ordinating the various activities in the war against poverty has been the subject of many statements by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson).
As far as other statutes are concerned and which are now under the administrative responsibility of the President of the Privy Council, they will be discussed during consideration of the estimates of other departments. For instance, the problems concerning combines investigations will be discussed on the estimates of the Department of Justice; the matters concerning patents, trade marks, copyrights and corporations will be discussed on the estimates of the Secretary of State.
In the circumstances, I think it is preferable to consider the estimates as such.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, it may be that in bringing up the matter I now wish to talk about I will be out of order. It is difficult to determine under whose administration the matter I wish to raise falls, since generally speaking it comes under general government responsibility. I should like to place my thoughts before the committee in regard to the usual and annual problem that we have in regard to members, staff and office accommodation. An expansion of responsibilities, particularly in light of redistribution, will mean that many members will have a larger work load than they now have. I think the government should consider this problem as I state it.
From time to time ideas have been put forward on how the problems I have referred to can be rectified. Not too many days ago we heard a suggestion from the Minister of Public Works as to how he might endeavour to solve the parking problem. A couple of days ago another hon. member suggested that Parliament Hill be excavated here and there, and that underground parking space be made available.
With respect to members' offices, I know, as does my counterpart on the government side, the difficulties of providing proper accommodation at all times for members, especially as some of them may have greater responsibilities than others. I now suggest that the government consider a plan of constructing more offices on Parliament Hill, and I put this forward only as a suggestion. Perhaps there could be some kind of wraparound structure at the back of the grounds on the

bank of the river. This, I think, could be achieved. I have inquired into this matter and it seems to be feasible to carry out.
By building extra accommodation the government could solve the problem not only of members' offices but also the problems of staff and associated bodies, which have been proliferating over the years. That would provide a greater degree of efficiency with respect to the functions of staff and associated bodies, as those functions affect the House of Commons and its associated responsibilities.


Mr. Prittie:: Mr. Chairman, before I say anything I should like to know whether the President of the Privy Council is going to make a statement concerning the restrictive trade practices commission. When the estimates of the Department of Justice were before the house on March 4 of this year I asked the Minister of Justice whether he would not make a statement on the subject of combines investigation. What the minister stated is contained on page 2214 of Hansard, and I quote:
Mr. Chairman, in answering the hon. gentleman I would say that the Combines Investigation Act falls under the jurisdiction of the President of the Privy Council who I presume will be dealing with those questions.
I should like therefore to ask the President of the Privy Council whether he would not make a statement at the present time.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I have no statement to make about government policy at the present time. I expect that when what the hon. member quoted was said it was thought I should be in a position to make an early statement.
Considerable discussion has been had and is being continued, and a great deal of work is being done to develop government policy, and to develop the organization of a system within the combines branch which will allow for greater efficiency and scope. Nevertheless I inform the committee that I am not in a position now to divulge government plans in this respect, but that I shall soon be in a position to do so. As soon as the matter has been finalized I shall make a statement in the house.


Robert William Prittie: I am disappointed, Mr. Chairman, that the minister has not this statement at the present time. It seems to be one field in which a great deal of study has been going on for a very long time.
I am not going to make the same speech today that I have made on several other
June 17, 1966

occasions. In February I spoke on the subject, and on more than one occasion I have quoted from the minister's speech at Montebello, Quebec, in October, 1964 to the Association of Canadian General Counsel. In that speech he indicated that certain types of approach were being studied. I should like to quote from page 6 of the speech he made at that time:
It would seem that a new and hard look could be given at the present state of our legislation in this domain, and that, without repealing the present laws, we may want to seriously inquire how far and to what extent additional provisions could be enacted, under the federal jurisdiction to regulate trade and commerce. In certain circumstances, it would seem to me appropriate to find ways and means to curb certain practices which it is in the public interest to prevent, but to do so otherwise than by prosecution before the criminal courts.
[DOT] (11:40 a.m.)
That is a very interesting approach. I realize it is a matter that will require a great deal of study because of the trade and commerce provisions of the constitution. Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, it seems ever since I came here in 1962, and more particularly since 1963 when the present government took office, that everything concerning combines has been under study. I would again remind the minister that it is many years since the report of the restrictive trade practices commission concerning tied sales in service stations was submitted. I think it is five years. Surely the draftsmen have had time by now to produce some kind of legislation which would bear examination.
A United States subcommittee in Washington recently held hearings on this subject, in the course of which a Canadian economist gave testimony. I have sent for the official report of those hearings but I have not as yet received it, so I shall have to content myself by quoting from a newspaper account of what our economist said about Canadian anticombine laws. The heading is "Canada Held Tax on Combines" and I am quoting from an article written by Bruce MacDonald, the Washington correspondent for the Globe and Mail. This article appeared on May 30:
Appearing before the Senate anti-trust and monopolies subcommittee, Lawrence Skeoch, professor of economics at Queen's University, contended that the combines branch of the Canadian justice department had to bear a large share of the responsibility for any restrictive practices of foreign subsidiaries in Canada because it had been almost completely inactive in this area.
Without being specific, Dr. Skeoch also said the combines branch had failed to challenge "some recent international mergers which to many informed observers appeared directed more to market control than to improved efficiency."
Supply-Privy Council
His testimony formed part of a series of hearings by the Senate subcommittee to consider the consequences of the growing concentration of world production in the hands of a relatively few, and mostly U.S.-owned, giant international corporations only partially controlled or controllable by national laws.
The report went on to say that Dr. Skeoch had formerly been employed in the combines branch in Ottawa. I am sorry I do not have the verbatim reports of the subcommittee hearings. This appears to be extremely interesting, and I should like to go into the subject in great detail; but it simply underlines what many of us have been saying for many years, that our law in this field is defective.
Last week my hon. friend from Winnipeg North questioned the Minister of Finance concerning reports from the Tariff Board recommending the removal of tariff protection from certain companies which have violated our anti-combines laws. The minister indicated he would take no action because he desired to use whatever tariffs he could as levers in his bargaining with other countries. This misses the point entirely. If we can neither prosecute these companies successfully in the courts nor remove their tariff protection, they are being allowed to get away with what they are doing entirely free of consequences.
Another aspect of this question of combines concerns the cost of living. I do not imagine that monopolistic practices are the sole reason for the present high cost of living; it is a more complicated subject than that. But they could be adding to it. The point is that we have no precise information. There may be many companies in Canada which are holding prices at much higher levels than they ought. This must inevitably add to the cost of living and, if for no other reason, action should be taken in this field without delay.
Ever since I took my seat in this house, when Mr. Chevrier was responsible for this department, we have been hearing that these matters are under study and that reports or statements will be made. Perhaps on this occasion the minister could be more specific. Can he say that legislation will be ready by October, for example? As I said earlier, if we have competent people in the department it seems to me they have had quite enough time to study this field and make up their minds. If their conclusion is that the constitution prevents the government from taking some of the steps which may be necessary, then it might be helpful if we could be told as much.

June 17, 1966
Supply-Privy Council As it is, the years slip by and nothing happens.
Can the minister tell us whether the information or the statement or the legislation he has in mind will be ready by the fall of this year?


Guy Favreau: I cannot promise that legislation will be introduced by a given date. However, I can promise to make a statement on this subject, as I have just undertaken to do. Very shortly I shall have to make in this house a declaration respecting the whole of the government's plans in relation to combines, including the questions within the ambit of the restrictive trade practices commission.


Mr. Rynard:: I should like to speak for a few moments on the pilot program undertaken to advance social and economic development in community affairs. Is this a program designed to study areas of poverty in Canada? Is it intended to discover what the conditions are in certain areas? Is it to be used in conjunction with the Canada assistance legislation? What areas will it cover? This is important, since I understand that the Canada assistance legislation is to be worked out in conjunction with the provinces and it appears to me there is bound to be a considerable degree of overlapping.
If the provinces are to do this work, why initiate a pilot program at an estimated cost of some $2,703,000? I am assuming now that it will not cover areas under provincial jurisdiction; but if it is intended to help the provinces, I would ask the minister whether any arrangements have been made with the provinces regarding the field to be covered. We are likely to have far too much overlapping in this work. Of course if this effort is directed to an area outside provincial jurisdiction it is another matter.


Guy Favreau: May I ask the hon. gentleman to indicate the particular item to which he is referring?


Philip Bernard Rynard: This relates to a pilot program undertaken by volunteers to advance social and economic development in community affairs page 375. Surely this is a provincial matter. The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka brought up this point in the course of his address. This is where we must be very careful to avoid duplication. What will these volunteers study?
[Mr. Prittie.l


Guy Favreau: The hon. gentleman is now referring to the pilot program proposed in relation to The Company of Young Canadians. This program has two facets. First, it concerns research work into matters connected with the orientation of the work of The Company of Young Canadians. Second, it concerns the training of the first 300 volunteers to the force.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I am still not clear how this money is to be spent, and in what way it is intended to investigate social and economic affairs. It is my understanding that these volunteers are interesting themselves in community affairs in order to improve life in those communities and to discover why the people living there find themselves in their present circumstances. If that is the case, has this work been cleared with the provincial governments?
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I do not believe the matter of relative provincial federal jurisdiction is involved here. The Company of Young Canadians will be a group of volunteers whose purposes are as follows. The Company of Young Canadians should be the instrument of the government of Canada to support, encourage and develop programs and activities in the field of social service in Canada and abroad. This company would be based on the provision of volunteers. This program will serve to co-ordinate the activities of those who in the social field will implement the purposes of The Company of Young Canadians. It is my view that co-ordination of the volunteers at the federal level to ensure that they be put to the best use in Canada wherever there is a need for them does not involve a question of conflict between provincial and federal jurisdiction.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the minister for his explanation, but there are still some doubts in my mind. Certainly outside the country this can be covered and done well without any interference. If they are going to stay out of the provinces entirely, then I do not see how they are going to cover much of a field unless they go into the Indian communities and so on where the provincial government does not have jurisdiction. I think the minister should be very clear with regard to what are the areas. I am not going to pursue this because it is obvious it has not been straightened out, although I think it should be.
June 17. 1966

As the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka pointed out last night, we are going to get into a shambles if we have the federal government covering a field with The Company of Young Canadians and the provincial governments covering the same field through their welfare bodies. There will be duplication and confusion. I should like to ask the minister to be sure what the fields are.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, there is just one matter with which I wish to deal very concisely; that is the question of royal commissions. This is a matter of concern to Canadians everywhere. Over the years in this country we have set up royal commissions, as have other governments in the tradition of British parliamentary government. It has been abundantly evident, however, that judges should not be used to preside over royal commissions in which matters of political controversy are of the essence. This became clear during the days of war when the chief justice of Canada, Sir Lyman Duff, was appointed a commissioner to look into the situation in respect of the Hong Kong expedition.
From that date on the general attitude of so many succeeding governments has been that never again should judges be used on commissions of that kind; and in particular that judges of the highest court in Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada, should not have their services used in any way which could result in those judges finding themselves in a position where political considerations become paramount.
I feel this is a matter which deserves the fullest consideration. If democracy is to be preserved we dare not allow the setting up of royal commissions which have essentially the characteristics of state trials. That is what actually happens when matters of political division are to be considered by a royal commission. Indeed I think the time has come for a declaration by the government that henceforth the services of a judge of the highest court of judicature will not again be used on royal commissions, except in so far as those commissions are concerned with matters entirely removed from political connotation.
When I was prime minister I felt, and I am unchanged in this view, that as soon as a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, or a judge of a superior court, has a position of investigation which comprises matters which are the subject of bitter political controversy, that judge, whatever his qualifications may be, not only does harm to the court to which*
Supply-Privy Council he belongs but also to the judicial system to which we give our entire support without qualification.
I believe it is true to say that this is the attitude of the judiciary of the Supreme Court of Canada and has so represented the viewpoint of the members of that court since 1943. Furthermore I believe that not only should there be a declaration that henceforth the judiciary will not be used in connection with commissions of the kind to which I have referred but that consideration should be given to a declaration of rules which would apply to royal commissions. If so-called hearsay evidence were introduced in any inferior court the superior court would set aside any direction, order or conclusion that the inferior court so abused. The body of law, built up over the years, incorporates precedents and principles the observance of which is essential to the preservation of freedom.
[DOT] (12:00 noon)
We accept it as a principle that one should not have to reassert at this time that no person shall be slandered or libelled by pretended judicial process, real or assumed, that hearsay testimony ought not to be accepted and, indeed, that the ordinary principles that govern the rules of evidence should be applicable in a royal commission as in any judicial proceeding.
I am not going to go further at the present time, but I do hope that the minister will be able to say something in this regard. To continue this process will be to destroy the independence of the judiciary in our country. It will erode and undermine the regard which all Canadians have, and substitute the fear that commissions of this kind are not presided over with justice.
We must give consideration to a review of the increasing degree to which reliance is placed on royal commissions. Many have been appointed and effective results have been attained, but in large measure a declaration by the government that henceforth royal commissions shall, as far as possible, not be presided over by justices of the high courts would be a forward step. The only reason we appoint justices, as hon. members of the profession will agree, is to assure that hearsay shall not be placed in testimony and that the ordinary rules that have come down to us through the years as to conduct of proceedings and evidence shall be maintained.

June 17, 1966
Supply-Privy Council
Surely there can be no justification tor having a system whereby the rules of evidence are swept aside, rules that would have to be maintained in a judicial trial. Surely no one is going to say that the fact that a justice is sitting as a royal commissioner gives to him a commission to depart from fundamental principles of freedom which generations of judicial experience and political wisdom have handed down to us.
We must above everything else, as I see it, end any suggestion that the machinery of the state through a royal commission shall be used with impunity against those who prove to be troublesome. All oppositions are troublesome when one is in government. I say this to you, sir, that it will be a forward step for our country if we in this parliament study fully, in a committee to be set up for the purpose, the whole process of royal commissions. Already studies are being commenced by bar associations whose members have been shocked by the degree to which accepted principles with generations of precedent behind them can be brushed aside. For that reason, we in parliament, whose responsibility is mainly to preserve and maintain freedom, I feel sure will agree that from the restrained manner in which I have dealt with this question it will be realized how seriously we, in common with members of the bar and the judiciary across the country, are concerned about developments which would remove, under the guise of a royal commission, basic principles without which freedom could not be maintained.
State trials are of the essence in totalitarian states and we have always prided ourselves that we are not like unto them. Freedom can be lost just as effectively by indifference, neglect and complacency as by design, and with the experience the minister has had as associate deputy minister of justice and as minister of justice I look to him for an assurance that the principles I have enunciated will receive his undivided support.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the right hon. Leader of the Opposition a question if he will permit me. He has objected to Supreme Court judges being appointed to preside over royal commissions which may have political implications. I tend to agree with him, but if we are not to use judges can the hon. gentleman suggest where we should look for persons against whom there could be no charge of political favouritism or bias?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I know the question was asked with the greatest sincerity. All I can say to the hon. gentleman is that, if in Canada we cannot find persons like this, then freedom is indeed in grave danger.


Frank Howard: 

branch was under that department. Further, the history is that at one time the President of the Privy Council was in the public service of Canada as a top official in the Department of Justice under which the combines investigation branch came.
He was also minister of justice for a period of time, and when he had that post he had direct political responsibility for the operations of the combines investigation branch. It is true that some of his time during the period he was minister of justice was taken up with other matters that probably did not allow him to give his full attention to the combines investigation branch, but nevertheless he was minister of justice for a period of time. He is now President of the Privy Council and still had jurisdiction over the operations of the combines investigation branch in so far as ministerial responsibility is concerned.
Therefore for almost the entire period that the President of the Privy Council has been in the cabinet and for a period of time before that he has had some responsibility for or involvement in the operations of the combines investigation branch. Yet the best he can come up with after all these years of activity, interest, study and determination to do something is that he hopes that at some time in the future he can make a declaration about something with respect to the combines investigation branch. If that does not reflect incompetence or mishandling, it certainly reflects .a desire to play down the- importance that the combines investigation branch may have in protecting the rights of individual citizens from encroachment by large financial and corporate interests.
This is not surprising because the minister belongs to a political party that has a record of mishandling the affairs of the combines investigation branch dating back many years to the time when they suppressed the flour milling report, a report which condemned the activities of certain companies in this country whose officers at that time happened to be particularly close friends of the Liberal party. So the government of that day violated completely the requirements of the law which devolved upon them and suppressed and hid a particular report.
More recently, in 1960 when the Combines Investigation Act was last amended to any great extent, it was the Liberal party in opposition which put up a tremendously long and capable battle against the amendments introduced then by the gentleman who is now
Supply-Privy Council the hon. member for Kamloops. It was a sham battle, true; there was nothing sincere or determined about it. It was merely an attempt to show to the general public on the surface at least that the Liberal party in opposition was the defender of the rights of people.
If they were sincere in 1960 both in the house and in the banking and commerce committee which considered the amendments at that time, if there was a modicum of sincerity in their professed desire to protect the rights of people in this nation, one of the first things they would have done when they assumed office would have been to bring in legislation to correct what they claimed were injustices involved in the 1960 amendments introduced by the hon. member for Kamloops who was then minister of justice. But all we have had is a studied effort to forget, the hope that nobody will visit the library and look at Hansard, the indexes and committee reports of that day to find out what the Liberal party said in 1960. Again this is an indication of a desire to talk big and do nothing, reflecting the studied effort, as I said earlier, to suppress any real desire to do something worth while in this section of governmental activities.
We have in the act what I think are pretty antiquated provisions relating to certain unfair trade practices. The primary bad thing that can be done is to conspire to fix prices. It seems that the entire force of the federal government for some years, regardless of which party has been in office, has been directed solely to selecting groups which have conspired to fix prices, taking them to court, seeing that they are found guilty and then asking the court to impose a fine. A fine, Mr. Chairman, in most cases is nothing more than a licence fee to commit criminal acts.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
Some years ago a number of steel companies were fined in the courts for having conspired to fix the price of wire fencing. The Steel Company of Canada was one of the companies found guilty. The fine imposed on that company amounted to one cent for every $12.50 that it made in net profits in that one year. I repeat that the company was only fined one cent out of every $12.50 for having conspired over a period of 20 years to fix prices in the wire fencing field. This is no more a deterrent to criminal activity than a dressing down by a juvenile court judge. It represents a reflection on government action

June 17, 1966
Supply-Privy Council and indicates that it is only concerned about putting up a good front and having a nice guy as minister of justice or a nice guy as president of the Privy Council. The government is hoping that this fagade will lull the Canadian public into thinking it is doing something worth while while in fact all it is doing is substituting words for action.
There has been in this country, especially in recent years, a tremendous development of new economic forces. Our economy has grown beyond the bounds foreseen by economics professors a few years ago. A few large companies have expanded to such a degree that they are in control of a particular industry to the extent that they do not have to engage in price fixing in order to milk the public of every last cent. Some companies have become so massive and so large that they extend their tentacles into many phases of industrial activity both horizontally and vertically in any one industry.
This growth has been ignored by the government. So far as the government is concerned the staggering increases in profits do not mean anything with regard to activities in the combines field. The resulting steady increases in the cost of living are ignored and pushed to one side by the government. A large number of companies and people employed in the service industries are exempted from the Combines Investigation Act. Barbers can conspire to fix the prices of haircuts with complete immunity from prosecution under the act. I use that example to indicate the lowest level of retailing a service to the consumer. On the other end of the scale banks, trust companies, mortgage and insurance companies, companies which practically control the economic wealth of this nation, are able to conspire to fix prices or interest rates whenever they desire to do so because they are immune from prosecution under the act.
One of the effects of massive advertising has been to mislead consumers to the extent that they buy goods which are not what the advertisers claim them to be. We therefore get a rash of shoddy goods pushed on to the consumer and he is pressured into buying goods which are not nearly as good as they should be. This problem is also brushed to one side.
The minister has also ignored the recommendations of a member of his staff, the director of investigation and research under the Combines Investigation Act. In the annual report for the year ended March 31, 1965

the director made some very revealing declarations about the manner in which the government has deprived the combines investigation branch of sufficient staff and refused to let it perform effectively even those functions which it is charged to perform under the Combines Investigation Act, let alone branch out into other fields of inquiry into our economy.
Let me read two or three sentences from the report, some of which has been read to the minister before. I could read page after page from this report in which the same thing is said. On page 72 there is the following:
The shortage of staff for specific investigations has imposed an important limitation on the development of research studies.
This is a statement made by the man who is charged with the responsibility of operating effectively under the act and of applying its provisions to the fullest extent. What he is saying in effect is that they wish to proceed with the development of research studies but they cannot do so because of a shortage of staff.
Are you listening, Mr. Minister, not to me but to what your director has said to you about the effective ways of dealing with this matter? I will read another extract which appears on page 77 under the chapter headed "Staff". It reads as follows:
One of the very practical problems that faces the director and his staff concerns the volume of work to be done and the actual staff available to undertake it.
This is a practical, not a theoretical problem. It is not something which should be done in the future but something that was current at that time and has probably not been changed.
He goes on to say:
It is anticipated that when the staff is brought to full strength-
This was a year or more ago.
-further application for the addition of a substantial number of professional positions will be necessary in view of the very heavy load of work to be undertaken.
Has the minister read that section of the annual report and what has he done about it? Has he said: We will put that to one side because we are too busy with other matters?
June 17, 198S



I will read another extract from page 78 under the title "Progress of Inquiries and Priorities". It reads as follows:
A continuing shortage of qualified professional staff available to undertake the prosecution of enquiries and other enforcement activities has affected the progress of some enquiries.
That is a polite way of saying that they had to put some work to one side because the minister has deprived the branch of sufficient staff. It goes on to say:
In some cases inquiries have been delayed and in others it has meant that the initiation of new inquiries has been limited by the resources which can be made available at the time.
In other words, the director of investigation and research sincerely desires to carry out the intent of the law passed by parliament but is unable to do so because of political interference and reluctance to recognize the facts governing our economy and to give him the staff he needs to carry out the responsibilities assigned to him by this parliament.
I wish to read one more sentence from the paragraph dealing with the progress of inquiries and priorities.
When existing vacancies are filled the director will seek appropriate increases in the establishment of the combines branch as an essential step to enable responsible enforcement of the act.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
These are rather blunt words to be contained in an annual report. If words of that gentleness, that politeness, are contained in a public document, words which are in effect a condemnation of the government for its niggardliness in this field, what was said to the minister privately in discussing the estimates requested by the branch? If Mr. Henry is worth his salt at all, I am sure his words were much stronger than those used in this report.
Not only are the activities of the combines people in this field a sad disappointment but it is also disappointing to listen to successive ministers, some of whom are present, stand up in this house and say: I am relatively new, give me time to study the department, or use other platitudinous phrases that are meaningless. When we find an annual report of the department in effect telling the government and the minister they are not doing their best, then we have an even stronger indictment of the incompetence in dealing with the determined desire of the branch to do something about this important part of our economic activity.
Supply-Privy Council Mr. Winkler: Mr. Chairman, I should like to intervene again for a moment. I am well aware of the fact that the point I have in mind is not the responsibility of the President of the Privy Council, so I am not going to press him about the matter. However, I thought I should like to voice my concern so it would be on the record. I had hoped the Secretary of State for External Affairs would remain in his seat so that he could answer the question I put to him some weeks ago during the question period about a firm of survey people who were brought into southwestern Ontario, into the minister's riding, I understand, on behalf of the Bilingualism and Bilculturalism Commission.
I find that my fears at that time were well founded because there has been a considerable amount of division in the country about the work of this commission. I felt, as a result of information made available to me, that the course adopted merely aggravated the situation that exists in that part of the country. As I said, I do not expect the President of the Privy Council to answer. I shall place a question on the order paper and ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to give me the information I seek. As a matter of fact, knowing the minister for external affairs it would not surprise me if he left the chamber to avoid answering this embarrassing question. I will demand the information from the minister in another way.
[Translation1


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Chairman, before we go into these estimates item by item, I have a few questions to put to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Favreau). As an expenditure of over $4 million is involved, I think we should stop and consider how this money provided by the taxpayers is going to be spent by the department.
First of all, I think we must be living in a century of inquiries, royal or otherwise, because whenever a somewhat difficult question crops up in the house, an inquiry is asked for; when the government is in a tight spot, it sets up an inquiry, whereas if we ask for a definite inquiry, the government lends a deaf ear.
Not very long ago I asked for an investigation in my area about the statement made by a judge who said he was responsible for an amount of $30,000, because everyone was talking about that matter in the region. All kinds of rumours were going around. It was said that this amount was to be used for the

June 17, 1966
Supply-Privy Council election campaign and I found that very hard to believe, but the word was getting around in the whole region and I simply wanted the minister to clear up that matter in order to protect authority in the country, because if a judge ever agreed to dispense election gifts, what would happen to the administration of justice? I have not yet heard a single word about that investigation and I do not know if it is going on now; $30,000 in brand-new bills were found and it certainly is not money saved and put aside through the years. A sum of $30,000 coming out in the midst of the election campaign and with all the rumours going around, that is very disquieting.
It is very disquieting for the administration of justice in our region to let such rumours circulate and that is why I requested an inquiry. It was not to find out if this judge is Liberal or that one a Conservative, or if he worked for this or that party, but only to find out-
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. I think the remarks made by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) concern much more the Department of Justice or the Department of National Revenue, and I do not see how the fact that a judge may have mislaid $30,000 in bank notes can be of interest to the members who are considering the estimates of the Privy Council. The only inquiry that could be held would be under the R.C.M.P. which is no concern whatever of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Favreau).


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: We are precisely on inquiries, Mr. Chairman, the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) mentioned inquiries a while ago and I see here under the heading of administration:
Expenses of the Royal Commission listed in the details-


Auguste Choquette: Will the hon. member permit a question? Has he suggested the appointment of a royal commission of inquiry into the fact that $30,000 have been found?


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Not exactly, Mr. Chairman. I have asked for a royal commission of inquiry on justice, on judges generally, because I object, as the Leader of the Opposition does, to the appointment of judges to preside over royal commissions of inquiry, 50 per cent of which are political inquiries, and in this, I endorse the hon. Leader of the Opposition, because justice should not be involved in politics. This is very dangerous for the population.
I am not speaking from a legal standpoint, for I am not a lawyer, but I hear people talking between themselves, and I hear the population grumbling and I am telling you what the people think. The people want to respect these judges and possibly judges should no longer be appointed to such commissions of inquiry that are half political when they are not entirely so.
Another point is of interest to me. A pilot program is mentioned here. Well, sir, I wish to call your attention to these famous pilot programs, an example of which is the establishment of The Company of Young Canadians. The provinces must have their word to say on these pilot programs.
I understand that the objective might be good, of course; the intention might be good, but the means to the ends are often not desirable. That is obvious if you read the debates on the establishment of The Company of Young Canadians. There is no doubt that the objective of the bill is good but the means to that end are certainly are not desirable from a constitutional point of view.
Care must be taken when the government proposes pilot programs, as they are called, because it is absolutely necessary to protect the autonomy of the provinces. It is not enough to say that we will consult the provinces. No, the bill should stipulate that we will ask the permission of the provinces. Thus the constitutional rights would be respected. But as long as the provinces are only consulted, that is not enough.
Even if The Company of Young Canadians consulted the provincial authorities, it would go its own way and get into any field, especially the social field, which belongs to the provinces and is administered now by each province. At least the province of Quebec, which I know very well, has its own social service, its own social organizations. There is no doubt that if they communicate with the authorities of the province of Quebec, they will certainly be told: We do not need help in that field. I understand that The Company of Young Canadians was established probably to help other weak groups within Canada or in foreign countries but without the express permission of the province-I warn you that we will be very adamant on that point jghen the bill is introduced again in the h' use-The Company of Young Canadians Gwill not be able to do anything in that province. It is the only condition which will make us agree to the bill and, besides, which will1'make us accept all the pilot programs Jit s'uced in this house.

June 17, 1966

We are ready to fight poverty because the objective of all those pilot programs is to try to fight poverty but, while doing that, we must not rob our neighbour. We admit that this fight against poverty is justified, but we also admit that the rights of the provinces must be protected. If those pilot programs limit in any way the rights of a province, I say that we do not have the right to enter those fields which do not concern the federal government at all. To say the truth, we spend half the time of the house working in provincial fields and do not have enough time to solve the federal problems.
I think that the federal government would do a lot better if it worked seriously in fields which come under its own jurisdiction and left the provinces free to do their work. Besides, the repercussions of the pilot programs advocated by the federal government can be felt practically everywhere. I know some federal pilot programs which are only political programs created to find a place for some politicians who worked well for the party. Why not think instead of pilot programs with truly social objectives and free from politics?
If we really want to fight poverty, let us start first by respecting the rights of the individual and then help those in need without any political motive.
[English1


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Chairman, I want to say a very few words with respect to a matter adverted to by the hon. member for Roberval and also by the Leader of the Opposition. I had intended to make more extensive remarks but much of what I had to say has already been put to the committee by these hon. members. I wish to speak about royal commissions, the extent to which judges should be used as chairmen of such bodies, and the use to which royal commissions should be put.
I believe that the judiciary, like Caesar's wife, must be completely beyond reproach. Anybody who has had any connection with the administration of law and has felt the awesome solemnity of the courts will understand that not only is a judge an individual, but he represents the majesty of the people in administering the law whi'. has been enacted both by this parliament ,.nd provincial legislatures. In his capacity as judge he is not merely a former member of the bar or an individual, he is the agent the people who have entrusted to him th dnistration
Supply-Privy Council of the law according to rules which have been laid down over the centuries. Far back in the dim and misty past these laws were handed down. They have been improved upon and entrusted to the judiciary.
I think that we should give the utmost care to the use which is made of judges on royal commissions. There are occasions when it might be useful. One looks back to some of the great royal commissions of the past such as the Rowell-Sirois commission and the Macmillan commission on banking. In our time too there have been some notable royal commissions.
It is also interesting to note that some very useful royal commissions have been headed by those who are not members of the judiciary. I think of the Glassco commission, the Gill commission of inquiry into unemployment insurance, and the MacPherson commission on the railways. Although that commission was originally headed by a former judge, during the greater part of its very useful and active life it was headed by the late M. A. MacPherson, a very great and eminent Canadian recently deceased.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
In his knowledge of railway law and economics and of freight rates and transportation he was unequalled by any person in Canada.
It is desirable and possible in many instances to have royal commissions composed of people who are not members of the bench. If you have a royal commission composed of several members it may be that a judge or former judge, with his experience and knowledge of the law, with his training in distinguishing and discerning the quality of evidence, with his ability to decide what is and what is not correct and to apply the rules of evidence, would perform a very useful and essential function as chairman of that commission. One cannot disregard the possibility that there may be occasions when a judge might be utilized in connection with a royal commission.
Royal commissions, it seems to me, both federally and provincially are a coinage which has been debased in recent years. The purpose of a royal commission is usually to inquire into matters affecting economics which, because of their complexity and because of the length of time it would require to deal with them, could probably not be disposed of as well within the parliamentary system.
6556

June 17, 1966
Supply-Privy Council
It is essential in the parliamentary system that we take sides. In taking sides, as the minister will agree, often more heat is generated than light. A number of issues occur to me, and probably to other hon. members of this committee, that should be taken outside the house-I was going to say outside the sanctuary of the House of Commons-and properly dealt with and disposed of. I refer to inquiries such as those involving the Railway Act, economics, and the Carter royal commission on taxation whose report we are anxiously awaiting.
Apart from that I can think of many federal and provincial royal commissions which have been set up as blinds or detours simply for the purpose of permitting governments either to avoid their responsibilities or to delay and procrastinate in dealing with them. I think this is a prostitution of the concept of royal commissions, and in this sense it is not good. We must have respect for the judiciary and we must have respect for royal commissions as well because of the very useful and essential functions they perform.
I must say, Mr. Chairman, that in the last two or three years I have heard a great deal about people coming to look upon royal commissions as farces and a laughing stock. People say: "This is another tough one for the government. It had a difficult problem to deal with and rather than bring it forward for disposition it has set up a royal commission in the hope that by the time the royal commission reports the urgency of the situation will have evaporated and the matter will have been forgotten."
One has only to look at the numbers of royal commissions set up in the last 10 or 12 years which have inquired and reported back only to have their reports gather dust in the pigeonholes of government offices to find proof of what I say. Other royal commissions have reported and parts of their recommendations have been accepted and others have simply been neglected.
I agree, Mr. Chairman, that it is not incumbent upon the government to carry into effect all the proposals of a royal commission. None the less I think that when a royal commission has presented its report and the government has had adequate opportunity to examine the text of that report the government should say: This much we accept and this much we reject.
It is shocking to see the number of royal commissions and committees of inquiry which

have made their reports and their recommendations have been neither accepted nor rejected. It is shameful to see the waste of millions of dollars and the frustration of the hopes of people who have been interested and concerned in those royal commissions.
I am glad to see that a small committee has been set up-I do not know whether it has been set up under government auspices-to look into commissions. It includes an official of the restrictive trade practices branch. They have a grant from a university for this work but it is very small.
I do not see that this committee will go far but it has a laudable objective and good support. I think the government will have to intervene and supply funds and assistance and it will have to make this a very definite and urgent issue.
I have some suggestions to make based on my experience in appearing as an advocate before a royal commission. During the course of inquiry of the commission I was amazed to find that the commissioners had made certain investigations outside the scope of the evidence given before them and had consulted privately with individuals and corporations but had not seen fit to disclose this information to those who were participating in the proceedings. I found out that the commissioners were perfectly entitled to do this and that the law as it is set up gives them this privilege.
It seems very unusual to have interested people appear before royal commissions, make their representations and present their briefs and suggestions only to find out at some later date that, without regard to the rules of law, the rules of evidence and the rules of propriety and decency, the commissioners have the right under the law to go to other persons and obtain second, third and fourth hand statements on which they may and probably often do base their final recommendations. Bearing all of this in mind, in my view the government ought to say first before any commission is appointed: Is this commission really necessary or can this matter be handled in some other forum?
We have embarked on a trial experiment in the use of parliamentary committees. There are many physical obstacles in the paths of these parliamentary committees that prevent them from fulfilling the role which they can and should fulfil. It is my hope that within certain limitations these parliamentary committees, equipped with expert help and
June 17, 1966

assistance, manned by knowledgeable and well qualified members, might inquire into a large number of matters which heretofore have been subjects dealt with by commissions of inquiry.
The government must first say: Is this royal commission really essential? Is it to deal with matters of fact and of economics which are completely, as they ought to be, as pointed out by both the right hon. Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Roberval, outside the realm of political consideration? The place for politics is in the House of Commons and not outside.
[DOT] (1:00 p.m.)
Also, the terms of reference of any inquiry must to some extent come from parliament. I am not suggesting that the government should relinquish its prerogative in this regard. That is the government's responsibility and I am not suggesting that it should be completely divested of it. But I suggest that parliament and certainly the House of Commons should have some say in the matter and should have the terms of reference brought before it for reasonable debate thereon. This would permit the government to obtain the benefit of the views of members of the House of Commons on the terms of reference. I am confident that had this been done many of the mistakes and errors of the past might have been avoided. If the subject matter to be inquired into by the royal commission is one which should properly be the subject of consideration by such a commission I think it would be so far removed from the realm of political argument that a good discussion would take place in the house as a result of which the government would be able to alter the terms of reference so as best to cover the subject at issue.
In the third place, I suggest we should take a close look at the rules under which royal commissions and committees of inquiry operate. I would not go as far as to say we could take in their entirety the rules of evidence as they apply to criminal courts and say they should be followed by royal commissions. But in order that the commissioners, those who appear before them and the public at large may know precisely the rules and regulations under which these commissions are being conducted, I think the rules should be set down in black and white. This will not be easy, because one cannot restrict a commission as one might wish to restrict a court of law. But rules must be set out to be utilized by these commissions.
Supply-Privy Council
I have heard comments with regard to the absence of power by a commissioner to invoke sanctions for contempt at the present time. It may well be that a commissioner needs authority further so that which he now possesses and this question may have to be considered. But if royal commissions are to continue to play an important part in the life of our country, as seems to be the case, there is need to review the situation, make new rules and avoid a recurrence of the mistakes we have made in the past.
In this sense I would urge the minister, before this debate is completed, to put forward some views to which he may be committed. Let him indicate his own views, if not the views of the government, so that we may know what the policy is likely to be in this regard, i feel it is time for this matter to be considered, probably by a committee of the House of Commons established for this purpose. The committee which is presently working outside the house might be able to assist the government in reaching a sensible conclusion in this regard.


Mr. Brewin:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words on the subject mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Roberval and the hon. member for Peace River.
I think all members of the house share the considerable feeling of disquiet about the subject of royal commissions. I am sure the President of the Privy Council shares this uneasiness for good reasons. It seems to me that some of the suggestions made by the hon. member for Peace River deserve careful consideration.
The present Inquiries Act is most defective. It has been in its present form for a long time. Experience has been accumulating in different jurisdictions, in the various provinces of Canada, in the United Kingdom and in other countries, with regard to commissions of inquiry. While it is true, as the hon. member for Peace River said, that the appointment of commissions may sometimes be a device for evading responsibility, they can, on the other side of the coin, be extremely useful. There are many matters which can be better looked into by commissions, though I share with the hon. member for Peace River the hope that our parliamentary committees will be used to a greater extent than in the past.
Let me give the committee one illustration. A commission composed of distinguished outsiders was appointed to consider the subject of hate literature. But this very matter was

June 17, 1968
Supply-Privy Council also referred to a committee of this house. Unfortunately the committee was not able to report owing to the dissolution of parliament. It was, however, ready to report with proposals for legislation which I venture to suggest were every bit as helpful as the advice from outside. This is not to say we do not need advice from experts outside. But why not invite these experts to tell committees of the house how they propose these problems should be dealt with? I suggest that when the government is considering whether to appoint a royal commission it should ask itself whether the job could not be done as well or better by elected members of the house who are here to do it.
Not only is there a necessity for rules with regard to royal commissions but we also need to consider the scope of the work done by such commissions. I am sure the President of the Privy Council will be sympathetic when I state that commissions of inquiry may be very suitable to inquire into facts. If, for instance, there are allegations of misconduct against members of the government, it is true that the atmosphere of the house and the partisan attitude which we almost necessarily would take would mean that an inquiry into those matters by a committee of the house would be unsuitable. For example, if we were to refer some of these matters to the committee on privileges and elections we could hardly expect the committee to preserve a judicial atmosphere while dealing with them.
I speak with a measure of repentance myself because I have had some small part in these matters. But when questions are referred to commissions, should they not be referred for a clarification of facts rather than for such things as possibly the expression of criticism of the discretional conduct of a minister of the Crown? If the facts are set out in a report, this house can judge them and make the political decision required.
[DOT] (1:10 p.m.)
This is a different thing from asking for a ruling or judicial comment whenever there is a suggestion that a minister has not done his job correctly. I should like to refer to one particular abuse which the Leader of the Opposition mentioned, namely, the reporting of statements given before royal commissions or commissions of inquiry which are purely hearsay in character. What I wish to say differs somewhat from the view taken by the Leader of the Opposition. I understood him to say that commissions of inquiry should be
[Mr. Brewin.l
bound by rules which would prevent them receiving hearsay evidence. I think this would be very dangerous and would unduly limit the usefulness of commissions of inquiry. I do not think they should be bound by rules as strict as those which have evolved in the courts because then their usefulness might be totally destroyed.
Sometimes in the course of these inquiries matters are mentioned which are completely hearsay and are totally irrelevant to the matters being inquired into, because the commissioner cannot stop persons producing documents which may or may not be relevant. If they are totally irrelevant, at the same time are defamatory of the individual and in addition are third or fourth rate evidence, as I have observed in many cases in which I have been involved, then I respectfully submit they should not be made public under any special privilege which attaches to the reports of court proceedings. This privilege should attach only under certain proper limitations. In this regard I should like to refer the President of the Privy Council to Bill C-188, an act to amend the Inquiries Act, which bill will not likely be reached or discussed in the house. It covers one aspect of the subject which has been mentioned and I think it should be given very careful attention.
Before I sit down there is an entirely different matter to which I should like the President of the Privy Council to direct his attention at some stage or other if he intervenes in the debate. This matter has been brought to my attention by the president of the Ottawa Music Festival Association and it has been causing a great deal of concern. There are a very large number of copyright infringements going on at the present time, and I think this is related to some extent to the number of copying machines which are available. According to the president of the Ottawa Music Festival Association it is apparent that this is being carried on to a large extent by people who are unaware of what they are doing. They are able to obtain copying machines and they use these machines to produce textbooks and so on for use by schools and others, without any real understanding that what they are doing is an infringement of the Copyright Act and, to put it bluntly, an unconscious form of stealing.
If the minister who is responsible for these matters has given consideration to this problem, could be bring some publicity to bear so that it will not be necessary for those whose rights are infringed to take action in the
June 17, 1966

courts against churches, schools and other organizations? Perhaps in this way their attention could be drawn to the fact that an infringement of copyright is a serious matter because a copyright is a very valuable piece of property which should not be stolen.
I believe that my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, asked a question the other day and has a motion for the production of papers in respect of the amendment, which so far as I know is still a proposed amendment, to the copyright law in the United States. As the President of the Privy Council will be aware, for many years there have been complaints that the so-called manufacturing clauses in the United States copyright law enable copyright infringements there notwithstanding the fact that this is a sort of international standard. The amendment which has been proposed is described by the Canadian Copyright Institute as introducing permissible plagiarism.
The suggestion has been made to me that as this matter is being dealt with by the government of the United States the question of the application of section 4(2) of the Copyright Act might be taken into account, because I believe the United States is not a signatory to the various Berne conventions but has protection in respect of copyright under subsection 2. This can apply only where the minister certifies that the benefit is on substantially the same basis as that given to its own citizens. If this section were made part of the law of the United States I wonder whether the United States would be giving substantially the same benefits. I doubt that it would be.
I suggest to the minister that some action might be taken to prevent this so-called permissible plagiarism of these manufacturing clauses which are in the legislation of our neighbour and which cause considerable harm to Canadian authors, publishers and printers.
1Translation]


Mr. Allard:: Mr. Chairman, on consideration of the estimates of the Privy Council I am addressing through you the hon. minister responsible for the initiatives concerning federal-provincial relations.
We notice that, after a hundred years, we have become aware that the relations between the central and provincial governments need to be seriously and openly considered. For some years now, and such a practice does not depend solely on the hon. minister or his
Supply-Privy Council government, instead of reviewing the situation and bringing in the required constitutional reforms, so as to define exactly those modern relations between the central and provincial governments, federal-provincial conferences concerning particular points are being held or commissions are created for the conduct of special studies; in short, we notice that the hon. ministers are trying to settle problems arising here and there by means of meetings that we describe as lobbyism, since we, as legislators of this parliament, are not told about them and never know the results that may come from such confidential and secret meetings.
[DOT] (1:20 p.m.)
Well, Mr. Chairman, at the risk of being redundant and repeating frequently the same thing, I take advantage of the presence of the minister responsible for the Privy Council to ask him to allow as soon as possible the House of Commons and the Senate to review the Canadian constitution, in order to have the necessary reforms determined by a joint parliamentary committee.
I think that the fear which can be entertained and which prevents the establishment of that committee is perhaps that the problems are insoluble. I cannot explain in another way that hesitancy or indifference to comply with the request for the creation of a joint parliamentary committee on the constitution which would be supported by most members of the house, if they would state their views on the matter.
I am also convinced that this suggestion would be quite welcome as concerns the honourable members of the other place.
In spite of those provisions, in spite of the implied or explicit wishes expressed by the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) and by many other members of various parties, the present government-and I am not indulging in political partisanship, precisely because of my situation in this house-fails to answer this question and comply with this request, constantly deferring every opportunity to specify these essential reforms.
This is quite urgent, Mr. Chairman. You see, royal commissions have inquired and are still inquiring on all kinds of problems regarding federal-provincial relations and relations among ethnic groups from one province to another. We even have reports of those royal commissions. The first report of the Laurendeau-Dunton commission stresses the urgency of the problem in its findings and states briefly, following long discussions and

June 17, 1966
Supply-Privy Council comments, that Canada is going through a serious crisis originating in Quebec.
It is very easy for some people or some newspapermen to overlook this serious and fully considered finding of commissioners who did a fine job, travelling from Halifax to Vancouver throughout the country, in order to question and hear the views of Canadians about the problems of 1965 and 1966. And in their findings, they tell us: a serious crisis originating in Quebec is impending, because Quebec is not satisfied with the experiment of the Canadian confederation from a constitutional, fiscal, cultural, educational and economic point of view.
When I refer to Quebec, Mr. Chairman, I have no particular political party in mind. Some members should dismiss the thought that when I am speaking of the Quebec government, I am not only referring to the Union Nationale, because I made the same pleas a few weeks and a few months ago when the Quebec government was headed by Hon. Jean Lesage and his team on constitutional questions and on reforms that many people in Quebec and in other provinces, are urgently asking for.
Well, I may be limited, I may have very little and very mediocre brains, but I cannot sincerely understand why the present government should refuse. They would increase their stature in the eyes of millions of Canadians if they agreed to the first step of setting up a parliamentary committee on the Canadian constitution, a joint committee, a large committee with over 25 members, as usual, so that all members or at least a good number could sit on it, and if it is set up, I am here and now asking the povern-ment to accept my request to sit on the committee, because if so many Liberal representatives, so many Conservatives, so many from the Ralliement Creditiste, and so many from the Social Credit members are appointed, I should not like for all that to be left aside. I should like to sit on that committee in order to make my own small contribution, to make sincere suggestions to bring all Canadians closer together and to set down precisely and clearly, an open, definite and clear-sighted, federal-provincial relationship, so that we may stop going about blindfolded as we have been doing for a number of years. In fact, we are now proceeding by disparagement, behind the scenes, by huddles, by commissions of inquiry or by federal-provincial conferences restricted to definite points that in no way settle the over-all problem.

The federal-provincial conference on education has just been postponed because another government has been elected in Quebec. Well, I do not see in what way the preceding government was different from the new one, because all governments follow along the autonomy fines which was always followed under Mercier, Gouin, Taschereau, Duplessis, Sauve, Lesage and the others, as well as under the Union Nationale. Why then a postponement after an election? It leaves a bad impression in the country. A federal-provincial conference on the matter of education is postponed, because of a particular result in a province.
That is very bad from the psychological point of view, Mr. Chairman, very bad. It will be impossible to settle problems and bring Canadians together in a brotherly way, if we always proceed that way, by particular calculations, by occasional diplomatic actions. It would be a good thing if, once and for all, the hon. members of this house and of the Senate had an opportunity to gather around a table and to examine today's problems in the spirit of 1966 or 1967.
For my part, Mr. Chairman, I see two mental habits in this country. We must be realistic. Much as I belong to one mental habit, I respect the mental habit of other Canadians. I respect it fully, and I am ready, with other Canadians who belong to my mental habit to set up a mechanism so that we can, as a country, as the great country that is Canada, pool all our energies to develop our country domestically and economically, and stop quarrelling about details and about indefinite and imprecise constitutional matters concerning joint taxation fields. But there is no desire to get together and define once and for all those fields of taxation.
Well, I for one, am confident that as politicians in this parliament and with all the suggestions which may come from the outside, we will have the necessary courage, an adequate dose of common sense, to sit down honestly around a table, in order to define and rewrite, if you want, the Canadian constitution.
And let there not be confusion over my words. Some speak of a new Canadian constitution; others talk about rewriting or redrafting the Canadian constitution; others talk about amendments. No matter the words used, it is the idea that counts. The interpretation is not always the same in French as it is in English. What has to be done is to arrive at a constitutional text in 1966 which will
June 17, 1966

permit, between all Canadians and the provinces and the particular points of view of Quebec, the establishment of federal-provincial relations which will make Canada and all the provinces work hand in hand in confidence, and not in defiance.
[DOT] (1:30 p.m)
Every two or three months we witness startled indignation on the part of the central government or one of the provinces, for such things as the Northern Territories, underground mining rights, the boundary between Labrador and Newfoundland, and others. Every other month we face constitutional conflicts, tension, misunderstanding and distrust.
But this is not good; surely, we are intelligent enough, in 1966, truly Canadian enough, to solve our problems once and for all. But we must not carry on as we have done in the last few years. We must not be afraid; other countries have done it. They revised their constitution. We must define the responsibilities of the provincial and central governments, define the Canadian characteristics of the two great cultures which is not only an endowment for Canada but makes Canada in the eyes of the world a very special and privileged country. Thanks to its dual aspect, its dual culture, Canada is looked upon with special favour internationally, as well by countries of French culture as of English culture.
That is a Canadian fact. We must be proud of it. On the other hand, if we want to put an end to stepping on each other's toes, to arguments and distrust, we must institute, as soon as possible, a parliamentary committee.
When the legislators in Ottawa have defined their way of thinking, then we can exchange views with the provinces and their specialists on the possibility of a national conference on the constitution. Why could a national conference on the constitution not be held in the fall of 1967? What better crowning-piece could there be to the Centennial of Canada?
I think that a national constitutional conference at that time would be a crowning achievement since it would bring Canadians together through their intelligence and their heart.
I beg the minister to use his influence in the Cabinet and with the Prime Minister. I am not making this request to embarrass the government. I am not afraid because should I
Supply-Privy Council take office, which is impossible since I am the only member of my party, the request I make in the opposition, I would not dare grant.
I find myself in the situation of a free man, a Canadian who wants a final reconciliation between all Canadians, whether they live in Halifax or Vancouver. I am tired of the quibbling which is going on over fiscal, constitutional and cultural matters. I should like to see the energies of all of us, used to develop our beautiful Canada, in the economic, domestic and international fields. If all the Canadian people, from Halifax to Vancouver would go hand in hand, attune their intelligence, look toward the same goal and act according to well established plans, frictions would be eliminated and Canada would be able to make giant strides.
[English!


Max Saltsman: Mr. Chairman, I should like to add to some of the remarks made by my colleagues in regard to the Combines Investigation Act. I think anyone looking at the situation in Canada would almost have to agree that if the Combines Investigation Act, together with the ancillary legislation, was designed to control the growth of combines in this country per se, it has been a failure. It just has not worked. I think it is fairly obvious that it has not controlled combines in Canada and probably has not done so for a number of reasons.
In some instances there are probably excellent arguments why our industries should be bigger rather than smaller and why combinations of industries or groups may actually be beneficial to the economy. Apart from the fact that for one reason or another the legislation itself has not been administered as stringently as it might have been, I suggest that another reason for it not having been given the necessary impetus may spring from the fact that a recognition has arisen over the last few years that perhaps the question of combines is not so much a legal matter as it is an economic problem in this country and should be looked at in this manner.
I suspect that the difficulty with combines is no longer one of whether or not we are going to have combines and mergers in this country. I think the real question is, who shall have the say in the operation of the combines and for whose benefit shall they operate? In other words, are these mergers going to take place simply to enlarge the benefits to the people involved in these industries, or are they going to take place to

June 17, 1966
Supply-Privy Council enhance the competitive position of Canada or improve the products and the price to the consumer?
I suggest that the entire legislative approach to combines is old-fashioned and outmoded and what we need is a new conception of the role of industrial organization in Canada. I also suggest that the proper and better approach to an examination of industrial organization is through a prices review board such as this party has suggested. I think it is very important that we move from the one concept to the other.
It was somewhat encouraging to hear the President of the Privy Council, when speaking to the house the other day on the reorganization of his department, indicate that he is going to be more concerned about the problems facing consumers in this country and will combine in his new department some of the functions that should be carried out under the concept of a consumers' bureau. I hope that when the President of the Privy Council becomes involved in this kind of organization he will not limit the work of his new department to questions of labels on cans, the contents of cans and the providing of accurate information to the consumer. These things are most important and it is not my intention to underestimate their importance, but I would suggest to him that there is an important area in Canada that requires urgent consideration. It is the question of investigating the entire economic and industrial structure of this country as it relates to prices, production and wages.
We are caught in a fantastic trap at the present time. One group argues that wages are pushing up prices; another group argues that prices are dragging wages behind them. I think I know the answer. I do not think wages are responsible for this situation, but I do not believe anyone will be prepared to accept the very brief and casual investigation I have conducted into this subject and say I really have the answer. I believe the answer is to be found and can be found by the kind of professionals who could be obtained for a prices review board if the department instituted such a body. I have introduced a private member's bill to this effect because I am vitally concerned that this new emphasis be given the importance it deserves.
[DOT] (1:40 p.m.)
In my view the present attitude toward combines investigation is completely nonsensical. To some extent I wish this legislation would be scrapped because I think there is a

positively harmful effect on the entire legislation in that it gives the impression that something is actually being done and that the consumer is actually being protected by the existence of this law. I think this is erroneous. I cannot say that no protection whatsoever is being accorded the consumer because there are some very hard-working people in the department who are doing everything possible within the limits of the law at their disposal, their staff and their terms of reference. However, by and large the legislation is simply not protecting the public, and as long as we have this kind of legislation on the books we get a very misleading idea of the protection of consumer interests.
Furthermore, I think this legislation is positively harmful because it inhibits the kind of rationalization which should be taking place in Canadian industry if Canada is to survive as a country. Just this week I received a most interesting paper written by Mr. Ed. Safarian and presented to the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association in Sherbrooke, Quebec, on June 8.
I saw Mr. Safarian when I was out west at the Consumer Credit Conference held at the University of Saskatchewan and he indicated to me at that time that he was doing some investigation into the problem of United States ownership in Canada and how it affects us. I asked him to send me a copy of his paper and I am very grateful to him for doing so. In his paper he has reached a number of conclusions concerning the effect of U.S. ownership in Canada and in particular on the executive composition of companies. He has investigated the matter in terms of imports and exports. I think that the most significant conclusion he came to was that the problem is not so much United States ownership as the small size of our industry which has to compete in international markets and also the large range of products which these small industries are trying to produce in competition with the giant to the south, Germany, Britain and other countries. He points out that the Canadian market is almost large enough to support a fully efficient operation if sufficient specialization is allowed to take place within industry.
My own feeling is that one of the difficulties with foreign ownership, and perhaps the only difficulty, is the problem of trying to get the industry to rationalize its situation while perhaps its chief interest in coming to Canada is to acquire a foothold for the parent company. This is a serious difficulty which extends
June 17, 1966	COMMONS
not only to the branch plants of United States and other countries' industries established in Canada but also to the nature of our own Canadian industry.
I have been in business myself and I am very sympathetic toward the small businessman. I believe the small businessman has a great role to play in Canada and always will have. He can provide very specialized and personal services that large companies cannot. In that sense he can be very competitive. However, I also suggest that at the present time there are industries in Canada trying to manufacture products on such a scale that it ceases to make economic sense. Too many of such companies are scattered throughout the entire country. This may affect the consumer in the form of higher prices. I am not saying these companies or industries are deliberately encouraging higher prices or inefficiency, but they are caught in a trap of excessive competition. That is why I say that if we have any legislation in this country which prevents or inhibits the rational organization and development of industries which require this so as to become more competitive and better able to buy the kind of machinery and equipment they need in order to compete in world markets, then that legislation should be given another look.
I also think the government should examine the question of tariffs rather than approach this problem through the Combines Investigation Act, which is a cops and robbers approach. I believe this was pointed out in the MacQuarrie Commission Report in which a number of suggestions were made. One of them was that the way to police an otherwise difficult problem is not by throwing in an army of government inspectors but by lifting the tariff protection which enables companies to abuse their position, if such abuse is taking place, and to submit them to international and world competition. There are arguments for retaining the tariff under certain circumstances. I am not making a blanket condemnation of tariffs as an instrument of national policy but I think this instrument has to be used wisely and it should be one of the tools of a department concerned about protecting the consumer and the rationalization and organization of our industry.
Perhaps some of the comments I am making in this debate could be made with equal validity with regard to the Department of Industry. However, since we are talking about the combines act I will try to relate my
DEBATES	6563
Supply-Privy Council remarks to the problems of combines investigation. It is becoming obvious that other countries in the world, despite the advantage that many of them already have in terms of manufactured goods, are relaxing their combines laws. I was very interested to see that a study has been conducted in Australia of legislation for the control of restrictive trade practices and monopolies, which is far less stringent and oriented more toward the economic rather than the legal aspects of the situation than our legislation. I think this is the inherent weakness of our combines legislation. We have taken a legalistic rather than an economic attitude toward combines.
The MacQuarrie Commission pointed out in its report the great necessity for research under the Combines Investigation Act. I am sorry I do not have the report with me so as to quote from it correctly but from my recollection it indicates that a far wider range of research is necessary than is now being conducted by the department.
I know the department has conducted research into tires, batteries and accessories and service station gas sales and it has conducted smaller specific research into other matters, but I am speaking of research into the economic problems faced by Canadians. I think the department should study marketing and consumer products and consider the idea that unrestricted and untrammeled competition really helps the consumer.
I directed a question to the minister the other day and either I caught him unawares or else he was unable to give me an adequate answer because he had to think on the spur of the moment. It is possible that the minister may not have been tremendously impressed with the importance of the question I asked him because he responded by saying that all due consideration will be given to it. From my short experience here I am inclined to believe that this kind of stock answer does not bode very well for my question.
[DOT] (1:50 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: What was the question?


Max Saltsman: I ask the minister not to treat the question too lightly because it is a serious one.


John George Diefenbaker: What was the question?


Max Saltsman: I am glad to learn that there is such great interest in my question, so I will read it.

June 17, 1966
Supply-Privy Council


John George Diefenbaker: It is so seldom we do not get an answer from the government that I just wondered what the question was.


Max Saltsman: I appreciate the hon. gentleman's interest and I am sure the minister will probably have his interest reawakened. I repeat the question:
In view of the widespread discontent over the pricing and sales policies of gasoline companies in many parts of the country, and in view of the recent report of the royal commission on gasoline price structure in the province of British Columbia indicating the existence of unfair trade practices, would the minister not give serious consideration to conducting an immediate investigation under the Combines Investigation Act into the pricing, marketing and production practices of the oil and gasoline products industry?
The key to my interest in this subject is contained in the words "pricing, marketing and production". It will not be enough for this department to conduct a limited t.b.a. investigation. I am asking the minister for an investigation to be conducted into the entire policy of the oil industry in Canada, not only as it affects service stations and consumers but as it affects our balance of payments problem and the capitalization of the industry. There are many things going on in that industry which need investigation. I do not pretend to be an expert on the oil industry but it is my opinion, as a result of the things that come to my attention by reading reports and the newspapers, that this industry has been overcapitalized. Charges have been made that a very foolish thing has been done.
We have attracted a tremendous amount of capital from the United States in this field on which we now have to pay interest and dividends, which is natural. The interest and dividends are almost equivalent to our dollar exports to the United States. Where is the economic sense in this kind of arrangement? These companies, it seems, are guilty of collusion in one aspect of their operations and then they compete in another aspect of their operations. Perhaps their collusion is more beneficial to the country than their competition because the competition which results in the building of a great many service stations only prevents the operators from making a living and increases costs which the public are obliged to pay in the form of higher prices.
It is my impression that gasoline is cheaper in many countries of Europe which do not possess their own sources of oil. I am talking about the price of gasoline less the tax. I believe the total price of gasoline is higher but gasoline is available at lower prices in

Europe than in Canada were we believe ourselves to be blessed with this great national resource.
What has become of this great national resource? To what extent has the consumer benefited from it? To what extent has the country benefited from the discovery of oil in this country? These are the questions that ought to be answered. These are the reasons we need broader remedies than just the narrow cops and robbers concept. We are not just trying to find out whether some little guy is guilty of something. This is not good enough, because that era has passed. You know, we have remedies against combinations that we have been somewhat frightened to use.
I was interested in reading one of the reports of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission relating to collusion between cement contractors in the city of Windsor. Apparently four cement contractors submitted identical bids to the city of Windsor and suspicion arose that perhaps this was more than a coincidence. I do not know what action the government is going to take and I really do not care what the federal government does about this situation. I believe that the city of Windsor has an alternative open to it which would be far more effective than any prosecution the government of Canada can undertake. If I were an alderman in the city of Windsor I would suggest that the city go into the concrete mixing business. Then we would see how long prices stayed at that level.
There are alternatives open to us. I believe these alternatives are open to the Canadian people. I think some industries are going to be monopolistic and some oligopolistic-I think that is the word. There is something we can do about them and there is something the government can do about them. The government can supervise them. I do not mean going in and telling them how to run their businesses or prosecuting them. I believe these industries should be aware of the fact that if they abuse their position in the market place, if they do not conduct their business in a manner that is in the best interests of the public, they could have the government as their competitor. I believe a statement of that type would not have to be acted upon because the message would be loud and clear.
My argument is basically that we need a new approach. The old approach just is not good enough. It is not doing the job, it is not solving the problem. In some ways it is
June 17, 1966

detrimental in that it hinders the kind of logical development that should be taking place. It hinders the ability of Canadian industries sometimes to form units of production which are of a sufficient scale to make us competitive in world markets.
I should like to read from a report on business in the Globe and Mail of June 8, 1966. The dateline is Montreal and it reads:
Canada's combines legislation amounts to little more than a haphazard and arbitrary meddling with the forces of competition.
This is a statement by Professor L. A. Skeoch of the economics department of Queen's University. I continue quoting from the article:
He told the annual meeting of the Canadian Manufacturers Association that confusion, contradiction and short-run expediency are the terms most accurately describing the legislation.
What is needed, he said, is a basic change that will bring a consistent approach in this area.
"Furthermore, the approach should be one which favours adaptability, flexibility and venturesome behaviour rather than caution, restraint and defence of the status quo. Such an approach must go beyond the traditional negative commandments of the combines legislation to include positive programs to aid and speed the process of economic adjustment."


Frank Howard: Hear, hear.


Max Saltsman: I did not make that speech, I just read it.


Frank Howard: I know. That is why I was applauding.


Max Saltsman: Some hon. members have been wondering what happened to my hair during the last week. I might point out to the hon. member for Skeena that my barber probably read the speech he made and when he got me in the chair he took advantage of the situation.


An hon. Member:: Go and see your doctor.


Max Saltsman: We will see a doctor after the government introduces medicare. In the report which came out of the inquiry into drug prices it was pointed out that one of the reasons for the high price of drugs in Canada was the size of the Canadian market. I quote from a newspaper article:
Mr. MacEachen said he believes a major factor in the cost of drugs Is the size of the Canadian market.
[DOT] (2:00 p.m.)
We understand that manufacturers generally produce smaller batches in Canada than they do in the United States, while the cost of quality control is approximately the same. This naturally increases costs.
Supply-Privy Council
He takes the attitude that the market is too small. I submit that a nation of 20 million people is not a small market. It is not that the market is too small; it is that the kind of industrial organization we have in Canada produces inefficiencies which have to be corrected.
In one sense what I advocate, reduction in control and perhaps less concern for monopolies and combines, is a very dangerous proposition. I want to make one reservation, however, so that my position can be clearly understood. I think that unless we have a prices review board such as our party has been advocating for so long, the legislation, as ineffective, inefficient and inhibiting as it may be, must remain. If we are going to provide the kind of freedom which I think industry in Canada needs, we will also have to bring in its corollary, a prices review board, to see that this freedom is not abused.
I believe that such a procedure would require a minimum amount of government control. As I have said before, I am far more interested in public information about what is taking place in Canada than I am in public control. I have enough faith in the public to think that if they know what the facts are their influence and their force will be felt both in the marketplace and in the political arenas. The difficulty has been that we have tended to substitute inadequate legislation and enforcement for public information. The time has arrived when we must provide the maximum public information to the people involved and then depend on the real marketplace forces to ensure that the system operates properly.
In concluding, Mr. Chairman, may I repeat the main burden of my argument, which is that the present legislation is outmoded. It is important to consider a completely new type of legislation, specifically legislation that deals with protection of the consumer and a prices review board to provide complete and absolute information for the public.


Mr. Bigg:: Mr. Chairman, the wartime
prices and trade board was set up to make sure that when the nation was up against the wall and could not afford competition in times of high prices, prices would be kept stable. During the war, of course, it was easy to corner the market due to lack of free, international trade. Under this board there was a five or six year peace period in this field.

June 17, 1966
Supply-Privy Council
I should not like to see the wartime prices and trade board reinstituted in peacetime but on the other hand I think that the public have been gouged over the last 25 years and perhaps the combines machinery which attempts to prevent this problem needs a complete overhaul.
I am not going to mention cases, Mr. Chairman, because I do not think this is the proper place to do so, but there were one or two cases of large companies which were investigated by the Mounted Police some 10 or 15 years ago. In my opinion the $25,000 fine imposed at that time amounted to nothing more than a licence to combine. It seems to me that if we are to have anti-combines legislation at all, the courts handling these cases must be almost unlimited in their power to impose penalties.
I do not know why drug or glass companies should be prosecuted while oil companies, for example, are not. Although we know how difficult it is to bring the great international combines before a Canadian court, nevertheless I believe that sometimes their subsidiaries might well be brought to court in cases where there is reason to believe they are combining to the prejudice of the public by charging the consumer prices which have no bearing on the ability to produce oil and petroleum products in this country.
I do not think it is necessary to go into competition by producing oil under government control but I think that some sort of consumers bureau might well be set up. When the proper officials and the minister in charge of such a bureau feel that there is evidence to show that the consumers of Canada are being subjected to combines tactics, such combines should be brought before the courts and a penalty imposed which would be conducive to better trade practices. As I said before, and I think it is worth repeating, I do not believe that a $25,000 fine imposed upon the great glass combines or the big drug combines or oil combines is in the nature of a restrictive penalty at all. Such a penalty is nothing more than a licence to combine. It is quite possible that such a company would recover its $25,000 in a very few weeks simply by raising the prices of its products by one cent. In cases where there is no competition this becomes increasingly the case.
I do not know the details of the cost of producing drugs in Canada but it seems passing strange-and I am aware of this from 
one instance of personal experience-that certain pills can be bought by doctors for 1 cent apiece but are sold to consumers at anywhere from 2 cents to 40 cents apiece. If you happen to have the right outlet these pills can be purchased for 2 cents, 4 cents, 8 cents, 16 cents, 32 cents or 40 cents. Whatever the price the product is exactly the same.
In this regard one drug I could mention is what the layman calls "Orinace". These are pills which diabetics take and they cost the unsuspecting consumer 40 cents apiece. To my knowledge, Mr. Chairman, they are sold to a physician or to a drugstore for a cent apiece. It seems to me that a spread of 40 cents for something which is absolutely essential to some people for the maintenance of life is a form of price fixing or combining which should immediately receive the closest attention.
The present machinery for preventing combines is the Combines Investigation Act, though there are criminal implications. The same rules, for example, apply in the production of evidence. The only way in which evidence can be obtained to prosecute one of these combines is through the use of the law of conspiracy and the law of conspiracy is not a law which democratic people like.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
If you put the responsibility for prosecuting on the shoulders of the Mounted Police you know what happens. That body is concerned with preventing breaches of the Criminal Code. When the R.C.M.P. have to be used as prosecutors, complainants and even in many cases as advocates in trying to enforce a law which is ineffective and obscure, then I do not think that kind of law should remain on the statute books. We should change it and make it effective or else do away with pretence entirely. I do not think it is the wish of the people of Canada, and particularly of this house, to have on the statute books a law under which the penalties are nothing more than a licence to combine.
The agricultural industry I feel is severely hurt by the prices of farm machinery as determined by combines. Numerous boards from time to time have been set up to look into prices of farm machinery. They have nearly always come up with the answer that everything is being done that is necessary and that we are getting co-operation in this country from the farm machinery companies. We have tried to change the tariff laws to bring about competition. As a matter of fact, most of our farm machinery companies are
June 17, 1966

[DOT]either United States owned or their prices are very closely tied with United States prices. I *do not think the price of machinery varies $50 one way or the other between Canada and the United States.
Farm machinery is essential to the welfare [DOT]of western Canada. If the price of farm machinery keeps rising the small farmer will be squeezed out and then we will have combines in the agricultural industry. We are losing 70,000 farmers a year. Goodness knows for how long we can keep up that rate. We shall have no farm population left before long and combines will move into farming. The villages of western Canada will be depopulated and we shall have problems on our hands with people from the farms filling the cities because there is nowhere for those people to go even with the boom conditions that are said to exist at the present time.
I think combining with respect to prices has added more to inflation than anything else in Canada today. Instead of competing against one another the big companies set prices. As pointed out by the hon. member for Waterloo South, you find oil companies building service stations across the country and the rentals being paid by the small operators are passed on directly to the consumer. The companies do not care how many service stations are built across Canada because it is we, the consumers, who pay for them. If we do not pay for them in the gasoline sold to us, then we pay for them in the extra charges that the service station operator is forced to apply every time a car is repaired or repainted or when tires are changed and so on.
I know of no way to protect the profits of labour when construction companies and cement companies combine to put up the price to municipalities for laying sidewalks or paving roads. One would hope that some of the profit would be passed on to the man who drove the little truck and took the subcontract. That is not so. Even where there is competition you will find that the subcontractor has absorbed the whole amount of the cut in the contract price. Often the subcontractor has to pretend he is taking a fair price to deliver gravel or spread cement, and often he has to falsify his accounts showing how much money he has paid to the little man at the bottom because in cases of very severe competition the little man at the bottom is forced to subsidize the small contractor in order to have any job.
Supply-Privy Council
I think that the combines legislation should be reconsidered. It should have an economic basis and should be designed for the welfare of the Canadian public. Also, some kind of consumers bureau reporting to the minister ought to be set up. If the minister, on advice, considered that a flagrant breach of the law had occurred he could recommend that proper charges be laid under a revised statute. Again, I think that the imposition of penalties ought to be in direct proportion to the amount of damage done to the public. The penalties should leave no doubt in the minds of the companies involved that the federal act has teeth in it which can result in severe monetary penalties.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the item carry?


Guy Favreau: Carried.


John George Diefenbaker: We want an answer from the minister first, Mr. Chairman.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I should like to answer certain of the speeches made in this committee on my estimates but I thought the committee might prefer to carry vote No. 1. I would prefer to be allowed to speak.
[Translation1
Mr. Chairman, I must thank all the members for the interest they have shown at the stage of the first item of the estimates for various phases and areas of government affairs under my responsibility.
I know that even such remarks as may appear critical, are made with the utmost sincerity and for me, I consider them all to be honest attempts to present the government with suggestions that, in the opinion of the speakers, are worth making.
Two main points have been brought out in this debate. First, mention was made of the administration, the implementation and the possible amendment of the Combines Investigation Act and second, on the part of several hon. members of this house, the development of a policy that might be different as to the appointment of chairmen of royal commissions, to which some members related certain remarks on the efficiency of the act or lack thereof, and on the need to amend the Combines Investigations Act.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
Also, the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) brought up certain questions concerning federal-provincial relations.
The member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), in addition to other remarks on other subjects, said just a word on the Copyright Act.

June 17. 1966
Supply-Privy Council Since there was only a word about this, I shall take it upon myself to inform the house, as minister responsible for the application of the Patent Act and as a former member of the royal commission that inquired into the matter of patents, as well as copyright and trade marks, that this is a question I have had the opportunity of going into and I am aware of the abuses that may be made of the copyright which is the ownership of creative works of others through photocopying machines and other similar modern apparatus. It is obvious that the consideration now being given to the copyright-I said a while ago that the hon. member had mentioned the Patent Act, reference, of course, is to the Copyright Act-is taking this into account.
On the Combines Investigation Act, I repeat that the house should not be under the impression-and no one is entitled to give such an impression-that work now being carried out is being done at a slow pace. I said that as soon as we conclude the very long discussions that my staff and myself, as well as the ministers and the staffs of some other departments have had and are having, I shall shortly be in a position to inform the house of the decisions finally arrived at by the government on the need to review the Combines Investigation Act. We are considering and completing a study of the best and most efficient methods of achieving this purpose.
It has been suggested earlier that the concept one should have of the Combines Investigation Act should be less legalistic, if I may use this term, than economic. That the government is aware of the extemely significant economic role of our entire system of combines investigation, of inquiry into and control of restrictive trade practices is evidenced by the fact that the new legislation providing for the establishment of the Department of the Registrar General will precisely entrust all administration, inquiry and research work related to combines investigation with a department, the responsibilites of which are judicial, of course, in some respects, but mostly economic.
This department will, in an orderly manner and within the framework of the Canadian economic policies of 1966 and the future, look after the enforcement of all these acts consistently and in accordance with the present economic policies of the government.
The member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) mentioned earlier the report submitted by the director of combines investigation and research for 1965, in which he clearly indicates

that the administration of the act is subject to restrictions due to a shortage of personnel in the past and still today. He attempted to interpret the words of the director of investigation and research as blaming the minister and the government of the day; I think he is aware, as I am, that such is not the case. It is just the opposite.
He spoke of government interference with the enforcement and administration of the act in an attempt to restrain its effects. That the director of investigation and research feels quite free to make public certain deficiencies with regard to staff organization and other factors clearly proves that he has a free hand in his administration; he is far from suggesting that some interference might possibly restrain his action. This goes to prove that he is enjoying complete freedom of action.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.) tEnglish1


Frank Howard: I rise on a point of order. The minister is misquoting what I said. I did not say the government had interfered with the activities of the director or his staff. I said they had stifled potential activities by failure to provide the necessary staff. I did not say the government had interfered directly with the activities of the branch but that it had limited those activities by withholding funds.


Guy Favreau: I am glad if I have misinterpreted the words of the member for Skeena; I am sorry to have put into his mouth words he claims not to have said, because I am quite sure he mentioned "curbing" the application of the act, which I thought meant some interference designed to overly restrict the action of officials.
With reference to the director of investigation and research, I must say that, recently, within the framework of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, further proof was given of the confidence placed by other countries in the interest shown by Canada to all matters dealing with the control of restrictive trade practices, as well as in the competence of Canadian officials, through the appointment of our director of investigation and research, Mr. David Henry, as chairman of the committee of experts in restrictive trade practices of that organization.
It is a well deserved mark of trust and admiration, and I say that all other members of my staff working on the administration of the Combines Investigation Act are worthy
June 17. 1966

of the same praise and the same thanks for the competent way in which they fulfil their task.
But what the director wished to emphasize clearly in his report was precisely that Canadians should be shown the importance of implementing with the utmost energy the Combines Investigation Act, and told that all necessary measures should be taken to secure as adequate and as complete a staff as possible. I should say that, to this end, a large scale examination has been held the results of which are already being quite sensibly felt. But on the other hand, I must say that although a larger senior and intermediate staff has already been hired, we are nevertheless maintaining our efforts in this direction and we hope to reach a point where a sufficient number of people from the outside will have been sold on joining the department to enable us to implement all the projects we have in mind. But the Office of Investigation and Research, in spite of the somewhat limited staff available, has to date, surely accomplished a tremendous amount of work during the past years. It is well known that due to business development, industrialization, the number of investigations required has increased considerably and it is surprising that, in spite of all the work now being done within the Office of Investigation and Research, such a large scale investigation as that now being carried out on the trusts, or, if you will, the mergers, the regrouping of industries and trades, would have been undertaken.
I am told this survey is the most important ever undertaken by the investigation and research branch since its inception. To mention but one instance, in February 1966, with a staff of only 26 civil servants, 109 files were opened and 51 investigations are in progress; 14 other lesser investigations, shall we say, of a preliminary nature, are also under way.
I said a while ago that the government is aware of the need to consider the administration of combines investigations according to the economic needs of the country and also according to the particular needs of consumers. In this regard, I would point out that the government has asked the Economic Council to undertake an extensive survey of the relationship between prices, costs, productivity and income, with a view to defining means of maintaining our economic growth.
Second, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) recently advised the members in this house that he had asked the Economic Council to
Supply-Privy Council make a survey to determine in which sectors federal intervention might prove useful to the consumers, the extent to which it should be done and the means of doing it. This proves that the government is well aware of the perspectives in which our Combines Investigations Act should be applied, as well as of its role with regard to the consumers.
The need to revise and re-examine more closely the said act was discussed earlier, especially when my estimates were first brought up. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), with the obvious intention of proving to be objective, and with great moderation, suggested that the government define a new policy in this field.
In this connection, I must say that I do not intend to start a debate on the advisability of changing the government policy followed for many years in connection with the appointment of chairmen and members of royal commissions. This is not my responsibility. If some royal commissions are included in my estimates, it is not because I am responsible, as President of the Privy Council, for their work and even less for the appointment of commissioners and the procedure related thereto, but the votes of those commissions reporting to the government and to the Prime Minister are included in the estimates of the Privy Council for purely administrative and financial reasons.
It is clear that the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition and by other hon. members, namely those for Peace River and Greenwood (Messrs. Baldwin and Brewin) will have to be studied seriously. However, I can say that, as a member of the bar and as a citizen, I fully agree with the remarks made about the need, in any case, to review, reconsider and revise the Canadian Investigation Act. It is clear that it does not give enough directives.
Second, as mentioned earlier by the hon. member for Greenwood, even if enough scope must be left the commissioners, more rigid standards could probably be imposed and, third, some procedures which do not exist at present in the act and which are not available to the commissioners should be included, in order to make the commissioners' work more flexible and above all more efficient.
I think I will not say more on this matter. I repeat that, as President of the Privy Council, I am not responsible for the appointment of the commissioners, and it will be easily understood that if any government policy is to

June 17, 1966
Supply-Privy Council be elaborated, it is not for me to announce it without consulting my colleagues.
With regard to the remarks made by the hon. member for Sherbrooke about the federal-provincial conferences and the advisability to create a committee of the house or a joint committee of the house and the senate to examine the constitution as a whole or some aspects of constitutional questions, he recalled, in other words and in another way, a very important suggestion previously made in the house by the hon. member for Greenwood as well as by other hon. members, namely the hon. member for Peace River, and the house can be assured that this matter is now under very serious consideration by the Prime Minister who is mainly responsible for federal-provincial affairs. As far as I am concerned, when I was appointed President of the Privy Council, the Prime Minister told me that he was entrusting me with some definite responsibilities in that field, in order to ensure the co-ordination of several elements. But I want to assure the house that this matter has not been put aside and that neither the Prime Minister nor the government intend to overlook it without giving it, as I said, the most serious consideration. It will be understood that there are several factors involved and that there are decisions to be taken in a rather complex field. But I ask the house to take my word on what I have just said-I understand that, in theory, an hon. member's word must never be questioned, but there are times when some delays might imply that there will be others-because I repeat that the matter is now under consideration, not only serious but very active. I wish to thank the honourable members once again for their interest in the department and in the fields under my responsibility, and I can assure them that all the remarks and representations made, in their respective sectors, will be taken into serious consideration.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
[English1


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I should like to follow up by asking several questions about the activities of the combines investigation branch. Is it the desire of the President of the Privy Council that we ask these questions now or wait until we reach consideration of the vote relating to that particular branch?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I would prefer that hon. members wait until we reach consideration of the specific item. I have not

suggested that hon. members be limited in their questions under vote No. 1 in respect of matters which relate to the administration of the combines investigation branch because the administration of that branch is part of my responsibility. However, I think it would be preferable to discuss this activity when we reach the estimates of that branch. They are not included in these estimates.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, will the estimates relating to the combines investigation branch be dealt with when the estimates of the Department of Justice are called?


Guy Favreau: I believe the specific items are inserted in the estimates of the Department of Justice. I propose to be here when we consider those estimates and when we consider the estimates concerning patents, copyrights, trade marks and corporations.


Frank Howard: Am I correct in assuming that the estimates relating to the combines investigation branch and the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission will not be called today immediately following passage of the estimates now before us?


Guy Favreau: They will be considered if the estimates of the Department of Justice are called today.


Frank Howard: They will not be called today in conjunction with the estimates of the President of the Privy Council?


Guy Favreau: That is right.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ministers without portfolio-
5. Payment, notwithstanding anything in the Financial Administration Act or the Senate and House of Commons Act respecting the independence of parliament, to each member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada who is a minister for whom no salary or allowance in addition to the allowances under section 33 and section 44 of the Senate and House of Commons Act is provided (the acceptance of which shall not render such member ineligible or disqualify him as a member of the House of Commons) of a salary of $7,500 per annum and pro rata for any period less than a year, $7,500.
10. General administration Including expenses of a pilot program, undertaken by volunteers, to advance social and economic development in community affairs, $2,703,000.
Frank Howard: This item refers without any formal title or legislative effect to a pilot project, the activities of The Company of Young Canadians, and I should like to express again a thought I put forward the other
June 17, 1966

day at a meeting of the committee on northern affairs or Indian affairs.
It should be of great concern to the government to consider very seriously the involvement of this group particularly with respect to our native Indian population when it gets into operation. As I suggested the other day, these people should keep out of the hair of our Indian people and allow these social activities to proceed under the aegis of the Indian affairs branch of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
If The Company of Young Canadians is to become involved in any aspect of the life and culture of our native Indian people then presumably it is for the purpose of filling a vacuum which has not been filled before by the Indian affairs branch or the respective provincial governments. This may involve another group of people in the affairs of our Indian population at a time when these affairs are being looked after by the federal Indian affairs branch, and to a lesser degree by branches of provincial governments, particularly in respect of co-operative community development.
I do not think that The Company of Young Canadians should be involved in any aspect of the lives of our Canadian Indian people primarily because the federal government is heavily involved in conjunction with the provincial governments. I say this particularly because I hope we are all conscious of the objective of promoting self-government for these people at the earliest possible time.
Our limited experience of the activities of do-gooders and enthusiastic outsiders concerning the affairs of Indians has not been good. It is a fundamental reaction on the part of human beings to resent the intrusion of outsiders in our affairs, whether these outsiders be of Scottish, English, Irish or native origin. I can well imagine the reaction of certain communities in British Columbia to a group from southern Ontario telling them how to organize their municipalities and run things. I am sure there would be an immediate resentment toward this well-meant intrusion by a group of outsiders.
In this sense The Company of Young Canadians would be a group of outsiders if they became involved in any way in working with native Indian peoples. This would be likely to develop a resentment against the company itself. I suggest that this group of young Canadians should not become involved in any way with the affairs of Indian people except as an adjunct to the operations of the 23033-416
Supply-Privy Council Indian affairs branch and only if the native Indian people themselves agree.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
Only if these two things are treated as prerequisites to any activity on the part of The Company of Young Canadians will there be any chance of success in so far as working with the native Indian peoples are concerned. I leave those two thoughts with the minister because he is responsible for the administration of this pilot program. If he has anything to do with the company when it finally gets into operation, or whoever does have anything to do with it, I would strongly urge that this course of action be followed. Otherwise there will simply be, as I say, a reaction on the part of the inside group against intrusion into their affairs by a group from the outside. This reaction will be compounded and made even worse in a situation where the group from outside is young and enthusiastic because in most cases they may well be incapable of appreciating the full cultural value of the native Indian people and will thereby make matters even worse.
I gather that this has been the experience in some places in the province of Saskatchewan. Although I do not know the details, I understand that a group of university students either on their own initiative or sponsored by somebody else, a group of friends, as they call themselves, of the native people, visited last summer and I think again this year various Indian villages and lived with the people. I understand that these students were extremely gentle in their approach, extremely careful not to be intruders and to refrain from giving any advice on local matters. They were only there, as they said, to understand. But even with that sort of approach a reaction developed against them on the part of a number of native people. I do not know the reason for the reaction. It may have been the immaturity of the individuals involved. It may have been a reaction against a group of outsiders. It may have carried with it the flavour of racial differences which exist and the result of some years of racial discrimination, even in a mild way, which has been practised in some parts of our country against native Indian people.
Whatever the reason there was a reaction against this group, and all the potential good the promoters of this scheme conceived might come from it came to naught in certain cases. In fact it may well have set back any concept of a cultivation of the native Indian peoples.

June 17. 1966
Supply-Privy Council I say that this limited experience provides a guidepost in the held of the activities of The Company of Young Canadians, namely, that it should stay out of the way.


Mr. Schreyer:: Mr. Chairman, while we have had a relatively full discussion on the setting up of The Company of Young Canadians on second reading of the bill and its consideration in committee, nevertheless I think it is appropriate to direct a few questions to the minister during the consideration of his estimates. It would seem that by the end of the current fiscal year parliament will have appropriated over $120,000 directly for organizing The Company of Young Canadians and to allow it to carry out a pilot program in its first year.
I would ask the minister whether he does not think it proper and right to give us some detailed, specific information as to the scale of honorariums and the salary level of the executive director of this company. I have tried to determine whether this information has been given in a white paper or a speech by the sponsor of the bill and I must confess that so far I have not been able to do so. I have not seen any figures or estimates as to what honorariums are likely to be paid to these young volunteers. Neither has there been any mention of what the salary of the executive director will be, who I presume will be considered as a full-time public service official and will probably draw a salary of a relatively high level. I would ask the minister whether he is now in a position to elaborate on this point.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I must first say that I have not participated in the debate on The Company of Young Canadians because it is not a company that is under my present responsibility. However, as the budgetary provisions are included in my estimates I will read from my book in this respect to try to give the hon. member the information he seeks.
The hon. member has asked what the salary of the director will be. I see here that there will be a director and provision is also being made for an associate director. The present estimates provide in the case of the director for a salary scale between $18,000 and $22,000, but for this year $20,000. In the case of the associate director the salary scale provided is $15,000 to $18,000, but for this year $15,000. So far as the honorarium to be granted each of the volunteers is concerned, at least for the period of training-I cannot

assure the committee that this is exclusively for the period of training although I believe it is for their period of exercise, if you like-it is $50 per month plus living expenses, of course during training the maintenance of a volunteer is expected to amount to $8.50 per day for 56 days and for 300 volunteers the provision is $142,800. For the lecturers and trainers in the first group of 200 volunteers there is provision for $33,600, and for the second group of 100 volunteers, $16,800.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say that the honorarium is in the range I would have expected, namely, $50 plus expense money. We understand that these young people will be living it in the rough and the expenses incurred will be relatively small. I do not think anyone would take exception in the slightest to this aspect of the program. However, the minister mentioned the proposed salary to be paid the executive director, and I am wondering whether this might not in itself cause some misgivings or dissension within the organization. If young people are to give of their time and effort for an honorarium of $50 a month, $600 a year, I am sure many will begin to question working with a director who is paid between $18,000 and $22,000 a year.
I realize of course that the situation in the United States is pretty much the same. There the volunteers in service are drawing an honorarium of about $50 a month plus a small expense allowance. I believe the director in the United States is drawing a salary in the range of $30,000 to $35,000 a year. Despite this I wish to put on record my misgivings about this great disparity between the incomes of people who are working to the same ends in the same program which is being established by this parliament.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
15. Expenses of the royal commissions listed in the details of the estimates and the expenses of the preparatory committee on collective bargaining in the public service, $1,559,600.
Frank Howard: I would like to make an inquiry under vote 15. I find here an antiquated item called "Expenses of the Royal Commission on Pilotage" which seems to have been in existence almost since creation. The sum for this year is $187,600 while for last year it was $212,800. Can the minister tell us how much has been spent on this royal commission on pilotage?
June 17, 1966


Guy Favreau: For the period 1963-64 the total expenditure has been $213,460. For the period 1964-65 it was $185,178. There is also a forecast, for 1965-66-because the exact amount has not yet been ascertained-of $178,900.


Frank Howard: Pilotage is an extremely vital matter because the lives of Canadian and other sailors are involved in the activities of pilots.
When the royal commission was first appointed at a time when the present Leader of the Opposition was prime minister, it was expected that the commission would move with some dispatch and present its report at an early time. It will be recalled that a few days ago I inquired of the Prime Minister about this matter and he answered that he did not expect the royal commission to present its report before the end of this year. I see the President of the Privy Council is trying to indicate something.


Guy Favreau: I can give the hon. member some information but I must point out that I am not personally familiar with the work of the commission, because it does not report to me. However, there is some information which I can give the hon. member, and which indicates that the commission's terms of reference are very broad in scope with the result that the inquiry is much longer than was originally anticipated. The public hearings which were originally expected to last only a few months eventually took 175 days of the commission's time in public sessions. More than 400 witnesses were heard, and the commission compiled a record of 175 volumes of the transcripts of evidence together with approximately 2,000 documents many of which were in bundles, that were entered into the commission's records as exhibits. The commission is now actively engaged in the review and analysis of this evidence, various research studies and the writing of its final report.
The information that I have confirms what was said by the Prime Minister that although we thought the commission would be able to report at the end of the last session it is now evident that its report will be handed to the government at the end of this year.


Frank Howard: All the minister is saying is that the government seems to approach this particular commission's report with an air of embarrassed recognition of the fact that it has been too long delayed. I raised this
Supply-Privy Council matter in the hope that the royal commissioner will speed up whatever he is doing.
1 will refrain from making any comments about the other royal commissions which are listed here, such as the commission on bilingualism and biculturalism, because I have already expressed my views on them on other occasions, and I have not changed those views.


John George Diefenbaker: There are many matters in connection with royal commissions on which I would like to secure information from the minister. The first one has to do with the commission on biculturalism and bilingualism. This has been a lengthy and costly commission, which up to the present has cost the government approximately $4 million. Can the minister indicate to the house when this commission may be expected to report and what is the further expenditure to be incurred by it.
I should also like to ask the minister if and what countries it has visited, whether it has been in Puerto Rico, and how many members of the commission have travelled to that salubrious area. Can he tell me what particular matters of a health nature the commission has considered in its visit there in connection with the problems of bilingualism and biculturalism?
Furthermore I wish to ask the minister whether the government has in mind any changes or alterations in the formula for amending the constitution and whether changes are expected to be made following the report of the royal commission?
This reminds me that the hon. member for Mount Royal is quite an authority on this matter and has adopted an attitude to the question of amendments to the constitution which I hope will bring about changes in the thinking of the government both by direction and possibly by osmosis. I do hope that some of his ideas have permeated the mind of the President of the Privy Council. 1 should like to point out that the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister has an unusual viewpoint on this matter and one that is synonymous with the one expressed by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.
Still speaking about royal commissions, may I ask whether the minister is in a position to advise us whether Commissioner Spence has given any indication of when he will present his report. Will he do so before the end of this session, or will he be restrained from presenting it before the house adjourns?

June 17, 1966
Supply-Privy Council
In that connection I wish to ask the minister whether a new schedule of fees for counsel has been arrived at. I know that the chief counsel receives $450 a day while the junior counsel receives $250. Is this the new revised version to meet the increased cost of living in this country? These are just a few matters on which I am sure the minister will be in a position to give a complete answer.


Guy Favreau: I hope that the right hon. gentleman, whose wit is very well known, has once more spoken with tongue in cheek in putting those questions to me. He knows that the Royal Commission on Biculturalism and Bilingualism does not report to me and that I am only informed of the figures which are placed in the estimates, and the annotations and explanations for these figures. I must point out that I am not in a position to know when the commission is expected to make its final report. It has made an interim report already, and has studied a considerable number of presentations and reports. It is presently pursuing, through its research division, considerable studies in eight fields in particular.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
In so far as the Spence commission is concerned, I have no indication of what work is being done. I have had no indication, directly or indirectly, as to what time it is expected to report.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister let the house know something about the activities of the commission on biculturalism. He made the statement that they were conducting some research activities. Can he tell us something about the unusual questions that are being asked of the armed forces as to their category, as to whether they belong to the high class, low class, middle class, intellectual class and the like? I am sure there must be some minister from whom this information might be secured, now that there has been this reorganization of the government to assure efficiency, effectiveness, and above all capacity to act.
The minister must be in a position to give some of this information. I would say to the minister that this divided responsibility is rather dangerous to the effectiveness of the operation. I know, now that these various matters have been placed under his control, they will be met head on. Surely he must have some responsibility, other than simply advising the house that there is a commission

and what it is doing. I have no information. I do not know where it is. What its expected life is, has not been vouchsafed to me. After all, we have spent $4 million on the commission on bilculturalism and bilingualism, and everything that was found and recommended in its initial report could have been written by anyone without very much trouble, certainly without the expense that has characterized this commission. I think it is the top of the shelf expenditure commission.
Has the minister any information regarding the perambulations or peregrinations of the commission? To what parts of the world have they been? What have they sought? What they sought, did they find? These are the things about which one wonders. If the minister is in a state of uncertainty, he can understand how the opposition must be in the same state. However, if there is some minister from whom this information can be secured, I certainly will not pursue it because I do not want to place the minister in a position of having to admit that, while he reports to parliament on the amount of the expenditure, what is done with the money nobody knows.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, just before the minister replies I want to bring it to your attention that there is an unauthorized person in the press gallery.


John George Diefenbaker: There must be a star in every firmament.


Guy Favreau: I hope that the right hon. gentleman will not try to convey the impression that any member of this government is not fully interested in a commission which, in my view, is one of the most important that has ever been established in this country. The role of this commission in national unity should be accepted by all concerned as being of major consequence.
The right hon. gentleman has asked for certain particulars as to the travelling of the commission. I must say that, personally, it is not my function to take note daily or periodically of what the commission does by way of travelling. I believe he knows to what extent the commission has travelled in Canada and to what extent it has travelled outside of Canada. Personally, I am not aware, and it is not my function to be aware of this by virtue of my post. I might be interested, but it is not my function to ask the commission for reports about that. As President of the Privy Council, it is not my function to give the
June 17, 1966

commission directions or recommend what it should do.


Mr. Churchill:: How are they spending the money?


Guy Favreau: If the right hon. gentleman wishes, I shall read from the information I have here. It might be unfair to the house because it is quite long, but it relates to the activities of the commission on bilingualism and biculturalism. If questions were put on the order paper, the procedure would be simpler.


Mr. Aiken:: This is the place to do it.


Guy Favreau: The commission held a preliminary hearing in Ottawa on November 7 and 8, 1963. Institutions, organizations and private individuals were invited to explain their conception of the commission's terms of reference and to state their views on what procedure it should adopt. Seventy six people appeared before the commission at this hearing. During January, the chairman of the commission, accompanied by the secretary, visited the premiers of all the provinces in order to solicit their co-operation, especially in the field of education. In the course of these visits they met many people of consequence, and therefore the members contacted the general public in each province.
The commission held 23 regional meetings. They were, in effect, informal hearings which took the form of one or two day conferences or seminars. The participants ranged from 100 to over 700 persons at individual meetings. The commission met with and listened to the views of a total of between 10,000 and 12,000 individual Canadians of many different backgrounds, occupations and age groups, the commission has now held formal hearings in eight cities across Canada, that is Vancouver, Quebec, Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Halifax and Moncton and will be finishing this aspect of its work with hearings in Edmonton and Regina, and a second session in each of Winnipeg, Montreal, Toronto and Ottawa.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
In conjunction with the hearings, and at other times, the commissioners will be continuing their private and less formal meetings with a cross section of Canadians, as well as attending relevant conferences and other gatherings. The program and liaison division, which was originally responsible for planning and implementing the commission's regional meetings, arranging commission hearings and
Supply-Privy Council programming other public activities, has been reduced as the commission's functions have changed. A small staff remains to arrange the last series of hearings and to maintain the necessary contacts with voluntary and other organizations and agencies whose work is of direct interest to the commission.
With regard to briefs, the commission has received to date 383 briefs from all over Canada and will receive more in the next few months. These briefs have now been analysed and summarized by the staff for the commission's work, excepting those received recently.
The distribution of French and English briefs in the whole of Canada is as follows: French, 98; English, 219; bilingual, 66. For each province the list is as follows: Newfoundland, 1; Prince Edward Island, 2; Nova Scotia, 6; New Brunswick, 9; Quebec, 104; Ontario, 156; Manitoba, 48; Saskatchewan, 12; Alberta, 26 and British Columbia, 19.
The commission has prepared and submitted to the government a preliminary report dealing with its findings at the time of the report. The research is entrusted to a research division which comprises 71 full-time and 11 part-time staff. The research activities of the royal commission began after a planning period in June 1964, and the subjects for study have been organized in eight divisions, which are respectively headed demography and statistics, institutional studies, behavioural studies, federal public service, social and economic studies, education, mass media and communications, and language and culture.
The commission is now moving into the detailed and systematic integration and analysis of its material and information. The findings from the comprehensive research program and the material in briefs and gathered through the commissioners' own many meetings, hearings and discussions are being combined and studied. Several internal processes have been instituted to permit the most effective use of materials and staff resources in assisting the commissioners toward their conclusions, and the statement of these in reports to the government.
While the commissioners will continue meeting with groups and individuals as their internal work matures, and staff groups will continue programming public activities and monitoring current events, the major emphasis now will be on the systematic analysis of findings and the development of conclusions and recommendations. Staff resources are being realigned to meet this shift in function.

June 17, 1966
Supply-Privy Council


Mr, Diefenbaker:: Mr. Chairman, I am very-grateful to the minister for that detailed information. However, he did not give us any idea when the commission is going to report. I was wondering whether the commission is in the position of endeavouring to give interpretation to the Biblical words "from everlasting unto everlasting".
Possibly the minister would also tell the committee what reports were secured from Puerto Rico. He covered the various parts of Canada, but it might be of interest to know what reports came from Puerto Rico and other areas abroad. No doubt the minister can furnish this information.
The minister also mentioned it would be much easier if we were to place these questions on the order paper. Our experience has been that when we have put them on the order paper we are not given the answers. We do not too often have the privilege of being able to ask questions of a minister, who has available to him all the information on matters like this.
I should also like to find out how much has been paid to date to the two chairmen of the commission and to the members of the commission. How much have they received to date? After all, these are matters of importance. A commission that holds $4 million worth of sittings and which intends to hold many more million dollars worth of sittings is naturally one in which the taxpayer has some interest. It is only because of that fact that I burden the minister with obtaining this information, which I should like to have.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I have here the global sum paid for three years, as well as the amount provided in the present estimates, for the commissioners' honoraria. The total amount paid for 1963-64 was $51,450.


Mr. Pugh:: Each?


Guy Favreau: The total amount. The total amount paid to the commissioners for the period 1964-65 was $129,300. The total amount forecast for 1965-66 is $140,000. The amount placed in the estimates for this year is $140,000.


John George Diefenbaker: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I did not quite get those figures. How much have the chairmen received to date by way of honoraria?


Guy Favreau: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I do not believe I have those figures. I will take the question as notice.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I was intrigued with the response given by the minister to the Leader of the Opposition in connection with the research activities and staff of the commission. I drew the comparison in my mind between this and another form of research about which we were speaking earlier. It seems to me that this is fairly indicative of the disorientation which exists among the members of the government over the relative importance of matters in this nation.
I do not want to get into a discussion about the B and B Commission and its soup to nuts approach-a fair amount of which is nuts, incidentally-but I would draw a comparison between this type of research and the necessity for research into economic activities by the combines investigation branch.
Listed in the estimates for the 1966-67 fiscal year for the entire operation-not just for research but for the entire operation-of the combines investigation branch is the amount of $903,200, while the royal commission on bilingualism, and for such an absurdity as biculturalism, for 1966-67 has opposite it the figure of $1,200,000.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
It seems to me if you put a little more emphasis on the research dealing with economic products and economic activities leading to some corrective measures, in so far as our economy is concerned, that you would be doing this nation an awful lot more good than you are by continuing to dip into the taxpayers' pockets to pay for a royal commission which, from my reading of the interim report, will probably accomplish nothing more than paying out fantastic amounts of money for individuals to exercise their imaginations in developing concepts and theories as to what should and should not exist in Canada.
[Translation1


Guy Favreau: The commission submitted a program to Treasury Board concerning the expenditures which were subject to control and because of that control, Treasury Board evidently continues to control the expenses of the commission.
Certain projects were reduced and finally a comprehensive program was assumed for the fiscal period for which expenditures are required from the house.
It must be noted that the staff salaries which amounted to $1,132,700 last year in the estimates voted by the house, were reduced this year by $574,700, to $558,000.
June 17, 1966

The professional and special services for which the house had voted $952,100 last year were reduced by $797,100, to $155,000 in this year's estimates.
While last year's appropriations for travelling expenses amounted to $135,000, this year's estimates are set at $100,000.
fEnglish1


Michael Starr: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister would talk a little more slowly. The translator is having difficulty, and we are not getting all the figures. I think the minister is talking too quickly. Could we start the figures over again?
[Translation1


Guy Favreau: Printing and office stationery, supplies and equipment expenses have been increased from $70,000 last year to $193,000 this year. But this increase was required for the printing of various material, including any report the commission would publish during the current fiscal year.
The reduction in this year's budget, which is more particularly reflected in the estimates the house is asked to vote this year, compared to last year's estimates is $1,163,900.
[Englishh


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall the item
carry?


Mr. Johnston:: The right hon. Leader of the Opposition asked the questions I was going to ask on this report. I regret that the answers he received were not as clear as I would have wished them to be.
I have only one suggestion to make to the minister. When the report is finished will he make it available to the Secretary of State, at no extra charge, as the basis for scripts for the proposed new motion picture industry, the introduction of which I shall support. It seems to me that scripts taking four years to prepare, costing $6 million, having their action filmed in Vancouver, and on locations in the Okanagan district, and with the one star appropriate to the B and B Commission, would start the industry off to a smashing success.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Economic Council of Canada-
20-Administration, $1,170,600.
Mr. Macquarrie:: Vote 20 deals with the Economic Council of Canada. Very often, in
Supply-Privy Council our system of doing things, we have commissions the reports of which pile up in great volumes in libraries of administrative information. The Economic Council of Canada is much more than a royal commission: It is a continuing body with a duty to report to the minister on how to achieve the highest possible levels of employment and efficient production. This, as we see, is a reasonably costly operation even in these days of astronomical figures.
My intervention is not to suggest that this council is too costly, but to say that in my opinion its worth is seemingly not appreciated by the government. I say this because I have not seen reflected at all in governmental policies the most excellent treatise which the Economic Council of Canada has produced in its second annual review. I shall watch carefully how the government deals with the important recommendations made by perhaps the most eminent group of economists applying themselves to the most fundamental economic questions facing the country. I do not think we should look upon this as just another vote in the estimates, and that we should look carefully at whether or not the government has taken cognizance of what this tremendously competent and qualified group recommends.
Of all chapters in the second economic review, the longest and most detailed is chapter 5 dealing with the question of regional growths and disparities. It deals brilliantly, I think, with the age old problem of economic inequalities under which the Atlantic region within confederation has laboured for so long. It clearly sets out some of the ways in which these inequalities have become even greater in recent years, and indicates that it is the responsibility and the task of a national government to take account of the inequalities which some regions endure because of the very nature of confederation.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I have seen nothing to indicate that anyone on the government side has read, inwardly devoured, or been moved at all by the recommendations of this important council as far as the Atlantic provinces are concerned. The document contained in chapter five of the second annual review was impressive. I have seen nothing since the Rowell-Sirois report, the basic document of the economic state of confederation, to equal this. I say to the minister, who has a great responsibility for dominion-provincial relations, that the

June 17. 1966
Supply-Privy Council findings of this top-level group should be read and put into practice.
I see nothing in the Deutsch commission findings which suggests it would be helpful to the economy of Canada or to the economy of the Atlantic regions to defer construction of the Prince Edward Island causeway or take any action which would restrain the economic growth of a region which is so painfully lagging behind the national average, as is so clearly documented. This is one project I intend to keep close to my heart and, although I am a man of very few words, perhaps very close to my mouth in the months ahead. I should like to see someone over there read the annual review.


Mr, Howard:: We in the New Democratic Party, having endorsed officially the concept of the Economic Council of Canada, are also somewhat dismayed about its brief history, especially from the point of view of government reaction to the various studies and reports which the council has made. It would seem to me that if there were any sincere desire on the part of the government to activate itself in the field of economic planning, or to gear the results of its own activities as far as they affect the economy to the studies and research carried out by the council, it would do something more then simply acquire copies of the various reports for the purpose of hiding them away in some library where they could be consulted by people willing to seek them out.
Instead, the government would follow up these recommendations by a cabinet determination of what should be done to deal with the questions raised by the council and the problems which its research activities have brought to light, ensuring thereby that Canada will progress economically at the most advanced rate possible.
I wish to buttress the concern of the hon. member for Queens by saying that there is not much point in our continuing to vote funds for an eminent group such as the Economic Council of Canada if its members are merely concerning themselves with an exercise in futility, developing ideas and information the fate of which is to be disregarded and unused for value, as far as the Canadian people are concerned.
[Translation1


Maurice Allard: Just a word, Mr. Chairman,
further to the remarks of the two hon. members who have just spoken precisely about the work of the Economic Council.

Well, 1 believe that, in this field as in many others, we in Canada are witness to studies on the part of the government, sponsored and ordered by the central governments, and the provinces, like the province of Quebec, have also undertaken studies that set up an Economic Council.
Now, you see, I remember that in 1958-I do not have the reference here-with regard to the very important problem of Canada's economic development, I suggested setting up a federal-provincial Economic Council, which would have included members appointed by the central government and members appointed by the provincial governments, and experts appointed by both levels of government.
Of course, my suggestion was not picturesque enough to impress the government of the day and the one which followed. In any event, we now have after eight years, Mr. Chairman, a second volume of the Economic Council which the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) refers to as informative work, the suggestions of which are not implemented or which do not give effective and visible results.
We have the government of the province of Quebec which has also set up an Economic Council which is to publish its report soon. Therefore, we have advance assurance that the positions of the two councils with regard to Canada's economic problems are different.
What then is the use of these studies, as some hon. members have pointed out, if research and other working projects are not properly co-ordinated at the different levels of the federal and provincial governments.
That is why I would suggest that the hon. minister consider the possibility of the government better co-ordinating economic research and planning in the country, for the economy is the responsibility of the federal government but the provinces also have a degree of economic responsibility.
Indeed, we know that the different governments, such as that of Mr. Lesage and the recently elected Mr. Johnson intend to assume economic responsibility and even ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp)-as 1 believe also in the case of British Columbia-that they be consulted before the federal budget is drawn up. All this is fine with regard to co-ordinating the economic development of Canada.
I would ask the hon. minister to study the possibility of changing the Economic Council
June 17, 1966

of Canada which has done everything it could to date and executed many projects, but which has been unable to co-operate with all the provincial governments in co-ordinating economic development, so as to interest the provinces and their experts there are qualified officials in the federal government departments in Ottawa, but there are also fully-qualified officials in the provincial departments.
I am sure the provinces, for example British Columbia, Alberta, the Maritimes, and Quebec also have officials they would be happy to send to participate in a study of the co-ordination of economic development in the country.
{.English1


Mr. Gilbert:: I should like to ask the minister a question. I am under the impression that the Economic Council of Canada is making a study of prices and the high cost of living. This was indicated in reply to questions by the leader of this party and other members of the committee. Can the minister tell us how this study is going on and whether the council is yet in a position to make an interim report?


Guy Favreau: In my original remarks I referred to the fact that this study was being made, when I mentioned that the new department of the registrar general was being established. The department will be concerned with the status of the economy and steps which may be taken in the context of particular economic policies of this government as they are being developed and, I must add, in the light of recommendations of the Economic Council.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I am not in a position to say whether or not an interim report is expected shortly. I know there is general agreement that this is a very efficient organization and that it should be assumed their work is proceeding at a pace which is consistent with the responsibility they have. In March 1965 the government of Canada requested the council to conduct a broad examination into the relationship of prices, costs, productivity and incomes to a sustained economic growth. A basic study of this nature had not been undertaken previously in Canada and there are significant gaps in information and analyses which must be filled. The council initiated a special program of research and analysis to compile
Supply

Northern Affairs information necessary for such a study. Additions to the professional staff of the council and special arrangements to secure assistance of outside experts are being made to carry out research on a number of aspects of this field, including an examination of how the objective of maintaining reasonable price stability has been approached in other countries. I am advised that this study, at least in great part, will be the basis for the annual review of the council.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
1. Office of the secretary to the Governor General, $387,100.
Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, once more I should like to raise a question which I have brought up previously and that is the rationale behind the differential in the salary of the Lieutenant Governor of the province of Prince Edward Island and the lieutenant governors in other provinces.


Guy Favreau: This is a statutory salary passed by this parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
5. To authorize reimbursement to the lieutenant-governors of the provinces of Canada of the costs of travelling and hospitality incurred in the exercise of their duties up to a maximum per annum for each as detailed in the estimates, $142,500.
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
30. Administration, operation and maintenance including expenditures on works on other than federal property, grants, contributions and special payments including those specified in the sub-vote titles in the estimates, recoverable expenditures under agreements entered into with the approval of the governor in council with the governments of the provinces and territories and with local school boards in respect of social assistance to persons residing on Indian reserves other than Indians and the education in Indian schools of children other than Indian children, authority to make grants and contributions pursuant to agreements entered into with the governments of the provinces or the territories or other groups or authorities approved of by the governor in council for the provision of welfare and other services to Indians and to authorize the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources to provide, in respect of Indian commercial activities, for the instruction and supervision of Indians, the furnishing of materials, the purchase of finished goods and, notwithstanding any other act, the sale of such finished goods, $72,749,500.
Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, is the minister going to make a statement?
6580	COMMONS
Supply-Northern Affairs


Mr. Laing:: I had not intended to do so, Mr. Chairman.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: The hon. member for Bran-don-Souris intended to be present to make a few comments on these estimates. He may be here before they pass or he may not. If he comes in later, he has a few things to comment upon. These estimates, however, were considered fully in the standing committee and a very good overhaul of the procedures was undertaken at that time.
There are several things which I shall remark upon briefly. One refers to the question of Indian housing, the special program that was announced. I think the investigation by the standing committee indicated that the whole housing program still is very vague and has not yet been pinned down to the point where anyone can go to an Indian band readily and tell them exactly what is involved. One thing which particularly concerned several of us who were on that committee is the fact that there seemed to be three particular methods by which housing may be established on an Indian reserve. It may be housing built under the special aegis of the federal government for needy Indians, in which case the house is essentially free.
The department also is giving consideration to working out a procedure whereby Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation can advance loans for house construction on Indian reserves and, third, there is a possibility of a federal-provincial arrangement for construction of these houses. The one question which was not cleared up completely in the standing committee was as to who gets the free house and who will have to pay for it. This is a very essential question which could not be answered in the committee. The minister may be able to clear this up. Certainly if two persons on an Indian reserve want a house and one manages to get the government to build it for him free-while the other has to pay for it, it seems slightly unjust.
The second thing which I wished to mention is the fact that the committee in its report has included a request to visit some provincial councils and several reserves over a period of time in order to supplement the work they did during the committee meetings. It seems to me that essentially this is a good program, because I believe it will indicate that the members of this house are not only interested in Indian affairs but also are prepared to go to them and speak to them directly.

DEBATES	June 17, 1966
Mr. Chairman, these are the only comments I wished to make on these estimates. If the hon. member for Brandon-Souris does return, he may have some further remarks to make.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, just in passing and not in any antagonistic way, I should like to say that I think the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka is mistaken when he says the estimates were considered fully in the committee. I think they were considered just fleetingly and casually. The committee, of which I was a member, touched upon only a few of the many many matters with which both the Indian affairs branch and hon. members are concerned.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
There was some reason for this, and justification for taking merely a superficial look at the estimates. I submit that one reason was the announcement or statement of the minister, with which I agree, when he said-and I am paraphrasing-it would be a bit presumptuous for him as a non-Indian, an outsider and a minister of the crown, to be telling native Indian people how to run their affairs. I have agreed with that contention for years, and I think most members of this committee take the same attitude. Parliament has legislated and passed estimates dealing with Indian affairs without having had any real concern for what has taken place for too many years, and that is an oversimplification of the fact because there have been exceptions. That is one reason the committee did not consider in the detail it might have the estimates of this department.
The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka mentioned another reason why the committee did not give as much consideration to these estimates as it might have, namely that there was a proposal before the committee that it might better serve the interests of parliament and Indians by listening to the thoughts of these people themselves about the operation of the Indian affairs branch and the attitude of the government as illustrated by the estimates.
In this regard there are perhaps two points of view, one of which was not expressed. It was suggested that the committee should visit the communities of these Indian peoples or listen to their briefs presented by them here in Ottawa. The committee decided to recommend to the house that it be authorized to divide itself into subcommittees to travel from place to place outside the precincts of Ottawa while the house is sitting, in order to
June 17, 1966
obtain information relative to all matters affecting Indian peoples. I am sure that for this reason hon. members curtail their natural desire to go into the estimates in a more thorough manner.
I think the cart has been put before the horse in this regard and that there has been some mismanagement on the part of the government, although perhaps this is not overly important. The committee, having dealt with the estimates in the manner it did, now finds itself in the position of giving the same scant attention to these estimates during their consideration by the committee of the whole, in view of the expectation that the second report which seeks permission to travel will be adopted.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: May I ask the hon. member a question? The hon. member is a member of the committee that considered these estimates. Did he not approve of the passing of them and of the reports that are now before the house?


Frank Howard: If my hon. friend will show some patience he may realize the point I am making. Certainly I endorse the passage of these estimates, but let it be remembered that I proposed initially, in reply to the opening statement of the minister, that the committee should divide itself into committees and visit the communities of these native peoples. We are now giving the same token consideration to these estimates that was given in the committee, on the presumption and expectation that the committee will be given authority to do those things which are set out in the second report. I suggest that the cart has been placed before the horse in calling these estimates before the committee has been given that authority. I am sure the authority will be forthcoming, and that is why I suggested that the mismanagement was not extremely important.
I would urge the adoption of the second report of the committee. It was in anticipation of the adoption of that report that hon. members paid perhaps less attention to the estimates than they deserve. Hon. members I am sure felt that a great deal more about Indian affairs would be obtained as a result of visits to their communities than could be obtained by a formal discussion of the estimates, and that is what prompted the report seeking permission to do those things therein contained. The committee would be in a better position to make an enlightened, sensible and intelligent report as to the conduct of
23033-417J
Supply-Northern Affairs Indian affairs at the federal government level, having visited these places and having obtained information about the attitudes and concepts of the Indians themselves.
I should like to make a few brief comments, repeating what I have said on numerous occasions in the past, with the hope that parliament will keep uppermost in its mind a few basic things in respect of our native population. I am sure the minister will subscribe to these suggestions.
The first relates to the worth and value of the human being. That concept is of prime importance in our social relationships with anyone, whether he be of native Indian or any other origin. There must no longer be adopted the concepts of paternalism and integration, as they have been developed. Integration is not a one-way street. There must be a mutual and conscious desire for respect among peoples, regardless of their racial background. We must also be implicit in our understanding of the principle that there should be government by, for and on behalf of the people. The efforts of the Indian affairs branch and parliament should be directed toward the realization of self-government for our native population. There must be a lessening of curtailment, by ministerial and governor in council authority, of self-determination by these native peoples.
Let me conclude by posing one or two questions to the minister. The first relates to the unfulfilled provisions of treaties Nos. 8 and 11 in respect of the territories. I preface that question by saying that when Mrs. Fairclough was the minister of citizenship and immigration some years ago she recommended an inquiry by way of a travelling commission to ascertain the views of the native Indians as to what should be done in respect of the unfulfilled provisions of these treaties. That commission made its report and an interdepartmental government committee was established to study it. I should like to hear the views of the minister about the prospects of dealing with these unfulfilled provisions.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I would also ask the minister when we may expect some report or declarations from the committee which his predecessor, the present Minister of Labour, established respecting the hunting and fishing laws as they relate to native people.


Mr. Orange:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take the time of the committee for just a few

6582	COMMONS
Supply-Northern Affairs moments to express some of my views with regard to what I will term Indian matters. I should like to thank the hon. member for Skeena for referring to the problem of treaties 8 and 11. I recently had an opportunity of visiting many of the band councils in the areas affected by treaties 8 and 11 and know there is great concern on the part of the Indian peoples in the Territories for the settling of these two treaties.
The commission, which dates back to 1959, has made its report and I would join with the hon. member for Skeena in asking the minister of Indian affairs and northern development to give this matter urgent and serious attention. When doing this I would also suggest to him that the Indian peoples living in the vast Northwest Territories and Yukon have felt in the past that the commission visited them; and they did not have the opportunity as a group of people from one end of the land to the other to sit down and discuss among themselves what they would consider to be the resolution of treaties 8 and 11.
Therefore I would hope that the minister and the government will consider that treaties 8 and 11 must be resolved at an early date in order that the fears and apprehensions of the Indian peoples in the Northwest Territories and the northern part of Alberta may be resolved, so that they may believe that the government of Canada has acknowledged that the conditions of these treaties are to be met and the particular problem of land settlement will be resolved once and for all.
The second area which concerns me very much is the matter of economic stability for many of our Indian people who will not have the opportunity of education and growth in our economic community. I am thinking of the people who are continuing to live by the traditional means of hunting and trapping and are dependent on long-haired fur for their existence. One of the great problems facing this particular group of Indian people is the instability of the fur market and the fur trade itself. It is very difficult and frustrating for an individual who has decided to leave his home community and spend the winter months in the bush to return with what he might consider to be a fair catch of fur, sufficient not only to pay off his grubstake but help support his family in the coming months, and then And that the price of furs has depreciated and he is unable to sell the furs at a reasonable price.

DEBATES	June 17. 1966
On the other hand, in the years when fur prices are high you also have the problem facing the Indian that the catch may not be great. I would hope that through the officers of the department of Indian affairs and northern development some consideration might be given to this question and a serious examination made in order to provide some means whereby a floor price would be established for long-haired furs. It is rather interesting to note that only in this particular primary industry is there no subsidy. It can perhaps be argued that fur is a luxury item. It is for the person wearing the fur, but not for the person responsible for bringing it to the market.
I can think of no better way whereby our peoples, who will not participate in economic development as a result of our educational and development programs, will be able to hold their heads high in our society, to be accepted as people able to maintain themselves, than to have some system of floor price, subsidy, call it what you may, introduced into our economy.
I know that during the course of the committee's hearings great interest was expressed in the proposed visits to various Indian communities throughout Canada. I believe the subcommittees will have an opportunity of visiting Indian communities and, hopefully, obtaining from the Indian people to whom they talk a free expression of their views. Perhaps on the return of the subcommittees the committee will be able to recommend to this house ways and means of improving and helping the economic growth and cultural development of our Indian peoples.


Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Chairman, my remarks will be brief. They deal with a point that is connected with the minister's administration, although it is not directly under him but is part of the administration of his colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare. This deals with northern health services and the position of the Charles Camsell hospital in Edmonton. My remarks are perhaps a little irrelevant but they are germane and timely in view of the comments made by the deputy minister of national health to the committee on national health and welfare the other day, in that he felt the principle that should apply is integrated health services with regard to Indians and Eskimos.
The Secretary of State is in the house and she will recall the lengthy interchange of correspondence between herself and myself
June 17. 1966

and some members of the previous ministry with regard to the need for the construction of the new Charles Camsell hospital. Fortunately, I believe the right decision was taken, but I now find it somewhat regrettable that the deputy minister of the department charged with the administration of this hospital seems, as reported in the press, to deny the very principle of the existence of the hospital.
I would suggest that there be a close association with those people who would use the hospital and who would point out the need for the hospital today. I am not denying that perhaps 25 years from now what the deputy minister was speaking about will be a lot truer than it is today. I only wish to underline again the absolute necessity for the full implementation of the program for the Charles Camsell hospital as laid out by the Secretary of State when she was minister of national health and welfare.
I think it would be a most retrograde step to suddenly tell these people that they will now have to go out and be treated in the community hospitals. Anyone who suggests that this would be efficacious today and would meet the needs and desires of these people is merely sitting off in an ivory tower.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I had many discussions with members of the Glassco Commission who actually recommended the discontinuation of the Charles Camsell hospital, and although I have the greatest respect for them, and particularly for the member with whom I had most of the discussions, I feel that their heads are in the clouds. I should like to urge the Minister responsible for northern and Indian affairs to support the continuation and full implementation of the hospital program in regard to the Charles Camsell hospital, which is due to open later on this summer. I think this hospital is a great necessity for the people for whom it is built.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Since my name was brought into the discussion might I say that I consider the construction of the new Charles Camsell hospital as somewhat of a personal triumph, since the former administration had accepted the recommendation of the Glassco Commission and cancelled its construction.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Temporarily.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The government lost office shortly after, so they could not do anything about it. When I was in health and welfare I
Supply-Northern Affairs was told about this hospital and the officials of the department at that time certainly believed the hospital should be constructed. It was their persuasiveness, as much as the hon. member's, which sent me to Edmonton to look into the situation. From that time onward I became a devout exponent of the construction of that hospital, particularly because of the fact that so many of the northern peoples did not know our language and had no experience of living in institutions with all the varied facilities. Many doctors felt it would assist them to return to health faster if they were in a place where others of their kind who speak the same language were around. I did not hear what Dr. Crawford apparently said to the committee recently, but I should like to say to my hon. friend as well as to my seatmate and colleague, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, that I strongly believe that this hospital should continue to operate for the people of the north.
I pledge that my successor in health and welfare will have to have a very good argument for doing otherwise.


Mr. Southam:: I welcome this opportunity to make a few remarks on vote 35 dealing with the current estimates of the department of Indian affairs. My remarks deal with one or two matters. The minister, who I notice has his parliamentary secretary with him this afternoon, will recall that the hon. member for Saskatoon and the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar as well as I myself have recently questioned the minister several times regarding the ultimate outcome of the application of the Indians in Saskatchewan regarding the Indian shrine, Mistaseni, near the south Saskatchewan dam. The minister is aware that if some action is not taken in the not too distant future this shrine will be inundated when the waters of the dam rise. Apparently this is of great importance to the Indians living in that part of Canada. I believe the Historic Sites and Monuments Board have already met and presented recommendations to the minister with respect to historic sites. The importance of this shrine does not only lie in Indian lore but also in its religious aspect.
I also wish to bring up the matter in regard to the White Bear reservation in my riding. Owing to my close association with around 700 to 800 Indians in that reservation, this matter was brought to my attention. In
June 17, 1966

Supply-Northern Affairs talking to the officials there and to the Indians themselves I was advised that the educational, health and development programs which are being applied to our Indian communities necessitate a great deal of paperwork on the part of the officials who are presently engaged in carrying out these duties, that is the officers, the superintendents and the Indian agents. I am thinking in particular of the case of the Indian agency in White Bear. They tell me that owing to the large area of the reservation a great overload of paperwork is imposed on these officials, with the result that they do not have the time to carry out the very effective and well meaning programs that are referred to them.
I wonder whether the minister has given any consideration to increasing the staff in these agencies. The addition of even one extra clerk or stenographer would relieve them of the burden of this paperwork and would allow them to contribute a great deal more in the field of welfare for these Indians.


Arthur Laing: I think that I should reply to hon. members who have participated in this debate. I certainly appreciate their interest in Indian affairs and I think it is representative of the common co-operation which exists in all parts of the house and which probably augurs more favourably for Indian affairs than it has for many years.
I have been charged with the responsibility of administering this department long enough to know that it is a very difficult department, because we are primarily dealing with people who have not received treatment from the so-called white people in this country such as to make them very happy. We have been dealing with a people who have not received the respect which is due to them and which often provokes a response in kind. We are concerned with some 220,000 Indians whose birth rate is increasing at a much higher rate than the Canadian average. We are dealing with a people who have historically been torn between two objectives: a tremendous ambition to live in dignity and indeed pride in a history that warrants great national pride, and on the other hand a wish to maintain the reservations which were granted to them and historic commitments which they do not wish to give up. On one side they are compelled to go forward in developing their own personalities and their own capacities and on the other side they are afraid of losing the great historic guarantees, as mentioned by the hon.

member for Skeena, in the form of hunting rights, rights to land ownership, and so on.
I am quite certain that there is today a wide appreciation of this problem and a desire on the part of this house to find the requisite money to do what parliament thinks is a competent job. I should like to say at once that money badly spent will probably multiply our problems instead of solving them. Money alone will not be a solution in assisting the Indian people to gain a measure of independence and personal pride which will enable them to say "We are as good Canadians as anyone else".
I have arrived at the department at a time when money is forthcoming for planned programs. I had nothing whatsoever to do with the development of those programs over the last several years, and I am not one who takes pride in harvesting another man's sowing. I therefore wish to pay a compliment to the previous ministers who, throughout the last several years, have developed a program for which I think we have adequate funds.
I think a very startling statement has been made in recent years regarding the condition of housing of our Indian people. Some time last year reports were made on the very small percentage of Indian housing having any protection from fire, any inside plumbing, any water or light. We heard that as low as 10 or 15 per cent of Indian houses possessed these facilities. I think it made Canadians agree that not enough had been done to house these people We have announced as the cornerstone of our policy a policy to provide our Indian people with housing that is at least minimally sufficient.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
We had hoped, therefore, to include in our program the building of some 1,150 houses this year, but happily we find we will be building about 1,500 houses. Many members are interested in asking where we are going to put these houses, where is the priority. This is a logical question. The priority will depend upon the Indian people themselves. In all of these programs we are going to try to use such funds as we have available to encourage the Indian people to participate in everything we are doing. This means, in most instances, the preparing of the rough lumber that is going into these houses. In one or two instances it will mean the preparation of finished lumber from small mills located on reservations.
June 17, 1966

At the moment we have Indian people canvassing the possibility of building houses and approving work that is being done on various reservations. We are of this opinion, that if we are going to establish these people in the position we hope they will be, they have to start making decisions for themselves. They have to tell us that this is what they want done, and they are prepared to participate either by contributing labour or by contributing money.
I want to thank the hon. member for Skeena for having raised the matter of game. We have had a number of cases lately which bear on protection of the wild game of Canada. This problem comes to me with a double onslaught because I am the minister in charge of Indian affairs, and some of our very wise Indians are trying to have established in the white man's law something that is going to make sense; but at the same time I have the responsibility for the preservation of wildlife in the country. At this time, because there have been a number of cases creating a cloudy situation, but which in the end will result in a full clarification, a committee has been established to study the whole problem. We will be making recommendations shortly because the committee has just about exhausted the whole field. It has had some 10 or 12 meetings.
I think you would be very unfair if you asked me what was going to be done. A great number of people in Canada are of the impression, and I am probably treading on thin ice when I say this, that the traditional rights guaranteed the Indians in respect of taking game must be preserved. At the same time, we have to do our best to encourage the Indian people to respect conservation methods within Canada. There are many Indian people, I believe, who could point to their own conduct as proof that they have been, in the past, amongst the best conservationists in this country. I feel that we may be working toward a situation where we will not be called upon in the years ahead, to proscribe any of these rights that were granted and, at the same time give due attention to preserving the wildlife of this country. This is my hope, and there is much indication of support from a number of sources in the country today.
I agree with hon. members who have spoken about the primacy of housing. I agree with the hon. member for Skeena about the worth of the individual. I want to say something
Supply-Northern Affairs about treaties Nos. 8 and 11. As the hon. member knows, these were the subject matter of a committee in 1960. I do not want to say more than that this matter is being studied again. I have certain impressions, out of my knowledge of the territory, that the establishment of new reservations in that area would probably be of little value to the Indian people. We are dealing only with the resources that might be attendant upon the alienation of the land to reserves. It seems to me, especially in this day and in that particular area, the proper method for discharging our responsibilities to the Indian people would be by something other than the mere setting aside of lands, because the resources are not on top of the ground as they are in the provinces but are under the ground. However, we will be saying something about that later, because we are going to continue the study to completion.
I do want to thank members for having raised in the committee the matter of visiting Indian reservations. I think one of the unfortunate characteristics of the House of Commons is that many of us are forced to talk upon things about which some of us know very little. I feel there would be a tremendous advantage if members were to see these things about which they propose to speak. While the cost may be considerable, I do not believe a more productive investment could be made on behalf of the people of Canada than to allow as many members of the committee as possible to see the Indian reservations, talk to the Indian leaders and note their responses to what they believe are the intentions of the government of Canada toward them. I have no responsibility in this matter. The committee is its own master. I believe there is a resolution which I hope will be approved on Monday and which will enable a number of subcommittees of the committee on Indian affairs to make visits to different parts of the country to see some of the reservations and have discussions with the Indian leaders.
I am going to warn certain members of the committee that they are going to come away from some Indian reservations distinctly shocked. I am quite certain we will have the odd member of the House of Commons-I will be surprised if this is not the case-saying, "I did not know things like this were going on in this country". I have found the same sort of thing applies to my responsibility in respect of the Northwest Territories. I believe it is imperative that we endeavour to solve
June 17, 1966

Supply-Northern Affairs problems by confronting facts. I am very glad indeed that the committee suggested a visit should be made to Indian reservations.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
At the present time, Mr. Chairman, we have some six million acres of Indian reservations in Canada. One of the first things I asked Mr. Battle, our assistant deputy minister when I was put in charge of this department was, "What is the value of the reservations in Canada?" He said to me, "Surely you are not going to sell them." I said, no, the reverse; that I thought that as a general principle we should say there are going to be no more Indian lands sold in this country. However, I believe we should redouble our efforts so that the potential of these reservations is realized for the benefit of the Indian people themselves. For all too long these have been isolated properties which have been regarded by the white man as ghettos. They have not been developed by the Indians because of inactivity, the absence of adequate capital, and lack of general support.
Some of these reservations are today set in the centre of some of our larger cities, yet very little has been done with them. I can give some indication of the value of some of them when I tell you, Mr. Chairman, that in recent weeks certain parts of one of the reservations in the province of British Columbia have been leased for a rental of $1,000 per acre per year. This is an extraordinary case, but I do not think we have done a particularly good job of managing the reserves in a manner to obtain for the Indian people the maximum. We are going to address ourselves particularly to this problem; and we will also endeavour to obtain funds to assist the development of some industries, be they modest at the start, for Indian people on the reservations and elsewhere. I think that is all I have to say, Mr. Chairman. If there are any questions I shall endeavour to answer them.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, the declarations by the minister about intent and purpose were commendable both in their phraseology and, I am sure, in the sincere desire of the minister to see them come into effect. We have heard similar declarations from a variety of the minister's predecessors, and without making any disparaging remarks about what has occurred in the past I think it is a fact that, especially in the field of Indian affairs, in order to have any real progress made it is helpful if there is some continuity

of ministerial responsibility, instead of tossing this portfolio hither and yon, as has been the case over the past number of years.
I do not know how many ministers of citizenship and immigration there have been, and I am not going to bother to recount the minister's predecessors now, but in the last few years there have been a considerable number. This of course has caused some dismay on the part of the native Indian people. They listened with interest to the declarations made by the Minister of Labour when he held the portfolio and the responsibility for Indian affairs. They listened with interest to the President of the Privy Council when he held that position. They also listened with interest to his predecessor, and to the one before him. But all of these ministers seem to have held the post for a relatively short period of time, each minister being succeeded by another who made the same declarations. Just so much of this can go on, Mr. Chairman, before the people concerned come to believe that all you have is a succession of ministers who are reading the same fine-sounding speech.
What I am getting at is that, barring the possibility of electoral defeat, either of the minister personally or of the government, I should like to see the minister of northern affairs maintain this responsibility for some reasonable period of time in order that there can be a continuity of attitude, so that the ideas which he has expressed may receive the fullest chance of actually coming into being.
The minister mentioned a couple of aspects I should like him to consider. He said that the time is now here when no longer should we sell Indian reserve lands. He made that comment on another occasion outside the house some time ago, and it was gratifying to hear him make that declaration. On the other hand-and I realize that this is a difficult undertaking because the jurisdiction over land rests in the hands of the provincial governments-would the minister consider the possibility of increasing the size of reserves to the extent that this is considered necessary for the economic well-being and progress of the native people?
For example, in British Columbia there are a number of Indian native people who have followed the vocation of logging, which they intersperse with their off-fishing season. Gradually, with the involvement of larger and larger companies which require larger and larger tracts of forest land, they have
June 17, 1966

found that their opportunity as small operators to engage in the lumbering industry or some phase of its seriously constructed when they require to advance into reserve areas where there might be more timber. I think it would certainly be helpful for the economic well-being and progress of the Indian native people if the size of reserves was increased. I would also ask the minister whether he would consider trying to work out a deal with the various provinces in this regard; or perhaps we should try to buy up land, if we can, in order to enlarge the reserves in the interest of the well-being of these people.
The minister mentioned the housing program. This was discussed in the committee, where we obtained from Mr. Battle, the assistant deputy minister, the information regarding the policy with respect to off-reserve homebuilding. This is something which I read into the statement of the minister on March 17, but which in fact was not there. I thought there had already been established, when the minister made his announcement, a policy to provide assistance to our native people to build houses off the reserves. However, this matter is still up in the air. I cannot urge too strongly on the minister the necessity for developing the details of this policy as quickly as possible in order that native people, who desire to partake of the assistance which is made available, may get that assistance at the earliest possible moment. I wish to pose these matters to the minister now because they seek to elicit information which may be helpful to myself and other members of the committee when we deal with some of these matters.
Some time ago I wrote to the minister's predecessor and suggested that an arrangement be made whereby some of the elders or tribal chiefs in the villages be employed on a part-time or ad hoc basis, in conjunction with the Indian day schools, to teach the native language to their own children and to explain its historical concepts and applications. As a result of this teaching the younger generation would come to appreciate their own history, a history which is being quickly forgotten, and a language which is being quickly discarded because in many instances it does not have written form, but is purely oral. I think this would be one way perhaps in which the younger generation would have a better grasp of their own history and, having that better grasp, become prouder of themselves than is the case at the moment.
Supply-Northern Affairs
The answer I received in response to my suggestion was that this subject matter had been referred to a research committee-I think that was the expression used-in the Indian affairs branch. I have heard nothing since then. If the minister has any information readily available he might indicate what has happened to this particular aspect.
Would the minister also tell us about the progress of the feasibility study of the proposed longhouse structure in Prince Rupert about which his predecessor made an announcement last fall during the course of the convention of the native brotherhood of B.C.?
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Another item of concern relates to the artistic activities of the Indian people, especially in the field of totemic carvings and designs of this sort. This matter was discussed with one of the minster's predecessors, I have forgotten who at the moment. I received a reply that this matter was being developed and that arrangements could be made for the protection by copyright or some other method of the property of individual artists in order to preserve to the natives their old artistic forms, so that they would not be copied and prostituted in sales, as has been the case with pseudo-argyllite totems which have been for some years mass produced by a chemical, fibreglass or plastic process. The producers take a plastic mould and from that make many forms. There ought to be some method of ensuring that natives' rights are preserved and protected by copyright or by some other way. I would appreciate having some response from the minister about that.
Not long ago I had a bill which was debated for one hour relating to the British Columbia Indian Reserves Mineral Resources Act. I wonder if the minister could explain or announce to the house whether he has had any discussion or correspondence with the provincial government in British Columbia about the alteration of the agreement of 1943 and, if so, what are the prospects of making changes to that particular agreement?


Richard Russell Southam: Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the previous speaker in commending the minister for the work he has done respecting the welfare of our Canadian Indian population. I express the hope that the program as outlined will be translated into action as soon as possible.
6588	COMMONS DEBATES	June 17. 1966
Supply-Northern Affairs
In the very interesting remarks and answers the minister made, he overlooked answering a question that had to do with the very important Indian shrine in Saskatchewan that so many Indians are concerned about. I wonder, would he be good enough to give the committee some information about that.


Arthur Laing: I apologize to the hon. member for Moose Mountain. I might mention that the Historical Sites and Monuments Board took this matter up. The board is doing a very great job for Canada. It came to the conclusion that while this rock was extremely important to the Indian people it did not fall into the category of being of national historic importance. It would therefore be very difficult for our department to do anything about preserving the rock.
Questions have been addressed to the ministry from the other side of the house, answers have been given, and discussions have been held. I think there is a proposal by P.F.R.A. to move the rock, or a section thereof. Whether this is satisfactory to the Indian people I do not know, but in light of the report given to me by the Historic Sites and Monuments Board-


John George Diefenbaker: What was the purport of the report?


Arthur Laing: Answering the right hon. gentleman's question, the report said that this rock was not of national historic importance.


John George Diefenbaker: I see.


Arthur Laing: I am not master of the national Historic Sites and Monuments Board. I say again that that body is doing a very great service for Canada. Because of the report, I think it would be difficult for my department to do anything.
In answer to the question posed by the hon. member for Moose Mountain, I shall make it a point to discuss this matter again with the Minister of Agriculture, because questions about this matter have been addressed to him to see what can be done under P.F.R.A. I believe that P.F.R.A. officials have indicated that they are prepared to move the stone, or part thereof. I do not know whether consultations have been held with the Indian people as to the propriety of dividing the stone, but I shall inquire.
Answering the hon. member for Skeena, I must tell him that we are giving a great deal

of attention to evolving some means of establishing protection for Indian artistic productions. I think we were fortunate in that respect, in preserving Eskimo art work. That will be much more difficult in respect of Indian productions because as the hon. member knows we are starting from a long way back. This matter is being seriously discussed at the present time and we hope to come up with something which will establish in the minds of the public, including buyers, the fact that the articles produced are genuine Indian articles. Protecting such artistic productions with a brand name, or with another designation, if you like, would be very well worth while from the point of view of the productions.
The hon. member spoke of the British Columbia Indian Reserves Mineral Resources Act. I think he was unhappy when his private bill was talked out. I believe he knows why that was done. I wanted to discuss the matter with the government of British Columbia. The act in question seems to be one of the least productive ever undertaken by a national government because, on looking at the matter, I determined that at one time we had collected $17, and in another year had collected $6 as our 50 per cent.
The hon. member will be glad to know that one group of Indians, who were approached by a mining company in British Columbia because the mining company wanted to go on the Indian reserve to look under the ground, decided that if the mining company could do it they could do it themselves. They are forming a mining company of their own. This is the type of thing that ought to be encouraged in Canada. If we do that, some of our troubles at least in respect of our Indian peoples-if they can be said to be troubles -will be over.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, not very much time is left and I wish to make some observations. One has to do with the game regulations with respect to Indians. On more than one occasion I acted for Indians when they were prosecuted for hunting, but I was unsuccessful. The Court of Appeal held as far back as 1934 in the province of Saskatchewan that hunting on a forest reserve was hunting on occupied land, and that the treaty of 1834 which stated that the Indians could hunt on unoccupied land means that there had been in contemplation the setting up of forest reserves in the generations ahead. Therefore
June 17, 1966	COMMONS
the conviction was upheld. I should like to know something of the present law as set out in the jurisprudence in connection with such hunting rights.
The major matter I wanted to bring to the attention of the minister is in complimenting him-and I very seldom indulge in that unless there is very good reason for it-upon the interest he is showing in the Indians. I should like to join with him and with other hon. members in assuring the Indians of Canada of our appreciation of their contribution in war and in peace, and join with them in J asking to have set aside a day in 1967 to be known as Indian day.
In wartime, in every part of this nation we pay our tribute to the Indian contribution. The Minister of Industry in his period of service no doubt came in contact with many of the Indian race. They served gallantly. They sacrificed and suffered as few other Canadians did, in proportion to the population. They made their contribution. They are still making it. I join with them in asking the Government of Canada to bring about the setting aside of one day in confederation year, in which we can, as Canadians in every part of this nation do honour to these people who, with their forebears, did so much for us. Indeed, were it not for the contribution in 1812 and again, earlier, in 1775 and 1776, those portions of Canada under the British Crown might very well have been lost. They did their part, and we do them only appropriate honour by setting aside such a day for them. One thinks of Tecumseh and, in more modern days, of those on the western plains who stood by the British Crown in the darkest days. We think of them, too, in the first world war and in the second world war. In both wars they made a contribution which deserves special commendation. Too often their contribution is forgotten.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
The minister has shown a commendable interest in their welfare and Canadians as a whole will join in giving every support to assuring these people not only of their rights but also of the honour which is due to them. When I was prime minister we brought about the granting of the franchise to them, too long denied. The Eskimos, also, as a result of a private bill by the hon. member for Yukon, were given the benefit of the franchise. Some of the Indians are fearful of exercising it because they have been led to believe they would thereby lose their treaty rights. But
DEBATES	6589
Supply-Northern Affairs more and more of them are casting their votes in elections and doing so in an intelligent way.
They could never hope to have representation in parliament in normal circumstances, except in the other place, and one of the things I advocated over the years was the appointment of an Indian to the Senate. On my recommendation Chief Gladstone was appointed to that body and he has given to the Indians a representation which was denied to them by all administrations prior thereto.
I would urge upon the minister once more that at the earliest possible date an announcement be made. They ask that a day be set aside. They have the right to that.
Now, with regard to the rock Mistaseni, I find it hard to understand the reason the historical society would hold the view that this rock is not of historical importance. We cannot go back far in history, but certainly when Kelsey made his first trip-and he was the first white man to see the plains of central Saskatchewan and, possibly, Alberta, in the 1600's-that rock was then a sacred place for Cree Indians. They regarded it as possessing particular magical qualities. That rock will be lost to all generations unless action is taken.
Moving it will be costly. Representations have been made by the hon. member for Moose Mountain, the hon. member for Saskatoon and the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar. I join with them. These historic things of our heritage, once lost, can never be recovered. This is a large rock. I think it is of great historical importance-and I have spent some years reading the history of the Indians in the west. This is why I listened with some surprise to the suggestion that it is not an historical monument. If the entire rock cannot be preserved, then at least a considerable portion of it can. This rock means much to the Cree people, and I make a special appeal that action be taken to preserve it for future generations. If the waters of the Saskatchewan cover it up, it will be lost.
Few of our historical monuments have been preserved. We have been recreant in this regard. Let us not lose the one monument which the Indians have in what is now the province of Saskatchewan. Let us not lose this for future generations. I join with the hon. member for Skeena in his adherence to the need for action to be taken, so that the Indians many not forget their heritage. Remembering it, learning of it, they will be proud of it.

June 17, 1966

Supply-Northern Affairs
I say that nothing within my province would do more to raise the hopes and aspirations of the Indian people, who are mainly Crees, either Wood Crees or Prairie Crees, than action in this regard, and I would ask that reconsideration be given to any decision which would permit this historic thing to be lost to people who there worship their mani-tou, their guiding spirit; and even those who have taken Christianity as their religion look upon this stone as something possessing those qualities which made their forebears famous for their warlike prowess.


Mr. Scott (Danforth):: On a point of order. I did not want to interrupt the Leader of the Opposition in the course of his remarks, but it appears to me it is five o'clock.


Mr. Drury:: As we are, I think, about to conclude consideration of this particular estimate, would it be possible to ignore the clock for a moment or two?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: I would ask the minister whether he will give his views to the committee relative to the constituting of a day for the Canadian Indians during confederation year.


Arthur Laing: I had intended to say a word because the right hon. gentleman has intervened in the debate. I wish to thank him at once for his kind words toward me. I hope he will be able to say the same things next year, if both of us are still here.
I wish to compliment him upon his worthy and moving words in respect of the contribution the Indian people have made to Canada. I will tell him that those words will be very well received by members in every part of the committee. I wish to assure him that it is our view that we must, in 1967, have a definite Indian day. This was the subject of a private member's bill which, I am afraid, was talked out here. I think it was talked out with my assent, because we wanted to discuss the matter with the Indian people, and we thought at the time that it would bear some relationship to Expo '67 and would be declared there.
While I am on my feet I want to tell the committee that we are engaged in building an Indian pavilion, one which will, we hope, be worthy of Canada and worthy of the Indians. I may add that it had better be, the way costs

are going up. I am definitely concerned about this, because we started at a certain figure, and that figure is now much higher.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: What was the former figure?


Arthur Laing: It was $455,000.


John George Diefenbaker: What is it now?


Arthur Laing: The threatened figure is $1 million. It is not entirely a question of pressure on contractors inflation and so on. We did bring in the Indian people themselves and they have made suggestions which I think are in line with what we should have done in the first instance but which are costing us more money. I thank the right hon. gentleman for his contribution to the debate and for his pride in the Indian people of Canada which we all share.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
35. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment including construction or acquisition of works for Indian bands, the operation and control of which may be transferred to the Indian bands at the discretion of the minister, expenditures on works on other than federal property, assistance to Indians and Indian bands for the construction or acquisition of housing and other buildings and related works, land and equipment, and recoverable expenditures under agreements entered into with the approval of the Governor in Council with the governments of the provinces and the territories and with local school boards in respect of the education in Indian schools of children other than Indian children, $23,809,400.
Item agreed to.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills.



CRIMINAL CODE


Reid Scott: the second reading of Bill No. C-9 to amend the Criminal Code (A Purge for the King's-evil).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill which I am moving this afternoon is one which has been before this chamber on one or two other occasions when it was moved by one of my colleagues, who at that time was the hon. member for Port Arthur. The purpose of the bill is set out fairly fully in the explanatory
June 17, 1966

note which accompanies it. The intention behind the bill is to deal with the various boards and appointments which take place at the instigation of the government, which appointments are for a term certain. In many cases the individuals, as the close of their period of service approaches, are left in the dark as to whether or not they will be reappointed or whether they will have to go somewhere else to look for another job.
The purpose of the bill is to ensure that public servants who are appointed for a period shall be given six months notice if they are not to be reappointed. I am not putting this forward as a tremendously important or vital measure, but it strikes me as an anomaly that the government does not follow many of the practices followed in the private sector of business. If a person is appointed for a term certain, it seems only right that that person should receive reasonable notice if his term of service is not to be renewed.
In reading over the debates when this measure was before the house on previous occasions, I noted the comment by the then hon. member for Leeds and the then hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. Notwithstanding their observations, I still feel the principle is one which is worthy of consideration by the house.


John George Diefenbaker: There is one thing in my mind which perhaps the hon. member might explain. I am wondering why it should be made a criminal offence. Why create in the Criminal Code of this country such an offence? I can understand the purpose and the objective, which I unhesitatingly accept; but as a member of the legal profession I ask the hon. member this question: Why should this be placed in the category of an offence, a crime, against the state?


Reid Scott: I appreciate this observation, Mr. Speaker. I can say that this did give me some concern. If by any chance this motion should be accepted and enacted into law, I think we would have to think seriously about it. The reason for making it a criminal offence is that at the moment, because of the multiplicity of boards, acts and regulations which are involved, it would be difficult to design so complex a piece of legislation. For the purpose of discussion at least, it seemed to me it would be simpler to make the whole thing apply personally to a minister. I do agree, of course, with the Leader of the
Criminal Code
Opposition that if we were really going to legislate in this area, a very searching review would be required. It would be enormously complicated to make it apply to all areas. I agree that this is troublesome; but as the hon. Leader of the Opposition knows these private members bills are never, or very rarely, passed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Reid Scott: I hear comments from the other side. You will have your opportunity to vote on it in a few moments, if you so desire. I understand that private members bills are mostly matters for discussion and that as the clock runs out they are placed at the bottom of the order paper.
It seems to me this bill represents a reasonable proposal, and a piece of tidying up which could take place. I believe there have been a number of occasions when responsible public servants have suffered. I am thinking for example of Mr. Carlyle Allison of the Board of Broadcast Governors. According to my information Mr. Allison less than six weeks before his appointment ended was informed he would be re-appointed, and it was only at the very last moment he was informed his appointment would not be renewed. I think this is a shameful way to treat a competent person who has given considerable service to the people of Canada. We all know that the position was then offered to Miss Pauline Jewett who turned it down and that finally it was accepted by a retired deputy minister. I am not being critical of him; he probably is a good responsible person.
This does indicate the type of partisan criticism which this can create. In the province of Quebec, after a rather strange change of administration, it is significant that the new premier rushed down to the radio station to inform all the bureaucrats that they did not have to worry, he was not going to fire them all and they would receive an extension in their tenure of office.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
It seems to me that while there are imperfections in the drafting of the bill the principle is a reasonable one. If we are going to appoint people for terms certain it is only reasonable and courteous to give them sufficient notice of dismissal in order that they may seek other employment. We have often heard in the corridors about the difficulties that governments have in appointing people

June 17, 1966
Criminal Code
from the general public to serve on boards for certain lengths of time. It might be that a motion of this type or a principle of this kind, if it were accepted, would go part way toward making public service positions, in terms certain, a little more attractive.
As I have suggested, I put this principle forward for the purpose of discussion. It is not the most major item we could discuss, but it is something that does affect various classes of highly qualified persons. I hope the principle behind the bill will recommend itself to the house and I will be interested to hear the comments of other members who wish to speak on it.


Mr. Yves Forest (Stanslead):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words about Bill No. C-9 which the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) has just introduced.
After listening attentively to his remarks, I do not think he convinced me or the house or that he proved the urgency or need to pass legislation which would impose on the government the obligation to give at least six months notice to some civil servants who have been appointed, as mentioned in the bill, to temporary duties or positions.
It also seems to me that the provision of the bill to hold all the ministers jointly and collectively responsible for a criminal act, when such notice has not been given, does not make sense, because in addition to the criminal penalty provided therefor, it goes as far as compelling the minister or ministers responsible to compensate the civil servant dismissed without notice by granting him half the annual salary provided for the office concerned. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), who has a very keen legal mind, soon noticed, when studying the bill, that it was certainly exaggerated to make of a simple administrative act a criminal act.
The hon. member did not mention either or report massive or repeated dismissals which would have occurred and which would justify studying the need to put a stop to the present system which has obvious advantages and, in general, has been found satisfactory in the past.
The present bill deals with a very special class of civil servants or public officials who are generally highly qualified people and have been appointed to very definite duties for a period set in advance, which they were aware of and accepted before assuming their functions.

In the explanatory notes of the bill, it is said that the present procedure is discriminatory because it would cause serious hardship to those concerned especially if they had left a good position or put an end to business relations to accept employment for a set period and if they are allowed to work until almost the end of his term of office without being notified, at least six months in advance, that their services will not be needed after that. Well, I cannot agree with that, especially since the working conditions were accepted and agreed to beforehand by those concerned who willingly accepted an office and who, as a general rule, are retained or confirmed when it is to continue and the term of office of the body concerned is still in force.
I would see there, up to a certain point, the application of the often quoted legal principle: volenti non fit injuria, or anyone who accepts the risks beforehand, being well aware of them, cannot claim that his rights have been violated.
Besides, we are not dealing with a class of people who suffer-
1English]


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member will permit a question in light of what he has just said. If the hon. member himself had been appointed to a term of office for, say, seven or ten years in a job which he had come to like and enjoy, would he want to wait until the last day to learn whether or not his career was to be continued, or would he feel it reasonable to be informed six months in advance? That is, after all, the purpose of the bill.


Auguste Choquette: Why do you want to abolish the Senate without six months notice?


Reid Scott: I have never suggested the abolition of the Senate.


Yves Forest: In answer to the hon. member's question, let me say that I believe we are in a similar position, as members of parliament, not sure of what will happen in days to come. However, I think if I do a reasonable job, like the hon. member I think I will have a good chance of being returned to my position. That is precisely what happens in the case of most civil servants.
1Translation1
Mr. Speaker, before this question was put to me, I was saying that these people do not, in general, suffer serious prejudice because in most cases, they are not only rehired, but if
June 17, 1966

they are dismissed, or if the functions for which they were appointed is completed, they can obtain another position elsewhere sometimes even more advantageous on account of the experience and the knowledge they have acquired in the discharge of their important duties in the service of the government.
This is a situation which prevails generally at all levels of government and in all countries and if, for instance, after an unforeseen occurrence, the party of the hon. member took office, it may certainly have to replace some senior officials to implement the policy it would have advocated and claimed to be in the general interest.
We will soon have an example of that in the provinces where there has been recently a change of government, because there will unadvoidably be at a certain level changes in the direction of certain government agencies or commissions, since the new government will want its policy to be put into force by people who perhaps share its views more closely.
Any new government wishing to direct its general policy according to what it preached before coming into office must, up to a point, be able to depend on certain important people to make changes deemed necessary in the interest of the country.
This, of course, applies to a few key positions, to a rather limited number of people. The federal government is restricted in these appointments, but in some fields, such as this one, rightfully keeps certain attitudes and initiatives which the present bill would like to curb. But the government must not be deprived of the right to appeal to competent people who can be of use; this also insures a change of staff which is often beneficial and new directives which can sometimes be useful so as to change in some ways a policy which has become a matter of routine.
I am surprised that the hon. member has found no other way to reach his goal except by amending the Criminal Code and calling criminal a simple administrative act which is within the powers of the cabinet and which is to be punished by a most severe sanction.
It seems to me rather difficult to establish the intent to commit a criminal act in such a case and, anyhow, I cannot accept the new principle or rule established by the present bill.
Because they have not given advice, the ministers would be guilty of a punishable offence, on summary conviction of guilt, and
Criminal Code
since the amended section does not provide a penalty, they would be jointly and severally responsible and would have to pay a maximum fine of $500 or go to prison for a maximum of six months, or both.
In addition, they would be liable to have to compensate financially the official dismissed. Such a proposal, which appears in the Criminal Code under the chapter concerning corruption and disobedience, is extravagant and excessive and could not be implemented without serious inconvenience. Neither would it benefit those it is meant to protect.
Indeed, the government is not always in a position to decide at least six months in advance whether the organization concerned, a commission or a board, should remain in operation, or whether an official should retain his position, or still whether he should be transferred to another position better suited to his qualifications.
In practice, the new government would have to automatically give six months' notice to all concerned in order to ensure that all incumbents of the positions affected are reliable and qualified people.
It would surely result in further uncertainty, concern and discontent then under present conditions. The hands of the government would be tied, without any real benefits accruing to those concerned.
As the bill now reads, I wonder what would happen if, for instance, a new government, two or three months after coming into office, released a public servant who had not received the required notice.
Would ministers of the former government not be held responsible, since the bill covers persons who held, six months prior to the termination of their terms of office, the post of minister in the government?
If I read the bill correctly, that is the proper interpretation under its present form.
Partisanship in the matter of appointments has been mentioned, but this is hardly the case nowadays, where the main factor that should and is considered is qualifications.
I see that the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) is laughing, but I think that is the practice of this government, at least. Qualifications are the main factor to be considered in making appointments to important positions.

June 17, 1966
Criminal Code
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
[English1


Reid Scott: They might get a Senate appointment.


Yves Forest: Well, I am not talking about the Senate especially. I am talking about commissions and boards which the hon. member mentions in this bill.
[Translation1
There have not been any great developments in the past on the level which concerns us. This can be said of the two parties which have been in office. In introducing this bill, the hon. member's intentions were surely noble and commendable, and he should be congratulated, but I do not believe that, under its present form, the bill should be passed nor does it deserve the approval of the house.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part briefly in this debate on a bill which surely bears the most intriguing title of any bill that we have considered or will be considering this session. While I want to say at the outset that I support in general the King's-evil, or the Queen's-evil, that is to be overcome, I think the method suggested by the hon. member is a dangerous one. As a matter of fact I think I shall be able to prove conclusively and beyond reasonable doubt that, if this bill were adopted, nobody in Canada would ever expose himself to the dangers of being a cabinet member, though not for the reasons that might be first apparent; because there is, if I may put it this way, a snake in the grass in the bill that could lead to all sorts of acts of political revenge. However, Mr. Speaker, I will get down to that particular argument in a moment.
I think that in general the idea of six months notice being given to those who are not to be reappointed to boards and commissions is a sound one. We know, as backbenchers looking at the operations of governments past and present, that sometimes people are not reappointed to commissions and boards, while others are. I think of a person who used to be a member of parliament and then for some two decades was appointed, first by a Conservative government and then by Liberal administrations, to the National Harbours Board. So there was obviously a very

non-partisan approach to this particular man's appointment. But we can think of others, and the hon. member who sponsors the bill has mentioned one such case this afternoon, where a term of service was not renewed, and it would strike some people that this was an act of political reprisal or political revenge. I do not know whether this is true in the case of Mr. Carlyle Allison, but there are rather painful coincidences that are apparent.
While I support the idea advanced by the hon. member, I doubt the approach that he is using, and I think in answer to the question raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) the hon. member himself indicated that he shared this doubt. I refer to making this sort of thing a criminal offence. As the hon. member fairly indicated, this idea was being presented to the house for its consideration. It is a worth-while idea, but I do not think we can purge the King's evil in the way suggested in the bill. However, Mr. Speaker, I think we could perhaps solve it in other ways.
At first when I looked at the bill it seemed to me that any cabinet could be hauled collectively into court and the dismissee could in effect obtain redress for approximately 12 times the salary he earned in the year before dismissal. But then I saw the saving grace in the very last clause of the bill, in which the amount of fiscal punishment would be divided among all members of the cabinet who were responsible for the outrage of not giving the appointee six months of dismissal notice.
But, Mr. Speaker, that is not the reason for my saying that I thought nobody could ever be persuaded to be a member of a cabinet if we were to pass this bill. I was thinking of what would happen if you had a change of government in the six months in which the person was not given notice that his services would no longer be required as a commissioner. You could have a new government come in at the very end of that period and simply dismiss all those members of commissions, boards, tribunals and what-not whose terms of service had expired. Then see the delightful predicament in which all the members of the old cabinet would be placed. The new cabinet would have in effect carried out the dismissals, but the aggrieved persons could haul all the old cabinet off to court and have them charged with failing to give them six months notice. It would be the finest act of political reprisal one could have in Canada. I would
June 17. 1966

suggest that under those circumstances nobody, but nobody, would ever want to become a cabinet member.
This is perhaps one of the delightful inconsistencies one can see in this legislation and I thought it might be helpful to point it out to the house. We might even seen all the present cabinet rushing back immediately to see that in no circumstances would the bill we are now considering be given second reading at this time.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, whether or not there are desirable and laudable principles involved in this Bill No. C-9 I say to you, sir, and to the hon. member who introduced this bill, that this is the first time that I can recall in this house that an hon. member has admitted in his opening remarks that he would be very apprehensive of the consequences of having his bill passed. I think he said, if I interpreted his remarks correctly, in response to a question posed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) that he could see some serious imperfections in the bill. I think he went even further than that and said that if there were any possibility of its being passed in this house, then someone would have to examine seriously the consequences and the ramifications of what was provided in the bill because it would be difficult, and perhaps unjust, if it were administered the way it is written.


Mr.   Scoll@Danforlh: I wish to speak on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I know the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) does not deliberately wish to put words in my mouth. The Leader of the Opposition asked why this was to be made a criminal offence. In response I said I appreciated the nature of his concern, but because of the large number of statutes which would have to be amended it would be very hard to do it in a private members bill. I thought that for the sake of a discussion on the principle it would be simpler to make it an offence attachable to an individual minister.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I certainly did not wish to misinterpret the hon. member's response to the Leader of the Opposition, but it seems to me it would be far better for the hon. member, or for any hon. member when introducing a bill dealing with some injustice in the public service, to word it in such a way that it would in fact state what the hon.
Criminal Code
member wanted to happen, rather than to bring in something that he frankly admits he does not wish to pass and does not support. It is a strange manner of bringing a bill before this house, and I suggest it is a waste of time; it does not even present a question of principle to be discussed by hon. members. As has been said, it would be unjust if any attempt were made to comply with the proposed provisions in this bill.
I also wish to say that I think there may be some justification in bringing an amendment to the statutes of Canada which would provide public servants who, as is pointed out in the explanatory note, are appointed for a period of time to boards, commissions, and so on, with some recourse and redress in cases where they are dismissed without adequate notice. However, to make a criminal offence failure to give six months notice is not something which I could support.
The explanatory notes go on to say that the proposal provides that a convicted minister must compensate the person dismissed with the equivalent of six months severance pay. It seems to me this is an unjust provision, and that if there are public servants who have for any reason caused sufficient displeasure to the minister to whom they are responsible to warrant dismissal, then the minister should not be forced into the initiation of a criminal action before the employee could have access to a redress.
If we wish to prescribe something that will give a measure of protection to these civil servants who have not received sufficient notice, then we should find another way of doing it. I suggest that if this bill is passed what would probably evolve would be a form letter which would be sent to every one of the civil servants whose term of employment was to expire six months in advance of that date, so as to protect the minister from the provisions of Bill C-9.
I do not think this is a reasonable proposal. To achieve mandatory provision for a reasonable notice of the expiry of anyone's term of office should be done in another way. I even think that the principle which is evolved in this bill, requiring a six months notice period, would result in automatically extending by six months the term of office of all these appointees. For example, anyone who is appointed for a three-year period knows three years in advance that on a particular date his appointment will expire unless it is renewed, but there is no guarantee given at the time that it will be renewed. It is certain that a

June 17, 1966
Criminal Code
three-year appointment does not mean it will continue for three years and six months, any more than that a ten-year appointment will continue for ten years and six months. I think the suggestion that these people do not know when their term of office will expire can be challenged; they know very well the period of time for which they were appointed.


Reid Scott: It is the renewal we are concerned about.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I know, but if it were made part of the statutes of Canada then automatically the six months notice would extend almost every appointment that we have in the public service. Perhaps this bill provides a useful discussion on giving some protection to employees by way of a six months notice. Nevertheless I think this is the wrong way of trying to achieve this objective.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Walker).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. J. E. Walker (York Centre):: I have not heard such applause since I addressed an audience in the last election campaign.
I must say at the outset that I find myself in disagreement with the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson), who I thought was a little rough on the member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) when he said this bill was a waste of time. I think it is no waste of time at all to discuss these ideas. Possibly the member for Medicine Hat did not quite know how to begin his opening remarks today, and that was the easiest way of doing it.
I hope that the hon. member who is sponsoring this bill is not cynical to the extent of feeling that no bill or notice of motion brought in during the private members hour ever gets attention. I might point out to him that a great number of them have been referred to committees.


Reid Scott: I was not saying they do not get attention. I was saying my experience is they are rarely if ever passed during the private members hour. On occasion I know we refer the subject matter of a bill to a committee, where it does receive attention.


James Edgar Walker: I think the member for
Halifax (Mr. McCleave) said he considered this to be the most intriguing title for a bill that he had ever seen, and I agree with him. If I had been able to get on my feet earlier I

would have asked the sponsor exactly where the title came from. I was thinking this "purge for the King's-evil" sounds more like a medicinal prescription for stomach cramps than a piece of legislation.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Reid Scott: It is a laxative for ministerial discretion.


James Edgar Walker: I believe that the sponsor of the bill this time is possibly carrying the ball for the original sponsor, the former member for Port Arthur. If my memory serves me correctly, when the original sponsor introduced the bill he had spoken for 10 or 15 minutes when he had to be reminded by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) that he was speaking on the wrong bill.
There is, as I say, a great deal of confusion and I think it revolves around the title of the bill. At any rate, there are a number of observations in connection with it that I should like to make at this time. One of them is that at the moment these appointments are generally at pleasure, or have a fixed term. Other members have covered the undesirability of making it a criminal offence not to give notice. As I say, the appointments are made for a fixed term or at pleasure, and I can see great difficulties in having to give notice six months in advance.
While other members were speaking I was imagining a board of directors or a commission where three members, for health reasons, incompetence or some other reason, are given six months notice. Their usefulness is over, they have served well and been paid well. What would happen to that board, if it were composed of six members, three of whom had been given six months notice? It would have difficulty making a quorum, if the quorum were more than 50 per cent, at future metings of the board. These members would be under severance notice. The whole work of the board or commission could be delayed if more than half of the members, who may have been appointed 10 or 15 years previously, had been given six months notice.
These members may have arrived at a time of life when it might be better for them to do some other work. If 50 per cent of the members of that board were under six months severance notice, I would not feel this would be fair to the continuing members. I do not believe it woud be fair to the taxpayers of this country to have a board inoperative because of hurt feelings, or because of other characteristics that could develop. Someone
June 17, 1966	COMMONS
made reference to the way in which these matters are dealt with in private industry. Well, I am not sure that the director of a company is given six months notice by the shareholders. As a matter of fact I think some directors walk into their annual meeting as directors, and walk out of the annual meeting as ordinary citizens.


An hon. Member:: As a shareholder.


Yves Forest: As a member of parliament is treated.


James Edgar Walker: That is right; as the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Forest) pointed out, we operate under the same conditions. I do not see why this one class of citizen should be dealt with in another way.
One other point has been touched upon. I have a feeling that the old, hard political patronage connected with the appointment of members of boards is a thing of the past.
I can think of many members of boards, for instance, who were members at the time this government took office and are still occupying their positions. They are certainly carrying on under no fear at all of having their service suddenly terminated. These members are doing a good job.
There is one other point I should like to mention and that is the case of a member whose usefulness may be finished. All of us in the house are going to reach the day when our usefulness is over. My own view is that if we are wise we will get out while we are ahead.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Do not start naming people.


James Edgar Walker: Are there any questions hon. members would like to ask? It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that there are questions members want to ask.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, I have one question for the hon. member. I am aware of his interest in this bill, but would it be helpful to him if we now called it six o'clock?


James Edgar Walker: No, on the contrary, Mr. Speaker, I had one more sentence to utter, and then there are three more speakers who want to make comments on this particular bill. As I am reading the blues of the speech I have just made, sir, I would expect to find some unfinished sentences because of the interruptions that have taken place in the last few minutes. I thank the hon. member for giving us the opportunity of discussing this very interesting bill.
DEBATES	6597
Business of the House


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Lotbiniere.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I wish I had called it six o'clock.


Auguste Choquette: I have plenty of time to say all I have to say.
1Translation1
Mr. Speaker-
[.English1


Stanley Howard Knowles: Make it dramatic.
[Translation1


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I have the feeling that consideration of this bill is the best possible way to prepare the establishment of a republic and the abolition of the monarchy.
We are at the point where ministers of the crown are liable to be imprisoned. This recalls the temper prevailing at the time of the 1789 Revolution, when culprits were being sought all over the place, simply to whet the thirst for blood of the revolutionaries of the time, and with my own royalist feelings, I cannot but oppose such a bill. In view of the fact that the hon. member is a member of the bar, I cannot but be astounded that he should confuse the three categories of law:	the
criminal law on the one hand and, on the other, administrative law and private law.
Now these three categories of law have fundamentally different purposes. The Criminal Code is designed to penalize citizens who disturb public order; on the other hand, private law is intended to give to each his own.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
[English1


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour for the consideration of private members' business has expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I might indicate the proposed order of business for Monday, and in a general way for Tuesday. First, on Monday, we will start with government order No. 64, third reading of the Bankruptcy Act, followed by order No. 65, second reading of the Canada Student Loans Act; then order No. 71, the second reading of the measure amending the Customs Tariff; order No. 70, the measure amending the Excise Tax Act, second reading; order No.

June 17. 1966
Business of the House
62, the Canadian Film Development Corporation resolution; then order No. 73, The Canadian Dairy Commission resolution, and a resolution not yet appearing, the Crop Insurance Act resolution.
On Tuesday, it is proposed to continue with order No. 45, the Canada Assistance Plan resolution, followed by, order No. 66 second reading of the bill respecting the Health Resources Fund; followed by the public utilities transfer tax resolution, No. 49 on the order paper. If we complete all that, perhaps some of the items of business left over from Monday will be taken.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in Committee of Supply this day:]

[Stage Direction]
1, 5, 10, 15 and 20.

[Stage Direction]
1 and 5.
NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES 30 and 35.