1966-03-18

PRIVILEGE


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. As a member of a minority group in this house my question concerns the privileges of this minority. It has to do with the way in which the names of the members of committees are listed every Wednesday in Hansard and elsewhere. It also concerns the way in which the voting records are kept.
You will notice, Mr. Speaker, that first of all the committee chairman is listed, and then the vice chairman. Then within the allembracing framework of the word "Messrs." ire listed the committee members. The names of the women members-I use that term as a result of some of the atmosphere that still lingers, I imagine, after our experiences in the past two weeks-are picked out in the committee listings as though they were something accidental and perhaps not likely to recur.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that the presence of women in this house this past while may have been accidental and we hope their presence will not recur in that particular form. But I do suggest that women have been members of this house for long enough now to be considered as lady members of committees instead of having their names put in the list haphazardly like raisins in a pudding, as though to signify that they are something less than full members.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)
I do not know just how this is going to be done, but I do feel that in the wisdom and the great impartiality that you have shown-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Winona Grace MacInnis: -ways may be found to list the women-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That matter will be considered by the Chair.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table copies in English and in French of an aide memoire sent to the government of Canada by the government of France, dated March 10, with regard to matters having to do with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Is this the one I have been requesting?


Mr. Speaker:: Does the minister have leave to table the document to which he has just referred?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



IMMIGRATION


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, on February 24, in reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Langlois), I said that I would table the correspondence with the American consulate about Canadians who are going to the United States to work.
I am not tabling that correspondence but the regulations which were sent to me the day before yesterday. The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) mentioned that I had not tabled the correspondence as I had said I would, but after checking the file I noticed that I received those documents from our embassy in the United States through the Department of External Affairs, and unfortunately the document cannot be tabled.
So, I made a mistake, that is the correspondence was not exchanged with the American consulate but with our embassy in Washington.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND DISPUTES INVESTIGATION ACT


Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-148, entitled an
2858	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry Act to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Maurice Allard: This bill results from the present conflict between the C.N.T.U. and the C.B.C. about a decision of the Canada Labour Relations Board.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act so that a negotiation unit may be recognized both at the regional and the national level.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. While ordinarily the administration of justice falls under provincial jurisdiction, where the death sentence is imposed there is of course the right and the duty of the Governor in Council to review and determine on commutation or not, as the case may be, because of the revelations made in a book by Mrs. LeBourdais, which is about Steven Truscott's trial and the circumstances surrounding it, in the interests of justice and so that justice not only may be done but may seem to have been done, would the Prime Minister give consideration to an investigation into this matter, by way of royal commission or otherwise, to ascertain the true facts, in keeping with what has been done recently in the United Kingdom in the Evans murder case?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have already discussed this case with the Solicitor General, who has told me there is a report to be made in regard to it. I would prefer to reserve any comment on what the government may suggest is desirable or otherwise with respect to further action until I have seen this report. I am informed that it will not be many days before the report will be ready.

DEBATES	March 18, 1966



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the widespread interest in the announcement the minister made the day before yesterday about certain Canadian economic guide lines, I should like to ask the hon. gentleman whether these guide lines will cover the securities of Canadian subsidiaries of United States corporations and, if not, why no attempt is being made to block this loophole by means of which capital could be raised in Canada for investment in third countries.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: I am not certain that I completely understood the question put by the hon. gentleman. In the announcement I made the other day I was concerned with the possible flow of capital from Canada and, therefore, from North America, because of our access to the American market, to be used in foreign countries for the financing of foreign projects. It seemed to us that my request was in the national interest as a means of defending not only the Canadian capital market but the North American capital market. As I said at the time, this was done after discussion with the United States; indeed, the United States itself welcomed those measures.
We did not feel it was necessary to go any further than that at the present time. As far as Canadian subsidiaries of United States companies are concerned, companies which might be raising money in this market, it was believed-and this belief has now been strengthened as a result of discussions we had with the United States when Canadian cabinet ministers met with United States secretaries-that Canadian subsidiaries would act in a normal way and as good Canadian citizens.
Therefore, as I said, we did not feel there was any loophole to be plugged. I would add, however, that the government is giving consideration to reinforcing the advice which has been given to these companies as a result of the discussions we had in Washington, by trying to define what constitutes good Canadian citizenship on the part of subsidiaries.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. Is there anything in the economic guide lines which would prevent the Canadian subsidiary
March 18, 1966	COMMONS
of a United States corporation raising capital in the Canadian market for use outside Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, there is nothing specific in the request I made the other day, nor do we anticipate that special provision will be necessary. If it were we would certainly act.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: The other day the minister made mention of discouraging the issuance of bonds in Canada by foreign borrowers. I wonder whether he could tell us what type of thing he has in mind as to this element of discouragement. Will it be decisive? Will it stop the practice?


Mitchell William Sharp: I think the statement I made the other day was quite clear on this point. It defined exactly the type of security I asked Canadian investors not to buy. I know already from the reaction I have had from the investment community that they are taking this advice very seriously, but I intend to follow up in the future by finding out how much compliance there has been.


Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to pose my question to the Minister of Finance. Have copies of the letters dispatched to Canadian companies outlining Canadian guide lines, as described by the minister, been tabled or in some way put on the records of the house? If not, will the minister table copies of those letters?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to table the letter. I can inform the house that it contains mainly the statement I read in the house the day before yesterday.



ENTRY OF U.K. INTO COMMON MARKET- EFFECT ON COMMONWEALTH AGREEMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: My question is addressed either to the Secretary of State for External Affairs or to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It arises out of the greatly increased interest in Britain's entry into the European common market on the part of the governments of both France and Britain. I should like to ask whether Canada has communicated her views to the government of Great Britain respecting this matter, particularly with respect to commonwealth trade agreements.
DEBATES	2859
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, the decision as to whether Britain joins the common market is, of course, one to be made by the government of Great Britain itself. My hon. friend, however, may be assured that in all matters affecting our economic relations with Britain there have been and will continue to be the closest consultations.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: As a supplementary question, has the British government been in contact with the Canadian government respecting this matter, particularly as it involves the commonwealth trade agreements we have with Britain at the present time?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There have been no such consultations within the last few days but, as I said before, there are continuous consultations between our two governments on economic matters.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry. I would like to ask whether yesterday he received official representations in his office from officials of the city of Hamilton relating to the possibility that the Studebaker plant in Hamilton could be used beneficially in the completion of the New York safety car project.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I did see Mayor Copps and some of his civic officials yesterday morning. The purpose of his visit was not to make representations but to explain that he and his officials would be actively exploring possibilities for the use of the plant for that purpose.


William Heward Grafftey: As a supplementary question, this week the automobile industry announced to the public that the 1967 cars will have the sporty tiger look. Has the industry informed the minister that the sporty tiger look will include safety features?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: They have not so informed me, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. David Lewis (York Soulh):: Mr. Speaker, may I follow up the question just asked of the Minister of Industry, and ask whether he is merely leaving it to Mayor Copps to make the investigation or whether
March 18, 1366

Inquiries of the Ministry the government is taking an active part in developing steps for the use of the Stude-baker works in Hamilton for the production of a safety car or some other vehicle, under public ownership if necessary.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman asked a similar type of question a few days ago, and I do not think I really have anything further to add in respect to the matter of public ownership. I do reassure him, however, that the government is taking active steps to secure some form of utilization not only of the Studebaker plant but of its personnel.


David Lewis: As a further supplementary question, when there are people out of work and the plant is shut down, how long does it take for these steps to be taken?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the tabling of the aide memoire of General de Gaulle's message to Canada and to the other nations joined together in NATO,
I would ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether there has been any reply on behalf of Canada to this aide memoire, containing as it does those things that were revealed in the Sunday edition of the New York Times on March 13. At the same time, because of the great importance of this message and its implications for future relations among NATO countries, would the minister consider that this should not only be tabled but made a part of Votes and Proceedings, so that it may be readily seen by anyone wanting to study it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I hope the house may concur in the suggestion that the aide memoire I have tabled might be made an appendix to today's Hansard. There has been a reply to the letter addressed to the United States. Other countries, however, have not yet replied. Canada has not made its reply to this note. NATO members are meeting today, and pursuant to an agreement, which I hope will be reached between all the other members of NATO, there will be a statement made, perhaps over the week end, by heads of governments.

There can be no doubt about the position of Canada. We affirm our belief in collective security, our belief in the principle of military integration, and we express our satisfaction that the French government, as the note reveals, does not intend to denounce the treaty.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Does the minister not go a little far in saying that the French government does not intend to denounce the treaty but simply gives notice that the treaty will continue to the end of its period, but that France's attitude from now on will be that any integration in the manner of today on the part of the various nations sending troops to France would be an invasion of France's sovereignty?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: No, Mr. Speaker. The note I have tabled indicates that the French government do not intend to take advantage of the provision in the treaty for denounciation in 1969. They propose to continue in the alliance, but they do ask for the removal of bases and for action regarding other provisions which they believe to be contrary to the sovereignty of France.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. I wonder whether I might ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether, when the Canadian reply is available, he will table it in the house. Second, in view of the fact that the French aide memoire makes it clear that Canada will be asked to remove her units, installations and bases in France, have any negotiations been entered into with any other European country to transfer these bases and installations to any other country in Europe?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: There are discussions taking place, as I said, among the permanent representatives of the countries which compose NATO. The modalities have yet to be decided on, but these questions now are being examined, in respect of where the forces shall be relocated. This is a very large operation which can not be planned within the ten days since the announced decision of the government of France.


Mr. Speaker:: Do I understand correctly that the aide memoire is to be made an appendix to today's Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For text of document above referred to, see appendix.]
March 18, 1966	COMMONS



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Would the minister immediately check into the matter of the pouring of raw sewage by the C.P.R. and other operators at Banff, into the Bow river? This is causing pollution of the Bow river which is affecting the health of about half a million people in the city of Calgary and the district surrounding that city.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: I am a little unhappy that Calgary and Banff appear to point to one another as culprits. We have made a decision to construct a modern sewage treatment plant at Banff, and thereafter the effluent put into the Bow river will not be harmful to anyone. The engineering work will be undertaken in the year immediately ahead of us.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Defence Production whether he now is in a position to answer the questions I asked him last week in respect of the R.C.A.F. overhaul and repair contracts.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I do not have the information here. I will bring it forward on Monday.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to either the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources or the Minister of National Health and Welfare, whichever minister may have this matter under his jurisdiction. My question relates to a decision which I understand is known as the medicine chest case concerning the native Indians in Saskatchewan, which decision in effect reversed the decision of the lower courts. May I ask the government or the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether the government intends to take any steps to promote or assist in an appeal of this decision?
DEBATES	2861
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is very difficult for
the Chair to decide how urgent this question is. Apparently there is a question of an appeal, which might indicate that the matter is urgent in some way, and if there has been a decision made perhaps we should allow the minister to answer the question.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the government has not given any consideration to any action following the decision, but I will be glad to keep the hon. gentleman informed.


Frank Howard: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister, when he is considering this question, give consideration also to the prospect of action, either administrative or governmental, to provide these people with the necessary medical services in the spirit of the treaty without the necessity of an appeal process?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will be glad to consider that suggestion.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the action taken by President Johnson to keep the price of copper low in the United States, what steps does the minister propose to take to keep the Canadian price from spiralling? Canadian manufacturers using copper are finding it very difficult to compete with their United States counterparts.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that this question is not so urgent that it could not be placed on the order paper.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the statement made yesterday by the Secretary of State for External Affairs regarding the Cyprus situation, is it the intention of the government to further rotate units serving in Cyprus and, if so, what units will be affected?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, that is our intention.

March 18, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry The units involved were mentioned and recorded in Hansard a few days ago in reply to a hypothetical question which was posed that day. The hypothesis has now been removed.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is he aware of the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture to the effect that before a member of parliament is called to the cabinet the Prime Minister requests a complete report on him from the secret police, and 'that this report contains information on all aspects of the life of the candidate, even regarding his romantic affairs?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Hon. Michael Slarr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister, asking him whether his attention has been drawn to the disorganization of the cabinet benches yesterday as a result of which this house had to recess for two hours. Will he assure us that we will not meet this situation again?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the recess yesterday was, of course, in honour of St. Patrick's day.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: I have a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question was not allowed by the Chair, so a supplementary question cannot be asked.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Ontario asked a question which the Prime Minister answered. I should like now to ask him to consider the breakdown yesterday of cabinet solidarity, and whether he will explain the absence of 12 members of the cabinet today?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour, who is

responsible to the house for housing matters. In view of a statement made by the president of the National House Builders Association that the industry faces the danger of a critical stoppage in production due to the shortage of mortgage money, can the minister say whether the government is prepared to resume its role of direct lending in order to assure that there will be an adequate flow of mortgage money for this industry?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that this is a general question of policy which should not be asked at this time.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Bearing in mind the agreement announced yesterday between the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. which provides for an extended program of cultural exchanges between both countries, I wonder whether the minister will undertake to make a statement some time soon in regard to what Canada and the U.S.S.R. are doing in this field.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, sir.


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-sloke):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Many Canadians will have read with interest the announcement of the cultural and technical accord signed with Algeria. Is this the first of a series of accords, anticipating future similar agreements with Morocco and Tunisia?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend knows the government has been expanding its cultural arrangements with the French speaking countries in Africa and with the French speaking countries in Europe.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Selkirk asked me whether the chairman of the commission of inquiry into fresh water fish marketing had submitted a report. In my
March 18. 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry reply I stated that I understood a preliminary Mr. G. L. Chatterlon (Esquimall-Saanich):
report had been received. What I should have Mr. Speaker, is it the governments intention said is that a transcript of the minutes of to refer the Canada assistance plan to a public hearings has been received.	standing committee of the house or a joint
committee of the Senate and the house?



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the Secretary of State, but in her absence perhaps I can direct it to her parliamentary secretary. Would he advise the house whether any proposals for Canada's centennial youth parliament, other than that from Mr. William Fair, have been received by the minister's department? In view of the urgency of commencing organizational work on this project, has consideration been given to setting up a parliamentary committee to assist the centennial commission in organizing this youth parliament?


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker,
I will take this question as notice.



CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the government has stated on several occasions that the Canada assistance plan would come into effect on April 1, which is only two weeks from now, can the Prime Minister say what are the government's intentions regarding this legislation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, our intention is to bring this forward to the house just as quickly as possible. My hon. friend will realize that in view of the developments of the last two months the April 1 date does not seem now to be very practical.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have a supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the general belief that parliament is now back to work, will the government consider putting a number of items of legislation on the order paper so we may have them before us, such as medicare.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the government's intention in that regard will be made known when the bill is before the house.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Is the government aware of the presence in Canada of a self styled Viet Cong sympathizer by the name of Ramsey, of American origin, who has been brought to Canada by the C.B.C. at C.B.C. expense to air his views on a week end television program? If so, what consideration is being given to these activities?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker; but I will be glad to look into the matter, as I am not familiar with it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have a supplementary
question. Do we as Canadians have to aid and abet a modern day Lord Haw Haw or, as someone has put it, an unwashed Tokyo Rose?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



REQUEST FOR REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON ELECTION EXPENSES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether he has received a report from the special committee set up to look into the matter of federal election expenses. If so, can he give some indication when this report will be made available to members of the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, I have not received it yet. However, I understand that the commission has completed its work and I am informed that the report should be available, I hope in both languages, very very shortly.
March 18. 1366

Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



MONTREAL-ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION BY WHEAT BOARD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinihe-Bagol):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance.
In view of the fact that the arbitrary restrictions imposed by the Canadian Wheat Board as issued on February 7 last in the memorandum of the board secretary are causing serious economic prejudice to the interests of Montreal harbour, does the minister intend to allow the Montreal Harbour Board or its representatives to appeal from these discriminatory measures against Montreal harbour?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been under discussion in government circles from the time we received these protests. We are still in the process of examining them, but the tentative decision we have now reached-and I say this so there will not be any expectation which might be disappointed-is that we will not change the present regulations.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. Inasmuch as his departmental estimates will be going before the standing committee on fisheries, would the minister now consider referring to that committee for study the bill which was introduced the other day, namely Bill C-145, dealing with commercial fisheries?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This matter does not seem to be urgent, and I do not think the question should be accepted at this time.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he will now consider tabling the aide memoire which was sent to the United States government regarding the S.E.C. regulations with respect to the American economic guide lines?
[Mr. Pearson.1


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



SCIENCE COUNCIL OF CANADA


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, March 17, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Drury-Mr. Batten in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure for the establishment of a Science Council of Canada and to define the duties thereof, to provide for the appointment of the chairman and other members of the council and for the payment of the remuneration of the chairman and of travelling expenses of the members and associate members of the council, also for the payment of the remuneration of members of the council for additional duties: to provide further that all expenditures for the purposes of this measure shall be paid out of money appropriated by parliament therefor.
Mr. Schreyer:: Mr. Chairman, I would just like a few more minutes to conclude the remarks I was making last evening on this resolution.
I was saying, Mr. Chairman, just before the ten o'clock adjournment that the effort being put by the Canadian government into science research, and indeed the support of our academic centres vis-a-vis science research, did not compare very well with the effort put into this same field by the governments of other industrial nations. I concluded my remarks by reading into the record a letter which I believe could be typical of the attitude of many of our graduate students when they find themselves having to move to the United States; not so much because the salaries are better, although that is one reason, but usually because there is greater opportunity for them in their chosen scientific careers across the border.
It is often said, Mr. Chairman, that when making a comparison between Canada and the United States the ratio which should be used is ten to one; that whatever is being done in the United States should be achieved by Canada in the order of one tenth of the accomplishment. Now, it is true that sometimes comparisons are odious and invidious, but from time to time it is necessary for us to make comparisons in order to see how we measure up to progress and efforts made by other nations. When one compares the efforts in our Canadian graduate schools with the United States graduate schools, we find we are lagging behind.
March 18, 1966	COMMONS
I have some data, Mr. Chairman, which I believe will be of interest. This is taken from the first report of the Economic Council of Canada, and the report makes the observation that Canadian universities produce one doctoral degree for every 33 degrees granted in the United States. This is entirely out of proportion to our population ratio and is out of proportion to our national income levels, Mr. Chairman. Therefore on both counts it is fairly obvious that we are lagging behind in so far as science research effort is concerned.
Some sources put the ratio in the order of $100 expended on science research in the United States, both at the universities and in industry, while only $1 is expended in Canadian research, which is a fantastic discrepancy, Mr. Chairman. This ratio, if allowed to continue for long, will simply mean that with each passing year our rate of economic growth and industrial productivity will continue to lag behind even more the advanced and developed nations.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that in addition to a science advisory council, which is now before us, the government should seriously consider greater financial support to our major universities which will enable them to expand their graduate school science research programs. This is not all that should be done with regard to our university graduate research centres. This government should also be assisting industry in expanding its science research capability, which may have to be done on a co-operative basis.
Last year, for example, the Ontario Research Foundation recommended the establishment in this country of a system of research associations integrated at the national level for the purpose of undertaking research for companies within industrial fields. These industrial research associations could presumably be integrated and co-ordinated by the federal government, and if necessary the federal government could establish a crown corporation with somewhat the same purpose as the Rand Corporation in the United States, a publicly owned think factory, if you like, which in addition to carrying out its own science research could also act as a co-ordinating agency for a system of research associations in different parts of the country.
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)
Whatever approach is adopted, one thing that is clear is that the government of Canada must certainly do a good deal more than it has done up to now in providing 23033-181J
DEBATES	2865
Science Council oj Canada leadership and a means of co-ordinating our research efforts, as well as in providing a greater degree of financial support.
We find when making comparisons between our effort here and that in other countries, so far as industrial science is concerned, that Canada compares very poorly indeed. I have before me a chart published by the Ontario Research Foundation and which was later published in a Canadian electronics periodical in September last year. This chart shows that a small industrial nation like Belgium, for example, is able to sustain 55 industrial research associations, to support which the industrial firms pay up to 60 per cent of the cost with the government paying 30 per cent. In West Germany there are 61 industrial research co-ordinating associations or agencies, if you like, again with industry supporting over 60 per cent of the cost and the government over 30 per cent. In Sweden there are 27 such research associations with industry paying 75 per cent of the cost and the government over 20 per cent.
How does Canada compare, Mr. Chairman? Canada has two such industrial research associations which, according to this chart, are entirely supported by industry; there is no government support. Of course in relatively recent times the government has given some assistance to industrial research by way of tax write-offs and concessions, so we are making some progress.
It is pretty difficult to make a precise forecast, Mr. Chairman, without going into a great deal of detail, but one thing which does become eminently clear as we delve into this subject more and more is this. Science research in our academic graduate schools is not being supported by the government of this country to a sufficient degree, and our effort compares poorly with the effort put forth by other countries. In addition, the research carried on in our academic institutions and in Canadian industry leaves a great deal to be desired, not in terms of quality, Mr. Chairman, but in terms of personnel and actual quantity of programs being undertaken.
With those remarks, Mr. Chairman, I will conclude at this time, although I think it must be pointed out once again to the minister and to this administration that we can talk all we like about industrial productivity, but when our industrial research is lagging behind other exporting countries not only are we not going to make up any lag or deficiency; we will slip further behind.
2866	COMMONS DEBATES	March 18. 1966
Science Council of Canada


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Chairman, my remarks will be brief. We welcome the proposal to set up a science council and its proposed function as an advisory body. We also appreciate the outline of its duties presented to us by the minister last evening, when he spoke of it having the task of defining long range objectives in science for Canada, when he spoke of developing principles in research, and when he spoke of philosophy. Possibly he should have introduced an additional word at that time, because some of the most important decisions which will have to be taken in science research in the very immediate future will be moral ones.
There are a variety of aspects of scientific research which will increasingly concern the people of Canada. We trust that one of the functions of this advisory body will be to give immediate consideration to some of these issues. As an example of what I am talking about I might mention the proposals to synthesize various viruses, which could have far reaching implications for the future of human life on earth. That is only one of a great many problems.
I think we can trust the science council- and I believe that here we are talking primarily about the science council-to give good advice to the government as far as increasing our scientific research and providing opportunities in Canada for Canadian scientists. 1 think the council will give that kind of advice. These are the things which must be done, the things which are obvious, and we can expect them to give proper advice there.
The really difficult problems will arise when they come to questions of philosophy and morality in scientific research. The right answers will not always be obvious and their work will be difficult indeed. The members who compose the council will have to be chosen with the utmost care so we will have a group which will be able to give the best advice possible to the government on some of the extremely pressing problems which will come up in the future.
I prepared my remarks originally, Mr. Chairman, expecting the resolutions to be introduced the other way around, so I will have more to say on government order No. 4 when it comes up for debate.


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Chairman, I think we all accept the premise that science is necessary to our progress. This has been the tenor of the speeches which have been made to this
[Mr. Sehreyer.l
point. I have a few questions I should like to ask the minister before the committee passes this resolution, because there are a lot of things which are not clear in connection with the necessity for the setting up of a science council.
Rather than speak of the need for further research, I should like to look at the technical aspect. In his introductory remarks the minister indicated that the role of the National Research Council is going to be altered in some way, and I assume that immediately hereafter the minister is going to introduce another resolution to change the name of the National Research Council and to make some other changes. However, before we pass the first resolution I think we ought to know what is the set-up proposed for the National Research Council.
[DOT] (12:00 noon)
I appreciate that the minister can bring in only one resolution at a time, but perhaps we should be better acquainted with the facts if we knew a little more about the proposed change in role of the N.R.C., and whether that will bring about the necessity for a science council.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask this question. What role can the science council that is now proposed carry out that could not be carried out by a branch of the National Research Council, which has been set up and which is a very large organized establishment? Why could not an advisory council on science, say, be incorporated as part of the National Research Council without setting up a completely new branch? I mention that because the minister said in his introductory remarks at page 2849 of Hansard of March 17:
The council will be advisory only and will have no direct authority over expenditures or budgets of any government department or agency.
Therefore the first question I should like answered is why it is necessary to set up another agency of government when the procedure and means of carrying out what is suggested is with the National Research Council. I should like to know that.
Second, I should like to know to whom this new council is going to report. From what the minister said I expect that it will report to the science secretary of the Privy Council, who undoubtedly will want to refer certain matters to the National Research Council and certain matters to the different departments.
March 18. 1968	COMMONS
Then presumably the report will go to cabinet.
I should like to know where this proposed council is to report, and for what purpose it is to report. Is it for the purpose of over-all government policy respecting science, or is it for the narrower purpose of advising the means of achieving our scientific objectives in Canada? That is a question that we should all like to have answered. Where is this body to report, and what will be the result of that?
I wish to mention a third point. The minister has said that Dr. MacKenzie has recommended that some changes be made in the proposed set up. We have great regard for the ability of Dr. MacKenzie. I should like the minister to let us know whether what is now proposed is what Dr. MacKenzie recommended. Did he recommend the setting up of a science council in addition to the N.R.C.? Dr. MacKenzie's experience in the National Research Council is valuable to us. The minister in his introductory remarks referred to Dr. MacKenzie and said that the doctor had looked into this matter. We should like to know whether this is a proposal that Dr. MacKenzie actually recommended be carried out, and if this proposal essentially is carrying out what he has recommended.
I should also like to ask the minister what deficiencies exist in the present set up which require the addition of a science council. We have always been led to believe that the National Research Council was a leader in its field, not only in Canada but throughout the world. Great numbers of students come to Canada to take part in and observe the work of the council and the work of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, which is closely allied with that of the council. We have been led to believe that in this country we have one of the best research councils in the world. I believe that is true. I should like to know what are the deficiencies in the present set up that bring about the need for an additional body, which is nothing more than an advisory committee. I do not want to lead the minister into making his speech on the National Research Council, but I think we should have the facts I ask for before us.
I am not against anything which will improve our scientific knowledge and our research facilities. However, I for one would like to be satisfied that we are creating something which is not presently provided for and which cannot be done under the aegis of the National Research Council, under the aegis of the Privy Council secretariat, or
DEBATES	2867
Science Council of Canada under the various other research groups existing in the different departments. I was always under the impression that the National Research Council largely co-ordinated the efforts of other research institutions, such as defence research and so on, although defence research to some extent is separate from other reasearch. Almost every department has its own need for research, and almost every department has its work done, in large measure, by the National Research Council, which does the requested work at the same time that work within the department itself is carried on. However, I was always under the impression that the National Research Council carried out much of that work.
The remarks I have just made cover the points I wish to draw to the minister's attention. The minister did not really answer those questions which have been put to him. I read through his introductory remarks again, and if there were answers to the questions in those remarks I was unable to find them. I should like very much, before we even consider bringing in a bill to set up a science research council, to obtain some answers as to the over-all plan for the division of duties as between this new science council and the National Research Council. Once those answers are available we shall be better able to decide on the need for the proposed council.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)


Maurice Allard: Mr. Chairman, the resolution before the committee is seeking to attain very worthwhile objectives.
The minister said last night in his statement that the science council would try to define long term objectives for science in Canada, including all natural sciences as well as pure and applied sciences. He also assured the house that this would be an advisory body which would only advise the government by encouraging the development of science in Canada.
I have listened to the remarks made by hon. members in the house since the minister spoke.
It is very easy to see, in the light of the opinions expressed, that this new science council of Canada is expected to take an interest in a variety of fields, namely security, public health, natural resources, productivity, education and university programs.
Those, Mr. Chairman, are fields which, in my humble opinion-and I am not afraid to be considered narrow-minded-do not come, in
2868	COMMONS
Science Council of Canada the last analysis, under the jurisdiction of the federal government.
For many years, within the federal administration, I am not questioning their integrity but they have been trying to look after everything, and when they cannot come in through the front door, they do it by the back door. All indirect means are used to succeed, after a number of years and indirect precedents created here and there, in getting into fields which the Canadian constitution gave exclusively to the provinces.
Today the government wants to set up a national advisory science council. We are told: It is not going against the authority of the constitution, it is not invading the provincial field with regard to culture and education. It is only an advisory body.
But that is just it, Mr. Chairman, what advice will that body give? It will say to the federal government: It would be advisable to increase the expenditures of the federal government for grants to the universities, increased laboratory facilities, special studies, either in natural sciences or pure sciences.
The federal government will be advised to deal with matters which do not come under its jurisdiction under the Canadian constitution.
I know very well, Mr. Chairman, that when some hon. members talk of respecting the constitution, others look at them, curious, amused, saying that we are singing a tune which is utterly out of date.
But I feel that this way of doing things increases and multiplies tensions across Canada. If that is what is called co-operative federalism, I fail to see where the co-operation comes in.
For instance, have the ministers of the present government discussed with the provincial governments, at recent federal-provincial conferences on poverty or other topics, the creation of a national science council? No. A move is made, a field is entered into, and when one is strongly entrenched in it, when public funds have been spent in fields which are not allotted by the constitution to the central government, then the provinces are told: "Now, if you wish, we will co-operate".
So that is co-operative federalism? Well, Mr. Chairman, I must say that I respect that way of doing things, which has become desirable for nine provinces in Canada-I am the first to respect 1966 concepts of thought and action-but it does not reflect in any way the wishes and aspirations of Quebec and French Canada.
DEBATES	March 18, 1966
That is why, Mr. Chairman, I say that by invading this field, through that body, we are directly, or indirectly if you wish, dealing with the fields of education and culture which, according to the Canadian constitution, come strictly under provincial jurisdiction.
I have neither the time nor the intention of developing today all the arguments that prove that the federal government has, in the last few years, intruded into sectors which do not fall within its jurisdiction. I shall merely refer the house to Vol. II, Part III, page 237 of the French version of the Tremblay Commission report, where fair and profuse answers are given to the arguments developed here in the house, and elsewhere by other people, to justify the federal government's intrusion, not only in the field of science but in all spheres.
Specific answers are given to those arguments and I urge members of the house to study the arguments put forward in answer to the following contentions with regard to the theory of ancillary powers.
The argument concerning the financial incapacity of the provinces is often heard: Ottawa will look after this, Ottawa will be in a position to help the country for the common good, because the provinces do not have the financial means to do so. It is very easy to understand, since the argument is fully explained. The provinces are unable to deal adequately, in their universities and high schools, with the development of science because the central government keeps too great a share of tax revenue in the country. It is as simple as that. That is why the central government, while not handing over to the provinces an adequate share of tax revenue, intrudes in all types of fields in which constitutional responsibility is not too well defined.
At page 237 of the same report, extensive answers are also given to four other arguments: the distinction between culture and education, the right of the government to concern itself with education, the requirements of the common good, the national role and the needs of universities.
Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to summarize all this, but hon. members who want to know why Quebec has always been very sensitive about this matter will find here substantial arguments in this connection.
Therefore, I say that the creation of a Science Council of Canada is a unilateral and indirect intrusion in the field of education. It reflects the centralizing principle which has

March 18, 1986	COMMONS
been applied here in Ottawa for many years, whatever governments came into power, to the effect, for instance, that Ottawa enjoys an unlimited taxation power and an absolute power to spend in its own way. But that is not true. I say that this way of proceeding infringes the federalist nature of the Canadian constitution.
That is why, Mr. Chairman, even though I understand that the situation and mentalities have undergone great changes since 1867, I submit that we are today confronted with two mentalities: the English Canadian mentality, which does not object to the fact that the central government becomes interested in all sorts of fields, such as sciences, culture, scholarships, federal loans to students and, on the other hand, the French Canadian mentality, which does not want Ottawa to be the centre of all these activities and claims jealously provincial autonomy in these important and fundamental matters.
Mr. Chairman, decisions will have to be made one of these days because of those two attitudes.
The provinces cannot be suffered to invade a jurisdiction which possibly comes under the federal nor can the latter encroach without previous consultation, agreement or constitutional reform upon a provincial jurisdiction.
We are all hugger-muggering along, creating constitutional chaos and permanent tensions in the country.
I see that the government has again been sinking into lethargy during the past month and a half.
We have asked several members on both sides of the house to set up a parliamentary committee on constitutional reform to open a dialogue, to consider the responsibilities of the federal and provincial governments in the economic and social context of 1966.
Other members have asked that this parliamentary committee appoint federal legislators who would define their views together, as a prelude to a national constitutional conference bringing together representatives of the provinces and federal legislators.
That is urgent. It is much more urgent I feel than to constantly try to create enmities on both sides of the house. Those are basic requirements in 1966.
What, then, is happening in Quebec? All kinds of organizations. Again, recently, a committee called the Canada committee was formed. That is quite an organization. There are also many people from Montreal and its
DEBATES	2869
Science Council of Canada vicinity who are concerned about the national interest, of this Canadian crisis which is a fact, which is serious and which originates in Quebec.
While this is going on, Mr. Chairman, here what do we do? For three or four days at a time, from both sides of the house, we pick on each other, engage in sword play, make charges on the floor of the house, indulge in all kinds of foolishness. But what about essential business? Nothing is done there.
I feel that those are urgent matters, Mr. Chairman, and therefore the government ought to set up a parliamentary committee on constitutional reforms, so that we can clearly define and exchange our views with the provinces and then adapt ourselves to the social and economic prospects of 1966.
Did the minister discuss those things with Hon. Pierre Laporte, the Quebec minister of cultural affairs? True, they relate to education. But no, such things are not mentioned. We invade every field, and when Quebec starts crying and complaining again, we say: Quebec is never satisfied.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I have just been asked a question, and I might prevent the hon. gentleman from falling into error if I tell him that I have not spoken to Mr. Laporte. I have, however, spoken about this project to the minister responsible for the new Quebec research council, the minister of trade and industry, Mr. Levesque.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Chairman, whether it concerned this or that minister, the fact remains that the Minister of Industry did not tell us about the talks and negotiations on the joint effort that could be achieved between his department and the provincial department. But there is no doubt, Mr. Chairman, that this is a very delicate matter in view of the constitutional responsibilities and considering especially the consequences of the advice that the advisory council will give the federal government. That will probably lead the federal government to establish-it is probably a very clever prelude-in a few years a department of science in Canada and to justify the payment of scholarships to universities, colleges and secondary schools in practically all fields related to science.
That is why I have some reservations as to this resolution. I wish to raise these questions
March 18, 1866

Science Council of Canada precisely in order to bring them to the attention of the hon. minister, and I shall wait for the bill and its various provisions to be presented before expressing a definite opinion on the general aims of the project.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that there is always a solution to a problem. I think-as the minister seemed to indicate earlier, although we do not know of these conversations-that there should be long consultations and a close co-operation between the central and provincial governments in all these fields which were not as important in 1867, when many sciences and especially technological developments, industrial and otherwise, which are so useful today, did not exist.
Therefore, the government should take steps in this direction, not unilaterally but after consultations according to the present economic and social context; in other words, there should be constitutional reforms in this field. This is very easy and not at all complicated.
I would not wish the house to think that the government takes steps without consulting provincial representatives, including those of the province of Quebec, so as to know the opinion of that province.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, not a single hon. member could disagree with the sentiments expressed by the minister when he introduced this resolution yesterday. In view of the complaints which have been made, not only from year to year but literally from week to week, by members of the scientific community, by physicists, by the medical profession, by chemists, by agricultural scientists, and by industrial researchers about the lack of direction in scientific policies, about the amount of money provided, about the woeful lack of support for all these disciplines from Canadian governments during the last ten years, it is obvious that this kind of organization is needed.
But, Mr. Chairman, as I read the minister's remarks in Hansard this morning I could not help thinking I have heard this before. It is practically word for word the same speech the Prime Minister made when he announced the formation of a scientific secretariat to be headed by Dr. Forward. I think that was two years ago. Since then we have allocated a little more money for scientific research than we provided previously, but basically nothing has changed. Our scientists are still complaining, and legitimately so, about the lack of

support from government. Basically they still do not know in what fields we are to concentrate our efforts, if we are to concentrate them at all. They do not know how much support they can get or expect from the government.
One thing this new organization can do, although on the basis of experience I am sceptical that it will, is define the relationships between existing organizations which do research, the relationships between the National Research Council, the Defence Research Board, the scientific secretariat, if it continues to exist, and the research which is being done and which should be done in the universities.
If this science council can do that, Mr. Chairman, then it will make a contribution; but I am sceptical about the ability of a new organization to overcome the established practices and desires of the existing agencies such as the National Research Council and the Defence Research Board. I doubt whether it will be able to make them give up any of their power, their prestige and their ability to control what is done not only by themselves but by others, and I shall go into that in some detail in a few minutes.
But even if it could do that-and this is not the time to discuss it in detail although I can tell the minister some of us will be discussing it in great detail, possibly extending over days and weeks when the estimates come before the appropriate committee

unless there is a major and revolutionary change in the thinking, in the concept of Canadian governments, federal and provincial, about the need for a tremendously expanded effort which will mean tripling and quadrupling the amount of money spent for scientific research, this country will be left far behind most of the other countries of the world.
It is easy to make the kind of speech which the minister made in vague generalities, but when we come to examine actual cases we can see how far we depart from what the minister spoke of yesterday. Some weeks ago in his capacity as a member of parliament from Montreal the minister, together with the Minister without Portfolio, sent a telegram to the government of Quebec urging it to reconsider the grants it was giving to McGill University, the university from which the minister himself graduated.
In view of that I am surprised to find that one of the most exciting, one of the most imaginative scientific research programs ever developed in Canada, conducted by the
March 18, 1966	COMMONS
university of which the minister is a graduate, is now in a state of utter confusion, not knowing whether it will have to close up shop or move its whole operation to the United States simply because the minister and his department have not lived up to their promise that they would let the project know about further financing by January of this year. I am referring to the project called the high altitude research program.
In this connection I wish to quote one paragraph from a series of articles evaluating this program, written by Anthony J. Patterson, which appeared in the Ottawa Journal in 1964:
The significance of HARP, however, extends far beyond the gathering of weather information for scientists. Originally designed as an alternate technique to rocket firings in order to send probes to heights of 100 miles and above, the gun is now being talked about for everything from orbital shots to defence against ICBM attack.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
So far, Mr. Chairman, that project has had allocated to it in the way of funds just under $6.5 million. I am told that 60 per cent of this money came from the United States and 40 per cent from Canada. So one can see that the Canadian government has not been overly generous in financing a project in a major field which is being carried on by Canadians in a Canadian university. This HARP project has had a continuing battle on a day to day basis to know exactly what its future is. They have said

and this is information I received less than one hour ago-that they practically have run out of funds from the Canadian government. McGill University and the United States partner were promised that by January 1966 they would be told what funds would be forthcoming for the next year at least to help finance this important project. It now is March 18, and the promise to let McGill University know by January still has not been kept. They still do not know what financial assistance they can expect from the Canadian government.
So far no money has been allocated by the Canadian government, with the result that McGill University and the directors of the HARP project now have been forced, by the failure of the Canadian government not only to give them the money but also to tell them what they can expect, to try to get more money from United States government sources. The money they received from the Canadian government has come by way of grants through the Department of Defence
DEBATES	2871
Science Council of Canada Production. I have been told, Mr. Chairman, that a large part of the difficulty in getting any commitment from the Canadian government has been because senior officers in the Defence Research Board are hostile to this project, so much so that they have exerted pressure on McGill University to have the director dismissed. I am told that letters have gone from officials in the Defence Research Board to McGill University along this line. I am told also, Mr. Chairman, that at the lower levels in the Defence Research Board the personnel have been favourable to the HARP project, but that at the top the officials of the Defence Research Board have been carrying on a vendetta against this project and that this is the reason the money they expected to receive has not yet been committed.
What is the reason? I think the reason is what I tried to get at in the very beginning; the top officials in the Defence Research Board are antagonistic to any scientific project which has any relationship to defence unless they themselves can control it lock, stock and barrel. I am told that this has been the reason for the opposition to this project on the part of certain officials in the National Research Council. That is, they think it is a matter of civilian research and they think they should control it. This is a project which is under the control, as I think it should be, of the actual people in the universities.
Mr. Chairman, if this is what has gone on, at a time when we have had a scientific secretariat, it seems to me we have a right to ask how much things will be different when we get this science council. In connection with this federal project I am told that while we are worrying, and rightly, about the fact that we are not getting enough postgraduate people in the sciences in Canada, here is a project which up to now has had five persons *working on it who are working on their Ph.D. degrees, and they are expecting 20 more to come to work for them in the next year or so; and if they cannot get the money from Canada and are not told what they can expect, the alternative will be that they will have to turn increasingly to the United States.
Who among us can say, if the United States continues to increase its contribution to this important scientific project, that at some future date they will not say that since they are paying for the whole project it might as well be removed to a United States university or some other similar facility in which they could have complete control?
March 18, 1966

Science Council of Canada
Mr. Chairman, this is just one example. I could bring many examples and show them to the minister, but I am sure he has more information than I have. I have a file which is at least a foot thick containing correspondence from persons in the scientific disciplines dealing with the same story. In 1964 I received a letter from a former Canadian who now is an associate professor of physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, undoubtedly one of the top if not the top scientific institution in the United States. This person, Mr. Chairman, is in the United States because Canada could not find a place for him. It was not just a case of there not being a salary for him at some Canadian university, but that there were not the facilities available for him to carry on the research which he, like hundreds of other Canadians, would like to do.
He sent me a letter in which he mentions that in a period of less than two months he collected the names of 50 physicists from Canada who now are working in the United States. I would like to read the names of some of these former Canadians who now are in the United States. Among them are Dr. P. E. Pashler, manager of applied physics research at G.E. Research Laboratory; Dr. J. Hillier, vice president, R.C.A. Laboratories; Dr. A. H. Snell, assistant director, Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Prof. P. T. Demos, director of the Laboratory of Nuclear Science,
M.I.T., and Professor L. V. Holroyd, chairman of the Physics department, University of Missouri. In his letter, Mr. Chairman, he quotes from the letters he has received from these people, all of them saying the same thing; they would have been happy to stay in Canada had this country given them the facilities and the ability to do the work they would have liked to do.
Mr. Chairman, Professor Lomon sent me a report issued by the National Acadamy of Sciences of the National Research Council in the United States which shows the number of people of foreign origin who studied for their doctorate in the United States for the years 1957-61. From North America, which means essentially from Canada, over 1,100 people studied in the United States. The minister knows, I am sure, as we all do, that people who go to the United States to study for their Ph.D. degree very often do not come back to Canada. Mr. Chairman, with the kind of thing I spoke of specifically in respect of the HARP project, and if this is typical of the 
Canadian attitude, it is not surprising that they do not come back to Canada.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
I want to speak for just a few minutes on a problem which is of tremendous concern to Canadians and which should be of concern to a government which has pledged to implement a plan of universal medical insurance coverage for Canadians by 1967. The Canadian Medical Association has indicated on a number of occasions that this plan really will not work. I disagree with this view, but one of the reasons advanced for that belief is simply that we do not have enough doctors in Canada. How can we have enough doctors in Canada when the medical colleges, which depend so fundamentally on professors who are interested and involved in medical research, simply have not got the people required to perform the tasks which we ask them to perform?
I could go back and refer to the Farqu-harson report and document it; I could go back to the MacKenzie report and document it, but let me refer to a report presented to the Prime Minister in January of this year signed by Charles Gundy and endorsed by a long list of the best known individuals in the field of medical education and medical research in Canada. This list of endorsements includes several hundred of the most distinguished medical researchers in Canada, and I should like to read a few excerpts from the report. The first is:
Although financial support has been increasing, medical research in Canada today is being conducted on an inadequate scale.
And a little further on:
A substantial increase in capital and operating support for medical research in Canada is needed at once. The key consideration is the creation of conditions which will encourage teacher-scientists to remain in Canada and in teaching and research; which will encourage Canadian teacher-scientists and graduates now in the United States to return to work in Canadian universities and hospitals; and which will encourage undergraduates to take up research in the medical sciences as a career. Unless a more favourable environment for medical research is provided as a matter of urgency, the skilled manpower on which all else depends will be inadequate both in quantity and quality.
I could go on and on reading from this very detailed report, but I am sure the minister has it in his possession. I should like to read from letters I have received expressing specific opinions of the better known medical research people in this country, to indicate just how disheartened they are about
March 18, 1966

medical research and the support they receive from the Canadian government. I should like to read from this letter I received from Dr. J. C. Laidlaw of the Department of Medicine of the University of Toronto. The paragraph to which I refer reads as follows:
Dr. Mustard and I have canvassed some 80 Canadian medical research workers who are considered to be among the top men in their fields. These are the men who receive grants from the National Institutes of Health (N.I.H.) in the U.S.A. Sixty five of the 80 men canvassed replied to the questionnaire. Their replies indicated that on the average 50 per cent of their operating funds came from American sources.


The Chairman:: Order, please. 1 must advise the hon. member that his allotted time has expired.


David Orlikow: I wonder if I could be allowed a minute or two more to complete this quotation.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee give unanimous consent to the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Orlikow: Dr. Laidlaw then states:
This is very disturbing in view of the announcement that N.I.H. support of Canadian medical research is to continue to diminish, and diminish considerably over the next five years.
I have received similar letters from Dr. Nickerson of the Department of Pharmacology of the University of Manitoba, Dr. Hoffer, director of psychiatric research of the Department of Public Health in the province of Saskatchewan and from Dr. Selye of the University of Montreal. All of these men make the same point; that what governments of Canada-not just this government, because this goes back a long time-have done to support medical research has been completely inadequate.
It has been stated, of course, that we cannot compete with the United States. Certainly we cannot compete dollar for dollar; but if you compare Canada with the United States in terms of per capita assistance to medical research you will find that the United States is spending ten times what Canada is spending. In other words the Canadian population is only one tenth of the United States population, but the United States is spending 100 times as much as Canada is spending for medical research. It is no wonder that some of the most respected, progressive and intelligent medical researchers have gone to the United States in recent years, or that more are planning to go there.
Science Council of Canada
This is perhaps not the time to go into details on this subject, but I should like to close my remarks with an appeal to the minister. I hope the statement he made yesterday regarding the establishment of this science council is more than just a general statement such as many which have been made year after year by this and former governments. The government should take the lead in this country in facing up to the fact that unless we meet the needs of scientific research the whole educational system at the university level in this country, the whole science program and, indeed, the industrial base of this country will fall behind not only the United States but all other major industrial countries in the world, with the most disturbing and profound consequences to this country.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to speak at any length. I think I can make what general remarks I wish to make on this resolution in a very few minutes.
In view of the minister's academic, military and parliamentary record, and in view of the fact that this house is composed of a good number of members who have been bestowed with orders, decorations and degrees, I rise in a sort of humble mood to present a few ideas in support of what I consider a worth-while resolution which I trust will result in some early government action. As I said, Mr. Chairman, I trust the house will consider my remarks somewhat in the nature of fireside musings on scientific policy on the part of a comparative simpleton in this field. I do not pretend to be an expert in this regard. I am speaking as a rancher and as a member of parliament without very much knowledge of this aspect of life. However, I have given some thought to it.
Let me say first of all that I have always aimed at viewing my life as a whole in an attempt to adopt a sort of philosophy of life. My philosophy is based on four firm beliefs. The minister may look at me and think this is a bit out of order in the consideration of a resolution such as the one before us, but I think before I am finished I will have gained some measure of support.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
First of all, I believe in the first clause of the old Westminster catechism, that the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever with all the implications and manifestations surrounding that first doctrine. Second, I believe we should aim to teach all human beings a reverence for all living
March 18, 1966

Science Council of Canada things in creation. Third, I believe when men are dealing with public or private policy we cannot go very far wrong when we are considering a resolution like this which has as its basic purpose that we practice that old adage, waste not, want not. My fourth belief is that the Lord helps them who help themselves, and I trust that this resolution is directed to that end.
Now what in reality is the purpose of this science council? In my opinion it is to remedy the startling unevenness in our national life. I think we all agree with this opinion. We cannot measure our success as a society with the poor and underdeveloped nations. The only fair comparison must be that we must measure our achievements against our potentialities and capabilities.
To illustrate the very sharp contrasts which exist side by side in Canadian life, and which I trust this resolution is directed at, we must take note of homes which are comfortable and even lavish, while the facilities for public recreation in our cities are often still primitive. We spend immense sums to air condition offices and public buildings while we continue to allocate insignificant funds to eliminate the dangerous pollution of our atmosphere. Millions of dollars are spent for advertising all conceivable and sometimes unnecessary products, while at the same time we say we cannot afford to develop the necessary parks and recreational centres in the downtown sections of our cities.
More and more of our country's unparalleled natural beauty is being destroyed by thoughtless and unplanned exploitation. As an example of this let me refer to these terrible places where they dump all the used automobiles, which you find outside our cities and many of our towns. Millions of dollars are spent on pleasure craft in this country. This has come to be a status symbol. I have not been worried about status because within thirty days of your death most people have forgotten you, except your relatives and close friends. We cannot in many instances find unpolluted water where we can enjoy swimming and the other water sports. Canadians have developed a great capacity for solving mechanical problems and creating technical wonders, while at the same time we tolerate great areas of shabbiness and ugliness in our cities and our countryside which debase our lives and our culture.
I trust this resolution will provide an opportunity for the logical and moral development of our physical resources. Under the 
present circumstances I may say, in terms of ill health and unemployment, there is continued misuse of our human resources. This misuse is inexcusable, and I trust that under this resolution an attempt will be made to solve this waste of human resources. Let us face it. In the midst of progress and plenty for the majority we find that many live their lives in despair because they are shackled by generations of disadvantages imposed by society and by the lack of opportunity surrounding them.
Now tremendous possibilities for the application of science can be found if this resolution is acted upon in national planning for the prevention of disease, training of doctors and the provision of the physical plants in which work can be undertaken or the healing of human beings.
Now just briefly, according to figures I have received we are spending about 75 cents per capita for medical research, whereas by comparison in the United States a single agency, the National Institute of Health, spent about $5.35 per capita last year. I think this explains what can be done in this country to improve the situation with respect to the development of hospitals, medicare plans and national health. The application of science in the development of national and provincial policies, for the conservation of land, water, forests and wildlife, offers tremendous possibilities and great opportunities to this council.
However, for policies to be effective they must be understood. This requires a sound campaign of education on the part of the federal, provincial and municipal governments and organizational interest in giving effect to the policy expressed in this resolution. This legislation is a vehicle through which a national policy for the utilization of scientific methods can be provided for the development of the individual and the nation. The government has to take action to make certain of this fact.
Research into all aspects of human endeavour relating to the conservation and development of our human and natural resources is urgently required, as well as the co-ordination of that research and activity. All types of organizations in Canada are urging research in such various fields as agricultural organizations, labour organizations, organizations representing industry, various conservation groups and communities
March 18, 1966	COMMONS
and so on. What is required is some leadership from the federal government under the provisions of this resolution.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I apologize for interrupting the hon. member, but the Secretary of State for External Affairs has a statement to make and in order that he may do so the Chair will have to rise and report progress. Does the committee give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give its unanimous consent to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Acting Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, in reverting to motions I want to say to the hon. gentleman who was speaking in committee that I regret to have had to interrupt him at this stage. However, I am sure he will fully understand, and I will just be taking up a few moments.
I rise to make a declaration that is being made by fourteen countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization at this hour. Normally the Prime Minister would be making this statement. However, he has gone to welcome the Queen Mother, who is arriving in Ottawa at this moment.
Mr. Speaker, the government of France on March 10 delivered a note to the Canadian ambassador in Paris setting out the position of that government regarding France's future participation in NATO.
The French note which I tabled this morning states that France intends to withdraw all its remaining land and air forces still remaining under NATO command. French naval forces have already been withdrawn. France also requires the removal from French territory of all NATO military headquarters, including SHAPE itself. Finally, France requires the withdrawal of foreign forces and installations from France, unless the forces are placed under French rather than NATO operational command.
[DOT] (1:00 p.m.)
It is the view of the Canadian government that Canadian forces at the disposition of the alliance in Europe should be under the operational command of the Supreme Allied
DEBATES	2875
Statement re French Aide Memoire Commander. The direct implication for Canada of the French decision, therefore, is that we shall have to relinquish our air base at Marville and the air division headquarters at Metz and relocate these forces and facilities elsewhere. Other Canadian forces in Europe outside of France are not directly affected.
The French government also addressed notes to all other members of NATO. These notes are all substantially similar. The notes addressed to the United States, the Federal Republic of Germany and Canada deal additionally with matters which are the subject of bilateral agreements with France.
The French intention to withdraw from the integrated military arrangements established under NATO has been the subject of consultation among the other 14 members of the organization who have determined to maintain the integrated defence structure of the alliance. The experience of the last two world wars and modern developments in warfare permit no effective alternative to unified command and planning arrangements for allied forces. Recognizing the need for continuing these proven arrangements, Canada has today joined the other members of NATO in making the following declaration:
The following declaration has been agreed between the heads of governments of Belgium, Canada, Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States of America.
The North Atlantic Treaty and the organization established under it are both alike essential to the security of our countries.
The Atlantic alliance has ensured its efficacy as an instrument of defence and deterrence by the maintenance in peacetime of an integrated and interdependent military organization, in which, as in no previous alliance in history, the efforts and resources of each are combined for the common security of all. We are convinced that this organization is essential and will continue. No system of bilateral arrangements can be a substitute.
The North Atlantic Treaty and the organization are not merely instruments of the common defence. They meet a common political need and reflect the readiness and determination of the member countries of the North Atlantic community to consult and act together wherever possible in the safeguard of their freedom and security in the furtherance of international peace, progress and prosperity.
I would remind the house before I take my seat that the government of France in the note it has sent to Canada does not, as I said during the question period today, propose to denounce the treaty.
March 18, 1968
2876	COMMONS DEBATES
Statement re French Aide Memoire


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the conclusion arrived at by the minister on behalf of the government of Canada will, I believe, command the support of all Canadians. There is nothing more serious than the possibility of the disintegration of an organization that has meant so much to the peace of Europe and of the world. Apparently General de Gaulle believes that the dangers of 1945, 1946, 1947 and 1948 are no longer in existence. I only wish that events which have taken place could give support to that view. We still face a terrible threat from Communist aggression, and this organization, built on unity and common safety, has done much to preserve the peace.
Let me recall the situation in the dark days of 1916 and 1917 during the first world war. When there was disunity in command there was defeat on the field of battle. It was difficult to bring the nations together at that time and it was difficult in the last war. However, it was not until unity was established that the forces of freedom were able to move forward. That unity must be preserved today.
What the declaration by the French government will mean is that we shall have to withdraw our forces from France. Supreme headquarters will be removed from Paris and our headquarters at Metz will also have to be moved.
This is an announcement that cannot but cause deep concern to all of us who believe in the necessity for an integrated command as a basis for the survival of each and all of us. There is apparently nothing that can be done to bring about any change of opinion on the part of General de Gaulle and the Republic of France. That being so, we must accept the declaration that he has made, at the same time making it clear on behalf of Canada that we believe in the continuance of NATO and that the nations of NATO shall continue to remain united.
In saying that I realize that the note states that NATO will continue, but NATO without an integrated command will be as non-existent as it is possible for that organization to be. So the remaining nations in NATO must show, with the kind of spirit that is necessary today, that they will stand together.
It is regrettable that France has taken this stand. I called it a truculent one the other day and the minister took objection to the use of the expression. It is a stand difficult to understand but it is one that we must meet

by bringing into still closer relationship the remaining nations of NATO in an integrated command, at the same time doing our part to implement those portions of the NATO agreement having to do with the strengthening of economies as between nations. Indeed, what has taken place is a challenge to open up new vistas in international relationships. One of those things which I think should be carefully considered is an Atlantic community built upon the principles of equity, and common purpose, thereby assuring that the nations which stand for freedom will stand together in the years ahead.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, we too regret the determination of the French to withdraw from the integrated planning and activities within NATO, though we are glad they are not withdrawing from NATO itself. It seems to us that this determination is based upon the idea of the sovereignty of individual nations, an idea which is not appropriate in these times. It is an anachronism, and we regret this step.
[DOT] (1:10 p.m.)
There is, of course, as the French aide memoire indicates, a very great diminution in the threat which existed and therefore in the need for an integrated defence within NATO. But we do not believe that the threat, although greatly diminished, has been entirely removed. We think that the French aide memoire is perfectly right in saying that the centre of international crisis has shifted from Europe to Asia and to other parts of the world. We therefore welcome the announced intention of the 14 remaining nations to continue to discuss integrated plans for dealing with that threat, diminished though it may be.
It seems to us that any alliance in the modern day is not meaningful unless it provides for close integration of action and military plans. However, Mr. Speaker, there is one aspect of this matter that has not been touched on. That is the belief we have that the French proposal to invite Canada to withdraw her air bases and other installations from French territory gives us an opportunity to do something that ought to have been done long ago, and that is to reconsider very carefully and very radically our whole strategy and our present strategic plans within NATO.
We have long expressed our disquiet about the reliance upon a tactical nuclear response within NATO. We have long expressed the view that the Canadian NATO role would
March 18, 1966	COMMONS
be far more appropriate if it consisted of a contribution to a mobile reserve. We hope that the new plans that will be made necessary by the initiative of France will include for the alliance as a whole serious reconsideration of whether the massive line-up of tactical nuclear weapons within NATO is appropriate at the present time with the diminished threat and, indeed, with the risk that this sort of strategy involves.
We therefore hope that the opportunity will be taken in all these discussions for Canada to do what we think should have been done some time ago, namely, to renegotiate her role in NATO and assume a more appropriate role in the future.




[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Drury -Mr. Batten in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure for the establishment of a Science Council of Canada and to define the duties thereof, to provide for the appointment of the chairman and other members of the Council and for the payment of the remuneration of the chairman and of travelling expenses of the members and associate members of the Council, also for the payment of the remuneration of members of the Council for additional duties; to provide further that all expenditures for the purposes of this measure shall be paid out of money appropriated by parliament therefor.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I have a suggestion and a few brief remarks I wish to make. It is my belief that there is a place for the establishment in Canada of a Canadian college of conservation. I believe the time is ripe for the establishment of a Canadian college devoted to teaching the philosophy and principles of the conservation of renewable natural resources.
The idea first struck me when I was informed of overseas students coming to Canada. In many cases those students go on a six month tour across Canada to see Canadian industry, Canadian agriculture and Canadian development in other respects. After they have completed their tour, left this country and returned to their own countries, it seems to me they have not received any, as it were, unified instruction as to the purpose of their visit. I am suggesting to the minister that this proposed council could consider the development of a Canadian college of conservation in a very modest way in some appropriate southern part of the country, which in my
DEBATES	2877
Science Council of Canada view ought to be something like the Koote-nays where there is water, land and forest.
The buildings would be built of logs. I think there is an opportunity here for the development of artistic values. The buildings could be staffed with a small administrative skeleton staff. The college would be able to make provision say for 50 students, in the first instance, whether they be from overseas or from Canada. Provision could be made for professors who are competent in their own fields to be asked to come from the various universities across Canada to give lectures there for one or two weeks on the particular subjects in which they are competent.
I am making this suggestion because I have discussed the matter with a number of people who know about these things. I believe there is a place for this type of college in Canada. You might call it almost a technical training school. It would be a college where students would learn the principles and ideas behind the whole philosophy of conservation, not necessarily with respect to dealing with pure or applied science but so that at the end of one or two years, or whatever period was decided upon, the persons who had attended this college, whether they were from Canada or abroad, would receive a diploma, as it were, from the Canadian college of conservation which would indicate that they had been trained in these principles.
If this is done, when overseas students return to their own countries they will have obtained some knowledge of what we are aiming for in the direction conservation, and if they are Canadians, especially persons who are not particularly interested in academic life at its higher levels, they will have opportunities for employment with various organizations or various levels of government in this country where they can practice the principles they have learned at the college. I should like to see this matter explored because I think it could be undertaken at very small cost compared with the results which could be obtained. I believe that our university students and high school students must continue to be informed of the value of these proposals if we are going to maintain and improve in this country our present standard of living.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, may I say this. I have enough confidence in the minister to believe that he is determined on this question. He had a good administrative record in the army, and I believe that if he
2878	COMMONS
Science Council of Canada applies the same discipline to this organization, shall I say, as he has to other things we will get results. With a competent, dedicated science council, with the necessary funds from the federal government to carry out work that has to be undertaken, with a sound program of education to inform the public, university students and even high school students and with co-operation between all levels of government and various organizations as well as the participation of the public, I think that through the application of this resolution we can stimulate the imagination of many young Canadians. If this is done I am confident that we can utilize our human and natural resources in this country to the much greater advantage of this generation and generations to come.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the resolution carry?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, I have a number of questions I should like answered. I do not wish to make a speech now.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I am very glad to have noted that, while there may have been some questions or doubts, the approval of the house was unanimous with respect to this resolution, but also for the purpose it is designed to serve with which I do not think anyone can make exception. Attention has been drawn to the lack of resources provided in this country in support of research generally and perhaps more particularly, based on the volume of words spoken, in relation to the medical sciences. This is a condition of which I certainly am fully aware. I am fully cognizant of it and I am sure the government is also. I am sure that the government is not only aware of it but is concerned about it.
[DOT] (1:20 p.m.)
Within the past year the government has taken a number of steps to increase the resources available for research purposes in this country, the most recent being a supplementary estimate of $3 million for the Medical Research Council to make up in some degree the deficiency which has been mentioned. But the purpose of this new council will not be to provide more money directly or to seek more money directly. Rather, it will be to provide the guidance and leadership in respect of scientific research which I believe most hon. members have agreed is necessary to analyse our potentialities, to analyse our capacities and to set objectives in the research and scientific field which it seems likely we should be able to meet. I am
IMr. Herridge.l
DEBATES	March 18. 1966
persuaded that once these objectives have been delineated the intelligence, the imagination and the energy of Canadians are sufficient to ensure that there will be a general move in the direction of achieving them.
Questions were asked by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. Some of these were detailed and might better await the production of the bill before they are discussed. However, there was one general question very directly relating to the resolution itself. It was: Why should we set up a science council when we already have the National Research Council? I tried to make clear that the Glassco Commission in its report on government administration-and this view was subsequently supported by Dr. Mackenzie in his examination of the problem-had reached the conclusion that the National Research Council, which has been doing excellent work in its field and about which I shall have more to say later, has tended over the years to concern itself with two main tasks, the allocation of resources to individuals in the academic stream by way of university scholarships and bursaries and, second, the operation of large, substantial and successful laboratories under its own direct control. As a consequence of these two main preoccupations there has perhaps not been sufficient attention paid by the council to the larger question of the delineation of scientific objectives for Canada as a whole, not merely the government, not merely the academic community or the industrial community, but for all Canadians.
The making of such an analysis will, of course, be one of the principal and first tasks of the science council. A number of people have felt, and I am in agreement with this view, that this new focusing of attention on analysis and objectives could be better done by a new body set up for that particular purpose than by redirecting the National Research Council in this sense. Dr. Mackenzie, as I mentioned, supports such a view. In short, we would do better to appoint a new advisory body and this advisory body should not be made in any way subordinate to the National Research Council, given the nature of the people we hope to appoint to it and their stature in the community. The new council will have an existence altogether independent of the National Research Council.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I asked four questions and the minister has answered three of them. As to the remaining question, I would be quite happy to wait until we see the bill.
March 18, 1966	COMMONS


David Orlikow: It is obvious the minister does not intend to answer any of the detailed questions some of us have put to him. However, I should like him to outline the relationship between the new science council, the National Research Council and the Defence Research Board, for example, because I think this is important. I hope he will tell the committee whether the scientific secretariat will continue to exist after this new body has been established or whether it will disappear and its functions be taken over by the new body.
I hope the minister will tell us also something about the research which is being done and the increased research which should be done in the universities in relation to this new organization. I understand this council will be advisory, but will it co-ordinate our scientific efforts? Will it, for example, be advising Treasury Board on the allocation of funds as between 'the National Research Council, the Defence Research Board and the universities or other specialized agencies?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, Mr. Chairman.


David Orlikow: Or is it to be just one more of the many bodies we have at the present time, each of them equal?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Briefly, this will not be a regulatory body in the sense in which I believe the hon. gentleman is trying to suggest. Nor will it be an operating agency as the National Research Council is or as the Defence Research Board is. The purpose of this council will be to look at science in Canada as a whole and its relationship to the other facets of Canadian life and to set broad scientific objectives. Perhaps we might adopt an analogy. The science council, one can expect, will be doing in respect of the scientific world, the research and technological world, what the Economic Council of Canada is doing in the economic field. I do not think the hon. member is under any illusion that the Economic Council of Canada is controlling Treasury Board or the Bank of Canada. Nor, indeed, should it. But this does not mean that the Economic Council serves no useful purpose and is just another body. If the hon. member would look at this analogy I suggest the purpose of the new council would become clearer.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I might point out to hon. members the terms of the Standing Order which apply when a resolution of this kind is before the committee. The time limit on
DEBATES	2879
Science Council of Canada speeches is 20 minutes and the hon. member for Winnipeg North has now reached that limit. In all fairness I should point out that this does not preclude the asking of questions.


David Orlikow: If this science council is not to allocate funds, I should like to ask the minister which agency of the government will advise Treasury Board as to the division of the total amount of money which the government of Canada will be spending on scientific research? Let us say the government of Canada decides to spend $100 million, $200 million, or whatever the amount may be. I hope it will be more from year to year. In that case, what agency will take the requests of the National Research Council, the Defence Research Board, the universities and so on and say to the government: We think Canada should concentrate on certain fields; these are the bodies which should do this work and this is what they should get? The minister has not said that the scientific secretariat is going to continue in existence, and one of the complaints from scientific sources is that there is no central planning, no central co-ordination, no system of priorities. If this new agency does not do this job, who will do it?
[DOT] (1:30 p.m.)


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I should like to correct what I think is an unwise notion concerning research, the notion that the federal government should have a budget for research and that somebody should spread the budget among the various agencies and that there should be a body to do this spreading.
Research and the resulting technology have come to be an integral part of every kind of operation in the kind of society in which we live; I repeat, "an integral part of every kind of operation". This means that operating agencies themselves must have their own research resources as a necessary part of conducting their operations. The operating agencies must understand this and must be encouraged to regard research as an essential and continuing part of their total operations. If this is so, it would, therefore, be a mistake to remove research, to regard it as some special form of activity which could be separated in itself and make it the responsibility not of the people who were responsible for the operation but the responsibility of some other separated, isolated, esoteric community. For this reason I would oppose any notion that the federal government set aside a sum
March 18, 1966

Science Council of Canada
of money for research and that it be spread around by some appropriate body among the various agencies.
To answer the specific question asked, the scientific secretariat will continue. It will continue to have the function it now has as an information gathering and disseminating body for the government and it will also perform the secretarial function for the Science Council of Canada.


Colin Cameron: Can the minister tell us whether the government has given any consideration to fostering the development in Canada of what are known in the United States as research parks, of which there are about four or five in that country, these parks being aggregations of scientific research to which governments, industry and the academic world contribute? One is told that these aggregations of competent scientists have an extremely valuable use in what one might call intellectual cross-fertilization. In other words, it is necessary to have an organization of a certain size before you can have original research thinking coming out of it. Has the government done any investigation of these research parks? One is at Palo Alto and others are at different places throughout the United States, but they are joint enterprises of government, industry and the academic world.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. gentleman will be glad to learn that we already have one of these just outside Toronto. There is not very much contribution made to it by the academic community but it does involve both government and industry. This is an interesting concept. I think it has prospects for making a better utilization of limited resources than some of the independent operations that have been conducted in the past, and we are studying it carefully. Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Drury (for Mr. Pearson) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-149, to provide for the establishment of a Science Council of Canada.
Motion agreed to and the bill read the first time.



RESEARCH COUNCIL ACT


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Research Council Act to change the IMr. Drury.]
formal title of the National Research Council; to provide that members of the council, other than the president or vice president may. during any period in which they perform duties on behalf of the council in addition to their ordinary duties, be paid such remuneration therefor as the council may authorize; to authorize the appointment of persons to perform duties of a temporary nature for a period of not more than six months; to authorize the council to operate and maintain a national science library; and to provide further for certain changes in consequence thereof and also in connection with the administration of the Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Batten in the chair.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, this is a bill which will be desirable in the light of the enactment of the bill which has just been read a first time, namely, the bill to establish the Science Council of Canada. I should like to take this occasion to point out to hon. members that this year the National Research Council, which everyone will agree has had quite an outstanding record in its dedication to the support of excellence will be celebrating its 50th anniversary.
The council started in 1916 as a body to establish scholarships for graduate students and to provide grants in aid of research for professors. It was only some nine years later that the National Research Council organized laboratories and began the kind of work for which it has since become so well known. In world war II the council was successful in mobilizing all the scientific and technological agencies in Canada and out of this arose such wartime developments as radar, atomic energy, and scientific backing for our military and economic leaders in the military and civilian fields during the war.
[DOT] (1:40 p.m.)
The National Research Council during the war set up Research Enterprises Limited, a manufacturing concern for the rapid production of gun sights and about $300 million worth of radar equipment designed by the National Research Council. Following the war the National Research Council continued to expand not only its ideas but its activities and from this fabric was created two agencies which in themselves, in an independent way, have achieved very considerable success in the scientific world and considerable renown. The first of these, of course, was the Defence Research Board which was created in 1947, and subsequently Atomic Energy of Canada Limited in 1952.
March 18, 1966

The aim of seeking new frontiers of knowledge on the part of the National Research Council has been reinforced by a very important service to the Canadian scientific community under the name of the N.R.C. technical information service. This technical information service does provide scientific information across Canada and abroad but principally to Canadians and is, I might point out, very extensively used. Inquiries answered by the technical information service amount to some 17,000 a year.
The resolution has for its purpose support for a bill to amend the National Research Council Act. The National Research Council has in its present form two official titles. One is The Honorary Advisory Council for Scientific and Industrial Research and the other is the more commonly used title, National Research Council. Since the second title receives more general use throughout the world and the words "of Canada" usually are added thereto to distinguish it from the national research councils of other countries, it is proposed to abandon the formal and little used title and to add the words "of Canada" to the second title, making it read in English, National Research Council of Canada, and in French, Conseil National de Recherches du Canada.
Since the proposed Science Council of Canada is to have the duty of advising the government on scientific policy, the Research Council Act should be amended to relieve the Research Council of this duty.
It is proposed to take advantage of this opportunity to make some minor amendments to eliminate anomalies which have become apparent in the operation of the council, and to introduce certain desirable improvements. I think, Mr. Chairman, with those remarks we might be able to concur in the resolution.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, it was with a good deal of relief that I heard the minister finally come around to the change in the name which is proposed in the bill to come before us. I do not think anyone can have objection to that. I had some fear that perhaps we were going to make some change in name that might have been more radical than this. So far as the name is concerned, I think that the adding of the words "of Canada" is perfectly unobjectionable in that the name "National Research Council" is the name by which the council generally is known. I can certainly give my approval to this.
Rural Development
So far as the other items are concerned, we are quite happy to wait until we see the bill because, as indicated by the minister the changes are mostly a matter of internal administration. I should like to say that I believe the house and its committees ought to have a further opportunity to look into questions relating to some parts of the minister's department, particularly the National Research Council.
In 1960 and 1961 a special committee on research was set up. At that time the work of the National Research Council and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited was gone into very carefully. I was a member of that committee and gained a good deal of background knowledge from it. All the members felt there was a tremendous advantage in going into the work which the National Research Council and our research agencies are doing on behalf of this country. We obtained a lot of good information and were able to support many of the projects that were then undertaken.
I should like to suggest to the minister that if it can be done during this parliament another similar committee ought to be set up so that members of the house once again may indicate their interest in the work the council is doing. Much work is being done of which we have no knowledge. I think it would give the council an impetus to know that members of parliament are interested in the work they are doing and it would give us a good deal of information which we can use in our normal work. With those few remarks I advise the minister that we are not going to delay this motion further.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Drury thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-150, to amend the Research Council Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



RURAL DEVELOPMENT


Hédard-J. Robichaud: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish a fund in the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the economic and social development of special rural development areas, to provide for payments out of the said fund not to exceed fifty million dollars: to provide also in connection therewith for entering into agreements with the provinces

March 18, 1966
Rural Development
for comprehensive rural development programs; and to provide further for the establishment and duties of an advisory board and for the administration of the fund.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Batten in the chair.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, because of the unavoidable absence of the Minister of Forestry, who is detained at home on account of illness, I have been asked to introduce this resolution.
[DOT] (1:50 p.m.)
The purpose of the resolution now before us is to establish a special fund for rural economic development. As hon. members know, the ARDA rural development program in co-ordination with other programs is tackling the problems of rural low income throughout the rural areas of Canada. However, as hon. members will also know from their own studies, rural low income, poverty and underdevelopment are particularly deep-seated in certain rural problem areas in Canada.
As the ARDA program has evolved, it has become evident that special comprehensive and co-ordinated development programs for these areas are required if living standards for the people in these areas are to be greatly improved in a reasonable length of time.
This approach, which might be described as a specific regional development approach for these areas, involves the following process: First, the selection of these areas which are subject to widespread low income, have major adjustment and development problems and have recognized development potential.
Second, the undertaking of physical, economic and social studies and investigations to determine the development problems and potentials of the areas.
Third, the involvement of local people through the preparation of comprehensive rural development plans.
Fourth, the undertaking of a broad range of projects for the implementation of the plan, with the objective of increasing income and raising standards of living in the area.
Planning in several of these areas has now reached the point where rural development comprehensive plans, including proposals for specific projects, are being prepared and it is obvious that special provisions will be required to finance the development plans. The areas where the process is at this stage include the Interlake area in Manitoba, the lower St. Lawrence in the Gaspe area of 
Quebec, and northeastern New Brunswick. A number of areas in other provinces also are proceeding with the development of plans.
A bill to provide for the economic and social development of these areas is being proposed in order to provide special financial assistance beyond that normally available under the cost-sharing provisions of the ARDA program to implement these plans. I believe this bill provides an important forward step in the most comprehensive program which is now being developed to meet the particular problems of certain rural areas in Canada.


Mr. Rapp:: Mr. Chairman, we welcome this announcement of the Minister of Fisheries on behalf of the Minister of Forestry. I should like to say at the outset that $50 million for the development of economically and socially underdeveloped areas in Canada is not sufficient. One of the problems we have faced in this regard in the past has been the lack of money.
Second, I should like to know whether the government intends to enter negotiations with the provinces in respect of the establishment of the advisory board and whether provincial representatives will be included on the board. Will the provinces also make contributions to this plan and will they have some say in the administration of the fund?
All in all, we welcome this step on the part of the government, but as time passes problems will develop in provincial areas which cannot be solved by the provinces alone because of the lack of funds. I hope that the $50 million will be increased in order that the economically underdeveloped areas in all ten provinces of Canada can be assisted. I hope also that provincial representation will be allowed on the advisory board.


Mr. Vincent:: Mr. Chairman, I may have a few words to say on this resolution before consideration of the bill itself.
In my opinion, the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve) will have to be very conscientious when he chooses members of the advisory board because if the latter is composed of practical men who are thoroughly familiar with the problems of the areas covered by the program, it will be extremely valuable not only to the minister but to the government in general and to the farmers concerned.
[DOT] (2:00 p.m.)
Since the first purpose of the legislation is to determine areas, the latter will have to be chosen very objectively. In several parts of
March 18, 1966

Canada, farmers do not have sufficient income at this time.
We should not think that we are going to solve the problem of agriculture merely by setting up industries in the areas concerned. Members of the advisory board will be in a position to enlighten the minister on studies concerning the potential of those areas.
There again, the board will necessarily have to be composed of people who will have not only theoretical and academic training gained through advanced studies, but also practical knowledge and experience of the agricultural problems of the areas involved.
The third objective of the legislation is the training of the people already established in those areas. In that connection also, we will need serious advice from responsible people who are truly familiar with the problem, not only advice from theoreticians who seek to solve the problems without knowing the practical implications of the solutions they advocate.
Therefore, those are the only remarks I intend to make. I believe that the Minister of Forestry will take them into consideration because, as I said, this advisory board is of vital importance and will have to include serious minded men with experience in addition to academic training.
It would be proper to appoint to that advisory board representatives of existing farm orgnizations. As a matter of fact, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture made some searching studies on the low income groups problems in certain areas of this country, and it would be necessary to have someone from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture advising the Minister of Forestry on such matters.
We also have in Canada the western farmers who are organized, who have studied these most important matters and who also may supply the Minister of Forestry with one or more qualified men to sit on this advisory committee.
Finally, we also have in Quebec an organization, the Catholic Farmers Union which, for several years, has been submitting proposals, recommendations and solutions; in short, it has studied the question of poverty in some areas of the province, particularly in the lower St. Lawrence.
Well, the Catholic Farmers Union is surely in a position to suggest experienced and knowledgeable people who could bring their contribution and assist the federal government and the minister in this mission. This
Rural Development
started with ARDA, which was passed by the preceding government. So, I repeat that the federal government should count on the experience of those who will sit on the advisory committee.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Chairman, just a few words in order not to delay the house.
First, let me congratulate the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve), who is not in his seat at the moment but who is represented by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud), for the resolution he has moved to create a $50 million fund to be available for the purposes of ARDA. I note, on reading the resolution, that we are voting $50 million simply to extend ARDA.
As the previous speaker said, although the amount is insignificant compared to the needs of every Canadian province, these $50 million are not what we might have hoped for, but it is better than nothing.
But here is the point I want to make. A little earlier, the minister mentioned three main areas which would be affected by the new program:	the Gaspe peninsula, the
Lower St. Lawrence region and the Abitibi region.
I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, that an area was overlooked. I am not sure and I am anxious to see the bill; that is why I do not want to say anything more before reading the bill; but I am afraid that the Saguenay-Lake St. John region was overlooked.
I think that that region is the weakest from an agricultural point of view; in short, it is the area most in need of help. Indeed, the Catholic Farmers Union, which has just submitted its brief and even sent a telegram to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) bears witness to that.
But I hope that the bill will at least contain something for the Saguenay-Lake St. John region. I hope in particular that this amount of $50 million will not all be spent in studies because, in our areas, all the money spent under ARDA was used mainly to pay for a study to determine the degree of poverty of our farmers, except, as I mentioned to the Minister of Forestry the other day, for the implementation in our region of a development program with regard to blueberry farms.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that the study must be completed by now and that the money, which always comes from the taxpayers, should be used for something concrete, that is

March 18, 1966
Rural Development
to submit concrete programs, especially programs which will really help the farmers and not only a small group of bureaucrats which will spend again $4 or $5 million in salaries and expenses of all kinds which will not benefit the farmers in any way.
I hope that this amount of $50 million will be spent to help the farmers and that we will not see again what happened in the Gaspe peninsula where over $3 million were spent and why? To pay the salaries of 75 to 90 investigators while the Gaspe farmers have not received nor completed anything yet. We do not want the same thing to happen again and that is why I call the government's attention to that matter so that it will submit concrete programs which will benefit the farmers of the province of Quebec, including those in my region.


Mr. Clermont:: Mr. Chairman, just a word about the resolution. I, too, have heard Acting Minister of Forestry (Mr. Robichaud) enumerating the regions this bill is supposed to help.
I trust the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve) will also consider the Laurentian region, the valley of the Lievre and also the Red River valley.


Mr. Ormislon:: Mr. Chairman, I welcome the statement made by the Minister of Fisheries speaking for the Minister of Forestry on the resolution to provide $50 million for rural development. The word "comprehensive" is used in the resolution but I fail to see how we can have comprehensive rural development with only $50 million.
I know it is impossible for the minister to spell out further details at this time but we should like to know something about the administration of the fund, whether or not ARDA will be responsible or whether, if some areas in western Canada are designated, P.F.R.A. will also be in a position to make more funds available for research and extension of programs. I would only mention that there are many areas where Indians are living which are certainly underdeveloped and I wonder whether the minister had any of those areas in mind when he was making his statement?
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, most of the questions raised by hon. members will be answered by the Minister of Forestry when he moves second reading, but what I wish to

make clear at this time is that the fund of $50 million referred to is over and above the funds already available under the ARDA program. This special fund will be used for the specific purpose of developing certain designated rural areas, as I have mentioned.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out to the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) that it has always been my impression that the lower St. Lawrence region also included the Saguenay area, since the St. Lawrence river has a north shore and south shore.

The hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale asked whether the advisory board would administer the fund. My understanding is that the fund will be administered under ARDA. The advisory board will consider and review the proposals which will be made for use of this fund by the different provinces, and it will be administered under the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act and regulations.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a few brief comments regarding this resolution. They will take the form of questions which have been in my mind and which I think have been in the minds of other hon. members. I am reminded that this resolution is probably the beginning of great changes in our rural areas and I wonder whether they will be changes for the better. I note that the resolution highlights the word "comprehensive" in the fifth line thereof. I cannot comprehend what the goal of the government is when I hear that the legislation will authorize-I suppose we will come to this point later-that farms be bought and grouped into larger economically paying units, and then sold back to the farmers. I cannot see any glowing future for the Canadian rural economy in the method which I understand the government is contemplating. I know that larger units are inevitable under present mechanized methods of agriculture.
Why not let the farmers undertake this development themselves? Who knows what type of unit a certain large block of land will be turned into by the government and its bureaucratic organizations? The new unit will comprise smaller farms of say 50 to 100 acres fenced into one area which the government will then call an economic unit. It may not be an economic unit for prospective buyers of that large new block of land. Anyone interested in acquiring one of these so-called
March 18, 1966

economic units might not use it for a purpose which would result in the government calling it an economic unit at all.
I am sure hon. members will get the point I am trying to make. It is that we should let the farmers, through their own private enterprise, buy up these blocks of land themselves and turn them into whatever type of unit individual farmers and their families find best for their future. I am sure these blocks of land would end up with a much more economical and easier to handle mortgage, one of which could be amortized well within their lifetime, instead of the farmers becoming mortgaged to the government for large sums of money which are sure to be entailed in the plan I understand the government is contemplating.
I am also concerned about other facets, Mr. Chairman. If in a rural area smaller farms are purchased to be combined into larger units, the occupants of the original holdings would be forced to move. There still exist today 50 acre and 100 acre blocks. My family has a farm of 125 acres in Richmond township which has been in our family now for three generations. This is the type of holding I have in mind. I am referring to quite productive areas of that kind. If three farms of that size were put into one holding, a holding that is much more adaptable to this age of automation and the economy of the day, the occupants of the original holdings could only move away to urban areas. But, Mr. Chairman, to what benefit? These people who will be displaced are at present making perhaps a meagre living but at least they are living on the farms. They will be cast on to a cruel and competitive labour market which is strange to them and will earn wages which will still be insufficient to enable them to cope with the highly inflated cost of living currently confronting our economy. In other words, these people can live just as well and much cheaper in their natural rural environment.
I claim that the government would do better to work diligently and steadily to remedy the present high cost of living which is a bugbear and an obstacle to the people engaged in agriculture in our rural areas as well as to people in urban areas of limited means.
These are some of the questions I have in mind, Mr. Chairman. I also agree with the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale when he asks how far $50 million will go. It will not go very far, as he said, when spread
Rural Development Act over ten provinces. I am sure other hon. members will discuss these questions when we get past the resolution stage and into the readings of the bill, and I hope that the government in their rural development plan will govern themselves accordingly.
I might also ask what the government proposes to do to improve other good economic facets which already exist, especially in the province of Ontario. Hydro is available all through the province in almost every rural locality. The little red schoolhouse has now gone and modern schools have been built or are being built. There are good roads into almost every rural area. What can the federal government do to improve the economic and social status of rural areas in Ontario? I just point out these things, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to sound discussion in the later stages of this measure.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Robichaud (for Mr. Sauve) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-151, to provide for the establishment of a fund for the economic and social development of special rural development areas.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)



AGRICULTURAL REHABILITATION AND DEVELOPMENT ACT


Hédard-J. Robichaud: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act to change the name of the Act to Rural Development Act and to extend its application to all rural areas in Canada where projects of the nature already provided for can be advantageously undertaken; and to provide authority for the payment of remuneration to members of advisory committees.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Batten in the chair.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, when I introduced the previous legislation I made a remark to the effect that the Minister of Forestry was detained at home because of illness and was unable to be here to introduce his resolution. It has since been brought to my attention that the Minister of Forestry was in the building some time today. I just want to clear up any misunderstanding. The minister has been advised by his doctor that

March 18, 1966
Rural Development Act as he is recuperating from an attack of pneumonia he ought not to take part in any debate and should keep away from any kind of activity in the next few days.
The Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act, passed in 1961, provides authority for the federal government to enter into agreements with the provinces for the sharing of costs in connection with three types of undertakings in rural areas: First, those for the efficient use and economic development of submarginal agricultural lands; second, projects designed to develop income and employment opportunities and improve standards of living in rural agricultural areas; third, projects to develop and conserve water supplies for agricultural purposes and improve soil conditions for agricultural efficiency.
Since the launching of the program in 1962 effective program approaches have been jointly developed with the provinces to meet the adjustment needs in the rural agricultural areas of Canada. I am sure hon. members would be interested to know that so far $80 million has been committed for such programs and that all provinces have participated in them. I want to clarify remarks which were made during the introduction of the previous resolution and point out again that the amount of $50 million which was mentioned is over and above the funds made available under the regular ARDA program.
Studies undertaken under this program have indicated the widespread nature of rural low income. In fact, in 1961 almost 500,000 rural families had an income of less than $3,000 per year. A significant proportion of these families reside in areas in the Atlantic provinces and along the fringes of settlement throughout the rest of Canada where, strictly speaking, they cannot be said to live in rural agricultural areas. It is now obvious that the rural development program approaches which have been developed can be extended to meet the adjustment and rehabilitation needs of these rural people who are outside the agricultural sector. Through the proposed amendments to the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act, the effective program approaches which can be devised under the present act may be made available to the outport fishing settlements of Newfoundland, to the isolated rural settlements of northern Quebec and Ontario, the native population of the northern fringe areas of the prairie provinces and to the scattered areas of rural population in British Columbia.

Further proposed amendments to the Act provide for a change in the short title to "Rural Development Act" and provide authority for the payment of remuneration to members of the advisory committees.
These committees would be altogether different from the ones mentioned in the previous resolution. These were supposed to be committees formed to advise the federal government when definite proposals are received from the provinces. In this case the reference is to local committees that will be established within the province or within certain areas or municipalities in order to formulate programs to be presented to the provinces. Then the provinces will in turn submit their proposals to Ottawa under the ARDA program.
It is proposed that the term "ARDA" continue to be used to refer to the Act and the program collectively in a familiar or abbreviated way. The change in the title will more appropriately describe the program which will now be made available to all rural areas of Canada.


Mr. Danforth:: Mr. Chairman, in speaking to this resolution I might say that when I first read it I was a bit disturbed about the change of name from the familiar "ARDA". I had not realized fully the intent of the government in this regard. It is true that under the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act many short term and long term arrangements with the provinces have been made. I was somewhat uneasy as to the basic reasons for changing the name. However, after listening to the explanation of the resolution, given by the minister my doubts have been entirely dispelled. I think that the intent of the bill, with its amendments to extend financial relief and development to rural areas in all parts of the country that are not devoted to agriculture in any way, will do much to alleviate somewhat the poverty that is disturbing all of us.
With regard to the second part of the resolution which provides authority for the remuneration of members of advisory committees, I think the government will find that our party favours such a proposition. A tremendous amount of work has to be undertaken in searching for and devising ways and means to improve the lot of those suffering from poverty in rural areas. Also, we have to make sure that the right men and women take part in the work of research and making advisory recommendations in this regard. 1 think that the only way we can ensure that the
March 18, 1966	COMMONS
right people will come forward is to make sure that they receive proper remuneration as a reward for taking time out of their own activities and their own busy lives for the benefit of others.
1 do not propose to belabour the resolution, Mr. Chairman. We may have more to say on it and the various subjects it covers on second reading, but in the main, having listened to the explanation so ably put forward by the minister, I think the principle of the resolution will be favourably received by this party.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, while the resolution was being read, my reaction was along the same lines as that of the previous speaker, because I sincerely believed that the original ARDA formula was perfect with regard to intended plans to improve the financial position of farmers and workers and to protect our water resources generally.
I do not think that the change in name will substantially modify the application of the previous legislation, but it should be rather beneficial so far as the advisory committee is concerned. I am very glad about the appointment of that committee, because we shall now be able to pay its members so they can work in co-operation with the provinces.
I think that, although the new measure will bear the name of Rural Development Act, the provinces will always decide what projects are to be carried out, and they can always count on that advisory committee. I can see, therefore, that their work can become far more efficient with the help of such a committee, although in our region, we already have similar agencies, such as C.E.R. and the Catholic Farmers Union which recommend to the provincial government what projects should be undertaken.
I am convinced that advisory committee will be of great assistance to existing provincial agencies.
Provided everyone is willing to work and co-operate, this act will surely help our farmers considerably.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I am not as easy to convince as the hon. member for Kent (Ont.). He said he had some misgivings about changing the name of the Act but that after listening to the minister's explanation he and his friends were satisfied there was good and sufficient reason for taking this action.
DEBATES	2887
Rural Development Act
I can remember that a few years ago, when the former Conservative government brought in the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act, some members of the Liberal party suggested that the terms of the Act were so broad that they gave the government of the day statutory authority to do anything short of building a subway in Montreal or Toronto. There were provisions in it for encouraging industry in rural areas, for recreation, for community pastures, almost anything one could think of which might be of benefit to a rural area.
What is more, there were even suggestions that the term "rural" did not mean that the activities carried out under the Act need be confined to small communities. It was pointed out that authority might have been granted to the government to enter into joint financial programs to undertake works of benefit to large communities which were not necessarily rural.
If there are substantial changes in the Act which should be made in order that the government can become involved in programs to help poverty-stricken areas, whether rural or semi-rural, we are all in favour of making them. But if this is an attempt to change the name of the Act simply for political purposes so that it can now be called a Liberal Act rather than a Conservative Act, then I do not think that is a sufficient reason for taking up the time of the house. If we look at the order paper we can easily see there are enough resolutions, bills and other items of legislation to take up our time more profitably not only for weeks but for months to come.
I am sorry if I have failed to understand clearly some of the suggestions the minister has made. I realize he is not the minister responsible for the operation of this Act. However, though I listened carefully I did not hear him say anything about an extension of authority which would grant the government legislative power to do anything which it does not already have authority to do. Under the Act as it stands now there is authority to enter into these cost-shared programs with the provinces for the purpose of carrying out every one of the specific projects he outlined.
I do not intend to make a great issue out of this. If the government can show us that it really needs this extension of authority by way of amendments to the Act, we shall support the measure. But the attitude today is at variance with some of the statements made in the past when members of the

March 18, 1866
Rural Development Act Liberal party said that the ARDA legislation amounted almost to a blank cheque to the government, giving it authority to enter into any kind of program with the provinces.
Perhaps the minister would care to give us a fuller explanation of what is really intended. This is only the resolution stage. The bill is to come and consideration of the various stages of the bill may take up a good deal of the time of the house. In these circumstances there should be good and sufficient reason for spending our time in this way, bearing in mind there are so many other items on the order paper for our consideration.


Mr. Chatterton:: Mr. Chairman, may I make a suggestion to the minister? It is that we give consideration to changing the name from "Rural Development Act" to "Agriculture and Rural Development Act". Such a change would overcome the accusation just made that the alteration in the name may be desired for partisan political purposes. A second advantage would be that many people who have been involved in the ARDA program are familiar with the term "ARDA", and the addition of the words "agriculture and" in front of the words "Rural Development Act" would mean that the initials would remain "ARDA". Moreover, since agriculture is involved the title I have suggested would be a more accurate description of this measure.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I wish to make it clear, in view of the remarks made by the hon. member for Medicine Hat, that the change now proposed has no political motive whatsoever. On many occasions when programs were approved or decisions reached in connection with ARDA, questions were raised as to the absolute legality of such decisions in the light of the terms which were originally agreed upon when the Act was introduced-the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
The point is that on many occasions programs were approved which had no connection whatsoever with agricultural development. This is the reason it has been suggested that the name be changed to read "Rural Development Act." One hon. member has suggested that the term ARDA be retained. At the conclusion of my remarks on introducing the resolution I said it was proposed that the term "ARDA" would continue to be used 
with reference to the Act and to the application of this program.


George Louis Chatterton: I am pleased to hear the minister say it is hoped the word ARDA will continue to be used, but there is no assurance that this will be done. If that is the government's hope, why not ensure that it will be retained by inserting the word "agriculture" in front of the proposed name?	[DOT]


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I am giving the committee an assurance in the name of the Minister of Forestry that the term "ARDA" will be retained, but I have no authority to change the name proposed in the resolution.


Mr. McKinley:: I realize this resolution is merely for the sake of changing the name but I would appreciate the minister telling me how the government decides which projects under this Act should be approved for action and which should not.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: All programs under the Act and the regulations have to be submitted for approval by the province concerned. They are then recommended by the Minister of Forestry and when they receive the approval of Treasury Board they are implemented.


George Robson Muir: Under whose authority are the members of advisory committees appointed and how are they appointed in various parts of the country?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I am subject to being corrected on this point but it is my understanding that the committees referred to in the resolution are local or provincial committees. They are appointed under the authority of the federal government. They are local regional committees appointed in co-operation with the provinces and the municipalities.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Do I understand the minister to say the government is asking for authority to pay remuneration even to members of local and provincial advisory committees?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: My understanding is that payment would be made to recognized committees that are working to prepare ARDA programs within the different provinces and municipalities.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I do not want to belabour the point because I appreciate that the Minister of Fisheries is not as familiar with the Act as he would be with matters coming within his own department, but I see a problem if the federal government is required to pay remuneration to committee members appointed by
March 18. 1966

other bodies. I can quite understand the federal government paying people it appoints to federal ARDA advisory committees, but if this is extended to provincial and municipal committees there may be some difficulty as to what nominations will be accepted.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I want to clarify the statement I made previously to make it clear that payments will be made to committees which have been established for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act. Those committees will first have to have the approval of the responsible minister. The point raised by the hon. member was a good one. Maybe I did not understand his question at first, but I would point out that these committees must first be approved by the minister.


Harold Warren Danforth: I have twice heard the minister say that this legislation will still be known as ARDA. Would he not consider the proposition put forward that the name in the resolution be changed to "the Agricultural and Rural Development Act"? That would carry the same initials as previously, ARDA, and would serve the same useful purpose.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I will bring this suggestion to the attention of the minister responsible, but again I want to make it clear that it is the intention to retain the name "ARDA" in the administration and any time that the legislation is mentioned.


Harold Warren Danforth: I know the minister has repeated this several times but is it not true that once the name is changed to "Rural Development Act" it will not be necessary to retain the word ARDA? The government, at its will, could refer to it as R.D.A. or something else.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I have just said I will bring this suggestion to the attention of the Minister of Forestry. The word "ARDA" was not part of the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act. It was a name that was used whenever the Act was referred to and I repeat that it is proposed to retain it.


Mr. Lalulippe:: Mr. Chairman, with regard to this resolution, I am pleased to say a few words about the farmers and the ARDA program. The resolution states, and I quote:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act.-
Why is it, Mr. Chairman, that the value of farm land has gone down? Why is it that
Rural Development Act farmers can no longer provide for their own needs?
It was once thought that agriculture could be saved through provincial loans, a scheme which was initiated by Mr. Duplessis, and which was supposed to save agriculture in the province of Quebec. Today, farmers are worse oft than ever before.
Now, we are offered another plan, a joint plan called ARDA.
Will ARDA solve all problems? Will the technicians, engineers, or economists employed by ARDA be able, for instance, to show farmers how to breed hogs? I suggest that farmers know how to do it as well as any economist.
What is lacking, Mr. Chairman, is not so much plans and rataplans, but rather the recognition of the fact that farmers are unable to make a living because their lands are mortgaged. The assets of agriculture have fallen into the hands of finance. It is not the farmers who own the farms they operate, it is the financiers, and to get out of the red, agriculture would have to get out of the hold of finance.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
Then, Mr. Minister, what should you do? Where should you toil? If you do not work in that direction, you will never get the farmer out of his stagnation with or without the ARDA act, or whatever you want.
Agriculture is in a bad shape, and that is due to finance. It is not only by setting up plans and granting loans, by lending again to the farmer, by purchasing his debts, by lending him more money, in short, by getting him deeper into debt, that his difficulties can be solved.
What the farmer needs, is interest-free loans. Farmers cannot even meet the interest payments on the money they owe. That is why they are discouraged. They cannot go on; they do not make enough profit and the interest on the money they owe is too costly for them. Over 30 or 40 years, they have to pay for their farms three or four times. That is why they can no longer make ends meet.
That problem should be studied to find out if something can be done to improve the financial angle. If ARDA was not concerned only with financing, because we seem to be concerned only with financing and voting amounts of money to get the farmer deeper into debt, things would go better. You know
28S0

March 18, 1966
Rural Development Act how administration is done in all departments. For instance, with regard to the Department of Agriculture, in 1965 we voted $115 million and spent $121 or $131 million or something like that. Therefore, if the same thing happens again with regard to ARDA, if administration costs so much, how will we improve farming if all that money is spent for administration?
Therefore, it is absolutely necessary for the government to reconsider its administrative costs. Let them see how much the various departments spend for administration. No wonder they have hardly anything left to finance all their projects. Everything goes for administration. If they are unable to administer otherwise, they are not true administrators.
Several people in the present government take themselves for great administrators. They are nothing of the kind. They are great for getting people in debt. If they administered their own money like that, I can tell you they would not go very far.
Therefore, it is absolutely necessary to see that administration does not cost so much. If administration costs more than it gives, all those acts are worth nothing.
Again, farmers are in debt over their heads; they are waiting for ways to get out of debt. The government is trying to find ways and means to get farming out of its desperate situation. If farmers are having a hard time, it is not their fault; the economic situation must be blamed. There is no other reason. If that problem is not considered, it is useless to set up all kinds of organizations to try and get agriculture out of this desperate situation.
We will save agriculture from stagnation if we really take the necessary steps, if we do what should be done. For example, if we could reduce administrative costs to a bare minimum, it would be a big saving. It is well known that in administration, ten men do the work of one and, where only one man is necessary, ten are paid salaries for no reason.
If agriculture is not given the setup it needs, it is useless to create various bodies, be they called ARDA or otherwise.
Mr. Chairman, farmers expect a great deal. Agriculture is in need of help. It can still survive if it is given the means and the necessary advantages. For example, money could be lent to farmers without interest and the 11 per cent tax on building materials could be abolished.

Agriculture does not need eminent economists. Some farmers are more competent than economists who are graduates from universities in London or Canada but who have never bred pigs. The farmer can show them a great deal, even how to breed pigs.
So, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say a few words about that. If the minister is willing to take those few observations into consideration and try to do something really worthwhile for agriculture, for the farmers, it would not be too costly.
But that method, ARDA, is like all other methods. What I mean is that I fail to see how it can solve the problem facing agriculture. In fact, administration costs being what they are, there will not be much money left at the other end where it should really go.
To my mind, the minister should try to spend money where it is needed, and not only to defray the cost of administration, but where it would really help agriculture. Otherwise, the agricultural situation will not be improved.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make one or two suggestions. I have been greatly taken by the thought that ARDA does mean something to a great many people in Canada and has a connotation which I think people have come to accept. While it well may be that the Act has not lived up to all of the things which we hoped it would do, nevertheless under that name it is known across Canada, and I think it would be a great pity to lose it.
I know the minister has already made it plain that he is not in a position to make any commitment himself, but I would offer the suggestion to him that when the bill itself is introduced it might be that the short title might be so changed that it would retain ARDA, the first letters of the words "Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act", and that this could be done very well by changing the name of the Act to "an Act for Rural Development and Administration", or something similar. The short title of the Act might be cited as the Act for Rural Development and Administration.
I throw that out only as a suggestion. A number of combinations could be used. I think there is enough ingenuity on the part of those who draft legislation that they can come up with a short title which would permit the act to be known as the ARDA legislation. I think this would be very useful
March 18. 1966

and I think it would be a great pity if we lost the benefit we have derived through all parts of rural Canada.
There is one other brief comment I should like to make. I really am putting this forward by way of a caveat. I spoke on this bill when it first went through and at that time I likened it to the Tennessee Valley legislation which has done a great deal in the United States in that particular area. I recognize that a bill of this kind cannot be suddenly developed to cover all the things which those of us who are interested in this matter would have wished it to, but if we are going to have the type of development in this country which is so essential, if we are to have the decentralization which is very necessary to a proper growth and if we are to discontinue the type of ungainly and disproportionate growth we have in Canada, there must be some ways and means to develop, enlarge and enrich many of the rural areas of Canada.
I have always felt, Mr. Chairman, that the use of the designated area type of legislation has militated against this. The ability to use as a criterion degrees of unemployment, which then permit the introduction into a certain industrial area of income and other tax benefits, has militated against the normal and ordinary growth which we might have anticipated in rural areas. It seems to me, if legislation of this kind really is going to do the job it is designed to do-I know this is farther than the minister is going or this Act is aimed but I am putting this forward as a caveat of what I intend to say later -some consideration will have to be given by the government to the introduction of benefits of this nature and the same type of income tax and other tax benefits and concessions will have to be provided for many of the rural areas in Canada if we are going to see the type of normal and proper growth which is so essenital to the proper development of this country.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Barry Mather: Mr. Chairman, apparently the purpose of the resolution before us is to change the official name of the act from ARDA to something else. I just want to say that we in the New Democratic party are not very much concerned about what the government wants to name this legislation because we think, as was said many years ago, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. This legislation probably has as much relation to cabbages as it has to roses in this
Rural Development Act connection. We are concerned with trying to make the best use of public funds that are available for the development of rural Canada. We will have plenty to say about this subject at the later stages of this legislation. At this time we are not particularly concerned with the change of the official name.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I also wish to say as others have before me, that it is not necessary to change the title of the act under study.
The word "ARDA" has already conquered many a region; it is known and recognized. I feel that this legislation can achieve its purpose without any change of title and before agreeing to this change, it seems to me we should await the return of the minister so that he might give us the reasons justifying it.
The mere fact that the government wants to change the title simply because that might give the impression that this is a new act, that it might take credit for the program known until now as ARDA, is not, to my mind, good enough a reason to make the change.
As I said a while ago, I should like to hear the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve) himself give us the reasons for which he concludes the word "ARDA" should be changed in the measure now being considered.


Mr. Pugh:: Mr. Chairman, I just have a few words to say about the resolution as it now stands. I am very much against changing the name of ARDA. I was particularly impressed by the remarks of the hon. member for Peace River who suggested that if the name is changed the new name should include the inititals "ARDA". There is a very simple reason for that suggestion. Throughout all the rural areas of Canada the people who may benefit under the provisions of this act know the name "ARDA".
As far as I can gather from the resolution the proposed change is from the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act to the Rural Development Act. This seems to me to be a waste of time. At some other stage I should like to speak in greater detail about this change, but I did want to register my protest against changing the name of this act which has been of so much value to many Canadians.

March 18, 1966
Aeronautics Act
Apparently this resolution contains a provision to extend the application of this legislation to all rural areas in Canada. I hope when the bill does come before us the minister will take the trouble to explain just what rural areas will not come within the provisions of the new act. Under the broad wording of the original act there was no question at all as to who might come under its provisions. Almost any activity associated with the rehabilitation of the agricultural industry in Canada could come under the ARDA legislation. One need only look at the number of payments made in conjunction with the provinces to realize that the provisions of the ARDA legislation extended to almost any field, including the building of docks for forestry products. I hope when the bill comes before us we will be given a great deal more detail than we now have before us.
The last part of the resolution states that authority will be provided for the payment of remuneration to members of advisory committees. This is an excellent idea. We now have many good men on these committees and it is hard to get men of ability to undertake this task. I do not believe that this remuneration will attract better men but it will compensate these men now on committees for their participation.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Robichaud thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-152, to amend the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AERONAUTICS ACT

Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (for Minister of Transport) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Aeronautics Act to authorize the Governor in Council to prescribe charges for the use of facilities and services provided by the Minister of Transport and to impose charges for the availability to aircraft during flights within Canada of facilities or services provided by the minister; and to authorize the minister to establish boards of inquiry to investigate aircraft accidents and provide for the payment of the expenses of witnesses appearing before these boards; to provide that the Air Transport Board shall consist of not less than three and not more than five members; to provide that members of the board shall be appointed for a term not exceeding ten years and to provide for retirement of members of the board appointed after the coming into force of the proposed measure at seventy years of age; and to provide further for certain changes in connection with administration of the act.

Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Batten in the chair.


Mr. Turner:: Mr. Chairman, this legislation contains proposals which were presented to parliament by the hon. member for Ottawa West, who then held the portfolio in the Department of Transport, in December of 1963. Certain additional items have now been added and a few changes have been made in the original proposals, in part as a result of this additional material.
The original bill related to the inspection of premises in connection with airworthiness of aircraft, and the preservation and removal of aircraft involved in accidents. Then, attendance at accident investigations has been maintained, and the use and operation of rockets, moored balloons and kites. These and other matters have been retained.
The earlier bill also contained provisions which would permit charges to be made for the provision and use of aviation facilities and services provided by the department. At present these charges exist but are levied under the Financial Administration Act.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
It is desirable to provide and consolidate the necessary authority for them in the Aeronautics Act, in other words, one global bill. One important change has been made since the bill was first introduced in 1963. The earlier suggestion that the authority levy these charges on aircraft operating outside Canada as well as inside Canada has, as a result of consultation with international airlines, been dropped.
These new proposals relate primarily to investigation of accidents as a result of experience we have gained within the department in the last two years; and to certain powers of the Air Transport Board. It is proposed that the size of the board be increased from three to five members and that the retirement age for members be established at 70 years. It is also proposed that the area of appeal to the minister against decisions of the board be broadened to allow interveners or third parties as well as applicants to originate appeals.
Most of the amendments are of a technical nature. We will be prepared, of course, to deal with them on a broader basis when the bill is introduced and is before the house for second reading.


Mr. MacEwan:: Mr. Chairman, the words which I have on this resolution are very
March 18. 1966

short. I have listened to the introduction of the resolution by the minister without portfolio. May I say that we in this party generally approve of them in principle. However, at a time when a similar resolution was introduced certain reservations were made, by the member for Yukon who has studied this matter and is experienced in it. Undoubtedly he will have an opportunity when the bill is presented to the house to make his suggestions.
As the minister has pointed out, a number of the matters he dealt with are of a technical nature. Certainly the clause which deals with the authorization of the minister to establish boards of inquiry to investigate aircraft accidents is a good one, whereby the mechanics of procedure will allow these inquiries to be set up very quickly. I take it that the extension to ten years of board members' appointments is compatible with other boards such as the Tariff Board. The establishment of the retirement age at 70 is also compatible with other boards.
This is about all I have to say on this matter, except I am wondering if the fact that the minister without portfolio is introducing this measure is a preview of things to come. I recall not long ago a speech in Montreal by Mr. McGregor, the president of Air Canada, in which he suggested that an air ministry be set up. I am wondering whether, if the Prime Minister sets up an air ministry, it would be in order to suggest that the minister without portfolio be appointed. That is all I have to say at this time. We look forward to the bill, and to its various clauses which we will study very closely when it is presented to the house.


Barry Mather: Mr. Chairman, the reference in the resolution which is before us to the Aeronautics Act and the desire to amend it to facilitate, among other things, the investigation of aircraft accidents, prompts me to bring to the attention of the minister something which might very well have to do with air accidents and their investigation.
My information, Mr. Chairman, which I think is very reliable in this case, is to the effect that there exists in Canada a very serious shortage of aircraft control personnel in some Canadian centres, and that this situation poses a potentially dangerous air traffic condition.
I have figures which indicate a shortage across Canada of some sixty of these key people in this profession. At the Montreal
Aeronautics Act
International Airport, for example, my figures would indicate that while there has been an increase of approximately 95 aircraft movements a day, there has actually been a decrease of air traffic control and related personnel during the same period within the last two years. This decrease, Mr. Chairman, has resulted in the problem that, in place of having an establishment of 84 people approved by the legislation and by the department, there were only 64 on the staff on February 15.
I should like to quote very briefly from observations by the Canadian Air Traffic Control Association on that point. They say that the Montreal centre controllers have now been working overtime for well over a year, during which time, little or nothing has been done to alleviate this situation. The association agrees with the feeling that the present air traffic control situation is a potentially dangerous one in relation to air safety. Normal recruiting through the Civil Service Commission is much too long, and the training period required is such that only emergency action taken immediately can solve this problem.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I take this opportunity of bringing this condition to the attention of the minister, in this instance the Minister without Portfolio, in the hope that in line with the legislation which we are discussing, he will pass it on to the Minister of Transport. I urge that this situation, not only in the Montreal airport but in others which I am told are affected, be looked into speedily.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I realize that the terms of this resolution and the bill to follow appear to deal primarily with the functions of the Air Transport Board in so far as accidents and safety are concerned. However, Mr. Chairman, there is a reference here to increasing from three to five the size of the Air Transport Board. I believe he also said there were new procedures for appeals to the minister from the decisions of the board. The resolution also points out that these appointments shall now be for a period not exceeding ten years. I hope the Minister without Portfolio will not consider me out of order if I suggest to him that it is about time something was done with respect to the Air Transport Board, because there have been some rather sad experiences in the Prairies with regard to the consequences of certain decisions which have been made by the board.

March 18, 1966
Aeronautics Act
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
Now, Mr. Chairman, having said that, I must hasten to add that I am not criticizing the Air Transport Board by itself or suggesting that there was any prior knowledge of some of these mistakes which I think have been made. However, it appears that there were some mistakes and it also appears that there was some kind of a deal, if I may call it that, between TransAir and Trans-Canada Air Lines which was not brought to the attention of the Air Transport Board hearings. I am talking about the application of TransAir to provide services from Winnipeg to Brandon, Yorkton, Regina, Swift Current, Medicine Hat and Calgary. There was never any indication before the Air Transport Board hearings that Trans-Canada Air Lines was going to give or transfer $500,000 worth of equipment to the line that was successful in taking over the service from Trans-Canada at the time. Yet, Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what happened after the decision was handed down.
We complained when this happened, Mr. Chairman. Time after time we complained that something was wrong, that something was unfair about the fact that all these assets were given by Trans-Canada Air Lines, as it was then, to TransAir after Trans-Canada Air Lines had been relieved of providing the service and TransAir had been given the francise or the right to provide the service by the Air Transport Board ruling.
Had any of the other air carriers known that they would receive two DC-3 aircraft, I believe it was, one Viscount aircraft and all the other equipment necessary to service these aircraft, communications facilities, and so on, then there would have been an altogether different kind of application made for this so-called milk run or southern prairie service. What hurts even more, Mr. Chairman, is that after TransAir received all this equipment it provided this service for only 11 months and then withdrew.
The reason I bring this matter up again is that TransAir are apparently going to withdraw from some more services they undertook to provide on the prairies. Yet I do not see any action on the part of the Minister of Transport, or by Air Canada for that matter, to recover some of the $500,000 worth of equipment which was given to TransAir. This is why I should like the Minister without Portfolio to know that a lot of people on the prairies are greatly disturbed about the withdrawal of all their regional air services. They

are disturbed that a company which has been given what is, in effect, an enormous grant at public expense in the form of aircraft and parts is withdrawing from services it should be providing, leaving them with nothing.
During the course of Board of Transport Commissioners hearings, and in hearings before the Committee on Transport and Communications, we are told day after day by C.P.R. witnesses that the reason the C.P.R. is withdrawing from railway passenger services is that the air lines are taking over the business of transporting passengers from one city to another. Yet it seems all these cities in western Canada are also having their air line services withdrawn, particularly those provided by TransAir.
When TransAir and several other companies attended the hearings before the Air Transport Board, I am not sure of the date but I believe in late 1962 or 1963, they undertook to provide a service and were granted the franchise for particular routes. Some of the people on the prairies believe that they never really gave those services a chance to succeed. While some of the other applicants may have been successful, though it is difficult to know because they never had the opportunity, we do not believe that TransAir gave the service a chance to succeed.
Looking at this in retrospect, I should like the minister to know that we do not like the fact that these assets were handed over to TransAir, who then withdrew their services. These old DC-3 aircraft and the equipment necessary in the provision of ground services, and so on, may not be too important, and perhaps they were not too valuable. But included in the subsidies or gifts, or whatever you want to call them, was a Viscount aircraft which we are told is worth about $350,000. Why that was included we cannot understand, because the aircraft was not even used on that route. What is so difficult to understand, Mr. Chairman, is that there was never any indication that Trans-Canada Air Lines was going to give TransAir that equipment until after the decision of the Air Transport Board had been rendered.
As I said, Mr. Chairman, it is difficult to criticize the Air Transport Board, because perhaps they did not know about this equipment either. But T.C.A. was, and still is, a publicly owned corporation, and any time they give away $500,000 worth of equipment I think it is the business of this parliament to look into the matter.
March 18, 1966

When we asked the Minister of Transport questions about this matter, as far as I am concerned we did not get any satisfactory answers. The minister said he would ask the president of Air Canada, as it is now, about it, but to my knowledge there has never been a satisfactory explanation given to this house, in spite of all the representations which were made, as to why and under what circumstances this $500,000 worth of equipment was given to TransAir. That company has now withdrawn services from all of the routes it undertook to provide, I believe with the exception of one, which is Regina-Sas-katoon-Prince Albert. All the other routes in the southern prairie regional air service have now been discontinued.
As I said at the outset, Mr. Chairman, I do not want to labour this point greatly. Several months ago when we were much exercised about it we raised the question with the Minister of Transport but were not given any satisfactory explanation. We still expect an explanation, and this matter becomes even more important in view of TransAir having made further applications to withdraw other routes within the last few days.


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Minister who introduced this resolution to amend the Aeronautics Act whether the words in the second and third lines of the resolution "to prescribe charges for the use of facilities and services provided by the Minister of Transport" refer to such things as the fees collected for these monopolistic taxicab and limousine services at airports like Mal-ton, Dorval, and other Canadian airports, and fees collected through the monopolistic parking arrangements which are made. I shall not proceed further on this matter if I receive a favourable reply, but I do have a third item which I should like to take up.


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Chairman, this act makes no provision for or reference to what the hon. member is talking about. It applies merely to services rendered to aircraft in flight.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I think you will have to agree with me that the wording of the resolution could be interpreted to read "charges for the use of facilities provided by the Minister of Transport". Certainly facilities are provided by the Minister of Transport at various airports for taxicab service or limousine service-as they call it, to get around the law-and for parking facilities.
Aeronautics Act
I have a third point I wish to make, but before I do so I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Medicine Hat upon the comments he made on the resolution.
This resolution will provide, among other things, that the Air Transport Board shall consist of not less than three and not more than five members. I should like to be able to stand up in this house and congratulate the Minister of Transport-and I am referring to the Minister of Transport now, not to the Minister without Portfolio-on finally having realized the proper way to bring in these changes which are so necessary. I say that because I have in my hand Hansard for April last year, when quite a few members of the house, including myself, were discussing at some length supplemental estimates. It is very nice to have the proper procedure followed on this resolution, which is to provide that the Air Transport Board shall consist of not less than three and not more than five members.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I hold in my hand supplementary estimates E and at page 29 we have an item that was withdrawn after opposition from all parts of the house, because we were opposed to legislation by supplemental estimates. The item under vote 75d reads:
Vote 75d-Salaries and Other Expenses-To extend the purposes of Transport Vote 75 to the Main Estimates, 1964-65 to authorize the Governor in Council notwithstanding section 7 of the Aeronautics Act, to appoint two members of the Air Transport Board in addition to the number provided for by that Act, such members to hold office during pleasure for a term not exceeding three years and to be paid such salary as may be fixed by the Governor in Council, $1.
I draw to the attention of the house the fact that the proper type of legislation is now being introduced. I sincerely hope that since it is proper, it will pass. I do believe that we are entitled to comment on the manner in which this was first brought down as a supplementary estimate in March of 1965, and what was done at that time by people who are opposed to this type of legislation.
When I stated that I could congratulate the Minister of Transport for having brought in the bill properly, I am not unaware of the fact that during the past three weeks we have been forced to rush through supplementary estimates without any consideration being given to the great bulk of them. We were told that if we were to discuss at length the estimates for the year ending March 31, 1966, we would be holding up the legislation of the

March 18. 1966
Aeronautics Act
country, the civil service could not be paid, and we must not hold them up. Supplementary estimates for the items of $1 went through at a rate that can only be decried as unseemly by people who believe that things should be done in order.
Bill No. C-140, for the House of Commons of Canada, which was passed in the last three weeks has 18 $1 items, practically every one of which is legislation by supplementary estimates.
That was a proper bill, coming under a proper resolution. Now, as I refer to item No. 9 I can hardly congratulate the government for doing the proper thing, as compared with legislation by supplementary estimates one year ago, when within the last three weeks they have put through 18 items of legislation under the $1 supplementary estimates.
Under the Department of Transport, in Bill C-140, item 8b reads:
To authorize in accordance with such terms and conditions as the Governor in Council may prescribe, the transfer of the assets and administration of the Pension Fund of the British Columbia Pilotage District established under the Canada shipping Act, 1934,-[DOT]
And so on.
-$1.
This is brand new legislation, and it is under the Department of Transport, under supplementary estimates of $1.
Then I refer to the Department of Transport, air services. There is an item passed under supplementary estimates. This is legislation by supplementary estimates. 1 do not like it and I believe the great majority of the members of the House of Commons do not like it.
Vote 35b reads:
Construction or Acquisition of Buildings, Works, Land and Equipment including national airports (as determined by the Minister of Transport.) and related facilities, including authority, notwithstanding section 30, of the Financial Administration Act, to increase to $16,216,500 the commitments for the current fiscal year for Radio Aids to Air and Marine Navigation-$1.
Still, under the Department of Transport, vote 83b reads:	.
Notwithstanding any limitation that may be contained in section 265 of the Railway Act, to authorize the payment of an amount not exceeding $2 million from The Railway Grade Crossing Fund to be applied towards the cost of any relocation of the Canadian Pacific Railway line in Sault Ste. Marie pursuant to an Order of the Board-$1.

I have only read you three items where you have legislation by supplementary estimates of the Department of Transport. Exactly the same thing has been done in the last three weeks that was blocked one year ago. If what we did in the last three weeks is perfectly in order and something which we should all admire, why did they bring in the new resolution under item No. 9 relating to the Aeronautics Act? I submit that this resolution now being introduced is proper and is right, and should be passed. I would point out at the same time that while the Minister of Justice is doing one thing correctly with his left hand, I have just quoted Department of Transport supplementary estimates showing things are being done wrongly with the right hand.
I believed the lesson that we endeavoured to teach one year ago could have been learned permanently. In the case of supplementary estimates one year ago vote 75d which was withdrawn and now appears properly as a resolution, will be properly included in the bill.
I have to make these comments because I do not like legislation by supplementary estimates. I have said that for the past several years, and I will continue to say so as long as I am a member of this house. By one of these supplementary estimates of $1, there is brought about an alteration in the terms of an international treaty relating to fish, and to the Great Lakes. This is done by means of a $1 supplementary estimate.
I raise this objection in the same manner in which the hon. member for Medicine Hat raised his.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I should like to add a few words to what was said by the hon. member for Pictou. Before I do so I must say that I was rather intrigued by the hon. member for York-Humber this afternoon. I am not too sure that he fully understands the principle of $1 votes. I am surprised that somebody on the government side did not raise the question that the hon. member was casting a reflection on a decision of the house, and therefore that he was off base in that. However, he did not carry on for too long a time; therefore that point was not raised.
The appropriate bill that was passed and the decisions taken by this house, according to the rules of the house, are not subject to criticism in the way put forward by the hon. member. However I will agree with some of the things the hon. member said, although I
March 18. 1966

think that if he had realized what is being done by the proposed legislation he might have had second thoughts.
The hon. member suggests by his remark that last year the request to appoint an additional two members to the Air Transport Board by way of a supplementary estimate was legislation by the back door. That measure may have been necessary because it was wanted at that time. It would not have affected the possible composition of the board. Now, with the changing of the board, since the legislation has been passed, those people who are in office may be through, and the minister and the government need not reappoint the members who are in. This is the neatest way of putting the guillotine to any surviving board members. I am not suggesting that that may happen; but it could happen. Under the aegis of this particular minister, I am sure if they are not of the proper political stripe they can pack their bags.
I can tell the hon. member that amending the act and creating a board under a slightly different name, or under a different section, puts an end to the old board. That is what they did with the Economic Council of Canada. The National Productivity Council was killed off simply by changing its name.
In addition to this, Mr. Chairman, I want clarification from the minister piloting the bill. It is not disclosed in the resolution, but did he not also say that the act would provide for appeal from the Transport Board to the minister? Am I not correct in that?


An hon. Member:: Yes.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: My worst fears are confirmed. If a decision of the Air Transport Board is subject to an appeal to the minister, the board then becomes a direct instrument of government policy, because the board members will first clear with the minister as to what the board's decision must be. Under no circumstances should there be an appeal to a minister from a board. Certainly if it is the intention to appeal to the minister, that is abominable. We do not make the Income Tax Appeal Board responsible to the Minister of National Revenue. We do not allow that an appeal shall lie to the Minister of National Revenue. No other boards that I recall may have their decisions referred to an appeal before the minister.
Let us create some other body; or, for that matter, let an appeal go to the Exchequer 23033-1831
Aeronautics Act
Court. But an appeal from the decision of the Air Transport Board to the minister is abominable. We have something new in that concept.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Would the hon. member permit a question? Is he not aware that the Railway Act provides for appeal from the judgments of the Board of Transport Commissioners to the Governor in Council?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, and I say this: the Governor in Council is not the minister. I think it has been salutory in many instances that provision has been made for an appeal to the Governor in Council. But in this particular instance the provision for appeal makes the board an instrument of government policy, or part of the executive, and this I think is wrong.
Instead of some of the other matters which the minister brought forward I should like to have heard a declaration from the government with respect to a regional air carrier policy, something for which the hon. member for Medicine Hat has been pressing. I recall this was to have been one of the great pronouncements during the 60 days of decision. This was to have been a source of pride and joy.
Certainly, when the former member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) sat on this side of the house, two weeks could not go by but he was asking: When is there to be a regional air transport policy? Shortly afterwards, he and his friends took over-and they have been deciding ever since. The result has been the sort of morass which the hon. member for Medicine Hat has indicated. I know carriers who are waiting to determine whether to buy this or that type of aircraft; they have to wait until the government reaches a conclusion as to what the regional air carrier policy is to be.
In the interval, who suffers? The public. As far as TransAir is concerned, this looked like a tidy deal. I know that Pacific Western and Northwest Industries made applications for a part of this franchise at least, and were turned down. But we know that the former president of TransAir was a good friend of the present administration. I do not know what the arrangements with the company are now, but certainly the net result has been

March 18, 1966
Aeronautics Act
that there is uncertainty with regard to passenger transport on the prairies in the secondary centres. Carriers who would like to double their fleets and who have an opportunity to buy aircraft, cannot do so.
Has no one tried an aerial bus service on regional air routes? We have one between Edmonton and Calgary and it is highly effective. 1 will admit there is a high concentration of passengers. Maybe the Department of Transport does not like this bus service because it does not use Department of Transport airports. Maybe the department would like to force this traffic to the international airport at Edmonton. But the passenger service started initially in 1963 using DC-8s and less. The company has now gone through DC-6Bs and is now moving into Electras. There is every indication that this type of service would be well patronized. It is not supplied for week end travel, but that is all right; I am sure that a number of these secondary places on the prairies would be satisfied if they had regional service five days a week. Certainly it would be better than nothing.
I am not entirely sanguine about the amendments which have been proposed. Some of them may be in order. It is inconsequential to suggest that we must amend the act so that the Minister of Transport may charge $1 or $1.25 for lunch when passengers are using a Department of Transport plane. This is a question which the Auditor General raised a few years ago, and it is one of the amendments. There is nothing very serious about that.
However, the other matters, the provision of the right of appeal from the Air Transport Board to the minister, this change in the personnel of the board, appointments to run for ten years, are of more substance. I note that the retirement age is the age of 70. Why, I do not know. In the case of the Supreme Court the age is 75. In the case of other boards, it is 65. Someone will have to explain why that age 70 was chosen. It is one of the magical years, I suppose. In any event we shall be interested in seeing the bill when it comes down. We shall also be interested in having the minister here.
Today we are putting through a good deal of legislation by substitution; there is a bare complement of ministers on which to operate the house. Some of these questions may be skipped over but we do not intend to let this happen when second reading comes along.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I will try to answer it.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I should like to ask the hon. member for Edmonton West if he has read the comment of his former cabinet colleague who sits in the other place as recorded in Senate debates for March 9 on pages 286 and 287, in which the hon. Senator reflects the opinions I expressed a year ago, which are those I expressed just now with regard to legislation by supplementary estimate.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I do not know to which hon. Senator the hon. member is referring. Again, if I may refer to the rules, I am not at all sure whether it is proper to refer to this year's proceedings in the other place.


Mr. Pritiie:: I have some comments to make on that part of the resolution which relates to an increase in size of the Air Transport Board. I did not realize until it was mentioned by the hon. member for Edmonton West that the effect of this legislation would be to give the government an opportunity completely to re-open the question of the board's composition. Should this be the case I imagine that some of the present members would be re-appointed. But this does provide for an increase of five members.
Lately a number of ex-politicians have been appointed to various government boards. I do not want to be personal; some of these people are friends of mine and I think a case can be made for looking after expoliticians. Nevertheless I believe there are certain types of government boards to which appointments ought to be made on the basis of technical and professional competence. I wish to express the hope that additional appointments to the Air Transport Board will be of this type and that the vacancies will not be used merely to find a resting place for candidates who have been defeated in elections.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Another point on which I should like to comment briefly arises from that part of the resolution which deals with inquiries into aircraft accidents. This is an important subject. Unfortunately there have been a good many accidents lately and these have received a great deal of publicity. I should like to emphasize the remarks of my hon. friend from New Westminster on the subject of the prevention of accidents. This whole question
March 18. 1966



of air traffic control, including the adequacy of the control staff, is one of great importance. It becomes more important all the time as the major airports of this country are handling more and more air movements. It becomes more important as the aircraft themselves become bigger and faster, and carry more passengers.
I have had some discussions with people who work in this field. I am not satisfied that at our major airports we have sufficient people working at air traffic control to allow them to work on a regular schedule without working overtime a great deal. This is very demanding, nerve wracking work, and I want to emphasize that the question of staffing air traffic control centres is of the utmost importance and we should do more than we are doing at present to help prevent air accidents.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make one or two brief comments on points that have been raised. I have noted what the hon. member for Pictou has said on the question of an air safety control program. The hon. member for Medicine Hat raised a question which I think we can develop elsewhere at more length about the regional air policy and the problem of TransAir at some of the western points between Winnipeg and Saskatoon.
The Air Transport Board has notified all the communities and other enterprises concerned that they have until April 1 to present material to the board by way of objection to the proposed application of TransAir to withdraw from the service. I understand date and place have not been set for that hearing, but it will probably be in Regina. The points the hon. member raised about the transfer of equipment will be mentioned to Air Canada, and I am sure raised before the board. In any event the Air Transport Board will be apprised of the debate this afternoon.
There were two or three points raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West which I deem it advisable to reply to at this stage, even though he will have an opportunity on second reading of the bill to go into them further. It is my understanding that the Aeronautics Act has always had in it a provision for appeal to the minister, and that this provision is not new. What it does in this case is to extend the right of appeal to third parties as well as to applicants. That is the only novel feature in that respect.
I am also advised that this legislation will not remove the present members from the Air Transport Board. The reason for the
Bills of Exchange Act
increase is to accommodate the increased business the board has, because of the increase in air traffic, and the increased responsibilities the board will have, especially with respect to accident investigation, if parliament approves this legislation.
Finally, we have taken note of the remarks of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond, and I agree with him that the standard of appointments is an important essential which must be taken into consideration. In conclusion, I wish to thank the hon. member for St. John's East for having presided over this stage of our committee proceedings.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Turner thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-153, to amend the Aeronautics Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT


George James McIlraith: the second reading of Bill No. S-14, to amend the Bills of Exchange Act.


Mr. Jean Chretien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the amendments to the act that are proposed in this bill are, I think, well explained in the notes, but in view of their importance to the business community perhaps I might make a few remarks.
The first amendment would enable a cheque to be presented and paid on a Saturday or on a non-juridical day, if the drawee branch is open for business, and further would enable the drawee, where applicable, to return as dishonoured a cheque presented on such a day. The purpose of the amendment is to permit the bank if it wishes to remain open on a Saturday or on a non-juridical day to conform with the business custom in a community, to follow the same practice with cheques that are presented as it would on any other business day on which it is open.
The second amendment would provide that where the bank closes on what otherwise would be a business day to give a holiday to its employees in compliance with section 26 of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, where applicable to banks, all matters relating to bills or notes are deferred to the next business day. This amendment would also

March 18. 1966
Bills of Exchange Act
permit a bank to adjust its business days to fit the custom of a community. For example, a branch might close on a Monday and remain open on a Saturday, if that was the local business custom.
This bill would also remove Easter Monday from the list of non-juridical days. It is not a general holiday under the Canada Labour (Standards) Code or in the business community generally today. For many years the observance of a holiday on Easter Monday has created an awkward situation for the bank staffs, as, rather than close for four consecutive days, it has been considered necessary to open on the Saturday following Good Friday, notwithstanding that it is not regarded as a business day under the act.
It is also proposed to remove from the act the provisions that required, in the province of Quebec only, that if a bill of exchange is dishonoured it must be protested in order to have recourse against the drawer or endorsers. With this change the practice will be the same in all provinces.
This amendment was suggested by a learned counsel from Quebec and has received the approval of the Premier of Quebec, the Executive Committee of the Chamber of Notaries, whose members are now required to prepare and serve the protest documents, and has also been approved by the banks.
Because of the importance of this bill in the business life of the country it is the intention, following the debate on second reading, to refer the bill to the house Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic affairs for study and further explanations if required.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, this bill, frankly, can be categorized as a form of clean-up bill following passage of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code and is an indication of what we may have to do in a number of areas as the result of the passage of that act, although I must say this is going to be a difficult proposition.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
It also indicates, by reason of a rather doctrinaire approach by the former minister of labour and the administration with regard to certain aspects of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, that we are going to affect vitally legal rights of citizens, as under the Bills of Exchange Act, and I will come to the point of how this comes about. In banking circles, under this act, there is going to be introduced an element of uncertainty, since

there is a provision for the conducting of business by the banks according to the customs of the community. In addition there is a provision to enable the banks to close on what would ordinarily be a business day. Does this mean that banks will carry this out uniformly? Are we going to get another day of the week during which banks are going to be closed?
Almost 30 years ago I went to work for one of the chartered banks. We worked on Saturdays in those days. I know the present act was amended in 1951 as a consequence of the five-day week. Now we are going to have an amendment, as a result of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, which will permit the banks to close on the days of choice by the banks. However, the banks are involved with their clients, with their customers, and the customers are involved one with another, with resulting legal obligations.
How are you going to spell out the days of grace on a bill so that you can determine precisely what are the legal rights? When are bills going to be presentable for honour, if in a local community it has been decided to follow the customs of business and you cannot predict ahead of time what they are going to do? These are some of the consequences we must consider in respect of the amendments as proposed. In addition, of course, the first amendment is a complete reversal of the law since 1951. For some reason or other in 1951, when the act was amended to do away with banking hours on Saturdays, except when the banks have been closed on a subsequent Monday or on the previous Friday, you could get away with presenting a dishonoured bill; there was no legal obligation which flowed from it. But now, after 15 years, it has been decided to reverse that completely and return to the law as it stood; that is, that if a bill was presented for payment at any time that a bank was open for business and it was dishonoured, certain legal consequences ensued. Why this was done in 1951 to somehow give us a chance to bounce a cheque or to bounce a note on Saturday morning, I do not know; but such was the case.
Now it is proposed to return to the law as it stood prior to 1951. I do say, with the application of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, the banks must have the opportunity to close in order to conform with that act; it is not in respect of the scale of pay requirement under the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, but rather the hours of work. Here again we have the doctrinaire approach of the farmer
March 18, 1966

minister of labour who obviously never worked in a bank. I am going to ask him right now, what do you do if there are errors and one has to balance off? There is only one thing you can do, and that is work until you have found your errors. But under the Canada Labour (Standards) Code one may have to call in somebody else who has never worked on the books, again because I have made errors today and worked tonight to clean them up, you have to give me a holiday tomorrow. If I were in a bank, I could get an extra day by making a mess of my books and having to stay late; they would have to let me off on another day.
This is one example of results of the doctrinaire approach. Others apply in the transportation and oil industry, where the whole act is riddled with illogicalities and impraticalities. We are seeing one of them now; it is a minor one, but it is there. Go to a rural branch out in the Prairies in the autumn months when there is a heavy volume of business. I can tell you it was my personal experience as a teller to have to put in long hours on busy days because of the volume of business. Are we going to quit because the Canada Labour (Standards) Code says we have to work only so many hours? Of course you don't. Here we have the same doctrinaire approach with regard to the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, and it is impracticable.
Now, there are other amendments which have to do with holidays; I am not going to go into them in detail. However, in looking at the act as it stood before I must say it indicated that one of the days on which there could be a bank holiday was any day appointed by proclamation for a public holiday or for a general fast, or a general thanksgiving throughout Canada. I guess perhaps fasting is out of style today-that is for religious purposes-so we now are going to get a day of general prayer or mourning; then it says a general thanksgiving throughout Canada.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Now we are going to have in addition a day of public rejoicing. Well, of course one really could speculate for some time on what should be public rejoicing; it all depends. On this side of the house, I think we could go into a number of things which would lead to public rejoicing in Canada. Is it going to be the day, perhaps, that this administration would fall and be replaced by a much better one? Should that be deemed to be a bank holiday? Or should it be on the occasion that Canada might win the tournament in world
Bills of Exchange Act
hockey-should that be a day of public rejoicing? Or should it be the day we land the Olympics, or any number of other things on which we could speculate? Who is going to determine what shall be a day of public rejoicing? This will be done by proclamation, so it will be the Governor in Council who will decide what shall be a day of public rejoicing. Maybe the day following the presentation of a budget which discloses no new taxes will be proclaimed as a day for public rejoicing.
I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary some questions regarding a certain part of the printed bill, as compared with section 113 of the Revised Statutes of Canada. I should like to draw his attention to the wording that exists in the notes to section 3 of the bill and the actual words as contained on page 318 of the revised statutes. They are as follows:
Where an inland bill has been dishonoured, it may, if the holder things fit, be noted and protested for non-acceptance or non-payment as the case may be;-
These are the words I want particulary to direct to the parliamentary secretary's attention:
-but it is not necessary to note or protest an inland bill in order to have recourse against the drawer or endorsers.
When we look at the explanatory notes of the bill regarding the proposed section 113 we read the section as follows:
Where an inland bill has been dishonoured, it may, if the holder thinks fit, be noted and protested for non-acceptance or non-payment as the case may be; but it shall not, except in the province of Quebec, be necessary to note or protest-
In one the words are "it is not", and in the other they are "it shall not". I should like to draw this obvious error between the printed version and the explanatory note to the attention of the parliamentary secretary, and I hope when this bill comes before the appropriate standing committee an explanation can be given about this error in that the amendment is written in the present tense rather than in the future. Someone may suggest tht I am quibbling, but having regard to legal interpretation of the Bills of Exchange Act, which is one of our oldest and most important acts, it is incumbent upon the government to make absolutely sure that the proper legal phraseology is used.
The principle of this bill is that there shall be certain amendments made to the Bills ol Exchange Act. On their face these amendments would appear to be innocuous, but

March 18, 1966
Bills of Exchange Act
they are not. They must be related to certain provisions of the Canada Labour (Standards) Act, and I am just wondering how often we are going to have to amend other acts as we find that the provisions of the Canada Labour (Standards) Act have an affect on many occupations. I frankly believe that if that act was amended and made a little more practical we would not find it necessary to amend various other acts to fit the circumstances.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, it is a little difficult to figure out just what is intended by some of the clauses of this bill. There may be a very practical explanation for the first proposed amendment and the explanatory notes thereto which suggest such an amendment would enable a drawee to pay cheques on a Saturday or non-juridical day on which the drawee is open for business. On the face of that explanation one might consider that this amendment is an invitation to banks to stay open on Saturday. If that is the case, will there be some provision made for banks to close on another day in order to protect the rights of their employees?
I notice also a certain discrepancy between the proposed subclause 4 and the explanatory notes to the proposed amendment in that the explanatory notes suggest that the banks would be able to adjust to the business customs of a community. The clause itself merely refers to the carrying on of business if a branch of a bank is not open for business on a business day. That is to say, it makes provision for banks to do business on days when for some reason or other the banks normally would be closed.
The explanatory note suggests there may be a wider intention, that is, to permit a bank to adjust to the business customs of a community. I think these business customs referred to should be explained. There may be some communities so benighted that the businesses wish to stay open every night of the week. Will this proposed amendment mean that the bank branches, in providing for community customs, will be able to stay open at night in areas where there are no municipal ordinances governing hours of business? I think this is puzzling because the explanatory note is not in accordance with the proposed amendment in the bill.
I notice in clause 2 of the bill, which is the clause dealing with holidays and non-juridical days which apply to banks, we have a list which includes, among others, Victoria and Dominion days. The explanation as to the

purpose of this amendment is to remove Victoria and Dominion days from the list of non-juridical days that are to occur the next Monday when the named days fall on a Sunday. Perhaps I am unable to read this correctly, but there seems to be a contradiction. These two days are included as being non-juridical days, but the explanation suggests they are to be removed. Perhaps I am misreading this clause.
I am not going to make any reference, as did the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), to the possibilities of what might constitute a day of jubilation in Canada. We all have our own views about that and I am sure mine would not coincide with those of the hon. member. There is wide scope for interpretation in this clause and it would be of benefit to know what the government had in mind in proposing it.
At some time I should like to hear a serious answer regarding what I consider to be an inadequacy in the explanatory note, in that it appears to be in contradiction of the words of the bill now before us.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must advise the house that if the parliamentary secretary speaks now he will close the debate.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Since the two hon. members who spoke on this bill can understand quite well this country's other official language, I should like to make my comments in French.
To begin with, I ask that the bill be referred to the appropriate committee so we may obtain the explanations requested by the hon. members.
If I refer to the statement made by Mr. Elderkin, the inspector general of banks, before the Senate committee on banking and commerce, I find that he gave explanations that the hon. members will be able to get in the appropriate committee of the house.
As for the comments made by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), I would point out that there are obviously adjustments to be made when you are going through a period of social progress such as the one we are experiencing now. The house decided that the labour code should apply to banks as well as to other institutions, and I think that is perfectly normal. In the past, some banking institutions might have taken an unfair advantage of their employees by having them work long hours for little pay.
March 18, 1966	COMMONS
In my opinion, it is quite normal for those people to be subjected to the labour code and we have to make the required amendments to enable those financial institutions to adjust themselves to other legislation passed in this house.
With regard to business customs, some communities decide, for instance, that Monday will not be a business day, and others choose Wednesday or Saturday.
Since banks will have to change their operational procedures to comply with the provisions of the new Labour Code, I think we should allow those procedures to be adjusted to the customs of a community. It seems to me it would be beneficial to all businessmen. When a bank is open on Wednesday while all stores are closed, it is not very beneficial to the bank.
At any rate, members will be able to put all the questions they want to the bank superintendent when we consider this piece of legislation in the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Batten in the chair.
Mr. Churchill:: This was to go to the standing committee.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I believe there is a mistake and that the bill should be referred to the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs.
The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud) will move a motion to that effect.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, I should like to move, seconded, if a seconder is required, by the Minister without Portfolio, that the present bill be sent to the-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I think we will have to rise and report progress. Then the minister may make his motion.
Progress reported.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: that Bill S-14 be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
DEBATES	2903
Bretton Woods Agreements Act


[Stage Direction]
Hon. John N. Turner (for the Minister of
Finance) moved the second reading of Bill C-144, to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act.
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker,
following the very interesting discussion at the resolution stage, I have not much to say on second reading, since we intend to refer the bill to the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs.
Before doing so, however, I ask the consent of the house to table two returns requested by the member for Edmonton West, namely, the first return.

The first document dealt with the financial implications of Canada's increased contribution to the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The second recommendation is a list of the three countries who are members of the I.M.F. and their increased contributions to the fund.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the parliamentary secretary have the permission of the house to table the documents referred to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, it is a little unfortunate that we did not have these tables at the resolution stage because we could have commented on them at that time. I am not in any way holding the parliamentary secretary to account for this, however, it does make it a little difficult to deal with the matter at this time. I know he did have one table but was cut short by the time. As a matter of fact, it was the clock which prevented the parliamentary secretary from tabling at least the one chart. In any event, we will be able to look at this in the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. As a result of this schedule which has been tabled, it will be very instructive to see that Canada has made certain economic progress relative to other member countries in the International Monetary Fund.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
There is little more that we can say at this time, except I will also be interested in the
March 18, 1966

Bretton Woods Agreements Act point raised by the member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, and that is something I agree with. I had first thought that this bill could have gone to the committee of the whole, but on reflection I find I am more in agreement with the member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands that it should go to the finance committee, so that we can get a full discussion and explanation of the moves being made by one or more major countries of the world to get a modification in the international payment standards. Perhaps that is something which might have been sloughed over, and I think we should be grateful to the hon. member for having insisted on that. I hope we will get a chance next week or within the next ten days to have an appropriate explanation. Other than that, I have no further remarks at this particular stage and I recommend the adoption in principle of this bill.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, I have just one or two things to say at this stage. I am delighted, as is the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), that this bill is to go to the committee for study, because it has always seemed to me that this is one of the occasions on which we get some education for ourselves which is very badly needed, and by that means perhaps pass on some of that education first of all to our parliamentary colleagues and later to the general public.
I recall some 12 years ago now, when I had the privilege of being a member of the banking and commerce committee of that day, we had a revision of the Bank Act which was made the occasion for an extremely interesting and quite prolonged series of what one might almost call lectures on the operations of the monetary system, which I know added a great deal to my knowledge and to the knowledge of other members of the committee.
As I suggested the other day, Mr. Speaker, we are now facing another problem in the international field which requires similar treatment. I would hope that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) when he arranges for hearings before the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, would not limit himself in the way of witnesses and officials from our own central bank or our own Department of Finance, but would seize the opportunity to ask to appear as witnesses before that committee some of the more [Mr. Lambert.)

outstanding exponents of new international units of exchange, such as Professor Robert Triffin of Yale and Professor Beurnstein, I think it is, of Chicago, both of whom in recent years have presented ideas for a new international exchange unit.
I am fairly confident, sir, that Professor Robert Triffin would be as willing this year to come to Ottawa to appear before the committee as he expressed himself willing last year when I wrote to him about the possibility of there being a bill before the committee on which his advice would be extremely useful. At that time Professor Triffin told me that he would be very glad to come to Ottawa, and I hope that the parliamentary secretary could say a word to the Minister of Finance and suggest that one or both of these gentlemen might be available. The committee would then have the benefit of some of the more advanced views with regard to this problem of international liquidity when it proceeds to discuss this bill at that time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must advise the house that if the parliamentary secretary speaks now he will close the debate.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I thank the two previous speakers for their support in sending this bill back to the appropriate committee.
Obviously, as people interested in the operation of the International Fund and in the problems of international liquidity, we need more specific information from the officials in this country who are better informed on the problem.
As for the suggestion of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron) to have Professors Triffin and Bernstein appear before the committee, 1 think it is an excellent idea, but the committee must take the initiative through a resolution passed by the committee itself. It would also be easy to have available the officials of the Bank of Canada and of the Department of Finance to supply the required information. I think the Department of Finance and the Bank of Canada also have made a thorough study of the liquidity and of this new theory that we should have a new international exchange unit to serve as monetary reserve.
March 18. 1966	COMMONS
During discussions held in Paris in the last few months, Canada made representations on this question.
Therefore, it might be interesting at that time to have additional explanations given before the committee if possible, so that the public may be better informed on this most important problem which has tremendous implications on international trade and on the economic development of the whole country.
{Englishl


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I ask whether it is the intention to have this bill go to the committee of the whole?


John Napier Turner: To the standing committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: the second reading of Bill No. C-145, to provide for the development of the commercial fisheries of Canada.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am not objecting to this bill coming up at this time, but I do note it was not called as a matter of business for today. Naturally I do not want to go back into the past, as some people have been doing recently, and call attention to criticism which arose then. But here we are with this bill now called before us without prior notification, and some members who might have liked to speak to it are not present.
Incidentally, a lot of those people who, when we were defending the rights and privileges of members a little while ago, said "Let us get on with the business of the house" are certainly not here today, particularly on the government side.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I am not too
sure whether the hon. member who has just spoken is objecting to second reading of this bill, although I very well understand the position he is now in.
It is not my intention to make extensive remarks at this stage, Mr. Speaker. This bill will be discussed before the committee of the whole house. Furthermore, the estimates of the Department of Fisheries will, I hope, be before the Standing Committee on Fisheries
DEBATES	2905
Commercial Fisheries Act very soon. I suggest that this would be the appropriate time, hon. members on all sides of the house expressing this desire on different occasions, to discuss in detail administration of the Department of Fisheries.
Formerly different programs implemented by the Department of Fisheries have been carried out through appropriations. This is the first time that a bill has been introduced to take care of all aspetcs of fisheries development. As hon. members will have noticed, when the bill was introduced on first reading, provision is made for the first time for a cold storage assistance policy. Up till a few years ago a program was administered by the Department of Agriculture which provided for certain subsidies applicable to construction of cold storage facilities for agricultural and fisheries products. At the time of the austerity program it was decided that no further subsidies would be awarded under this program. In view of requirements under the new inspection legislation a large number of existing cold storage facilities will either have to expand or be modified.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
We felt that due to revision, or new inspection requirements, in many cases private enterprise was not in a position to finance on its own, or under existing capital available, the modernization or expansion which was required for existing cold storages. This bill provides for this type of assistance.
It also provides for general support for the modernization of the fishing fleet. In recent years there has been substantial progress in this field. Subsidies have been available for a number of years, and modifications have been made in recent months.
This is also the first time that we find any federal legislation relating to the authority or details of co-operation with the provinces on a number of cost shared programs. Such programs have been accelerated particularly since the federal-provincial conference on fisheries was convened in Ottawa in January of 1964. Since that time a number of meeting have taken place with representatives of all the provinces.
I noted, when the resolutions stage of this bill was discussed in the house, that reference was made to the federal participation with regard to fresh water fisheries. I am pleased to state at this time that there have been, since the federal-provincial conference, many meetings. Many meetings have taken place with representatives of the inland provinces
March 18, 1966

Commercial Fisheries Act in order to determine what participation the federal government could take in the development of the inland fisheries.
Reference was also made at the resolution stage to the participation of the province of British Columbia in these matters. I want to assure hon. members of this house that it is the policy of the government, the policy of the Department of Fisheries, to make available on a national scale all the facilities and the programs which are now in existence within the Department of Fisheries. It is not our intention to force or induce the provinces to share or to take part in these programs. What we have done is to amend, if needed, the regulations in order to make these facilities available to all provinces. There might be one exception and this has to do with the bait service in Newfoundland. The bait service in Newfoundland is provided under a special agreement which was reached at the time that Newfoundland joined confederation. It is our intention to meet this obligation.
Reference has also been made at the resolution stage of this bill to the possibility of training fishermen for the deep sea fishery. In recent months there has been an unprecedented demand for such fishermen. During the last 10 or 12 months we could see that such a demand would come about, before too long. It might be interesting to note what we have done in this respect. We have had a series of discussions on manpower and educational needs, particularly with the eastern provinces. A special meeting was held; a symposium was held with the representatives of the industry and representatives of the provincial governments, at Pictou, last summer.
Within the next few weeks we shall have on the staff of the Department of Fisheries in Ottawa, for the first time, an educational officer. It is our intention to co-operate with the Department of Labour in its vocational training program, in order to train an adequate number of fishermen and to qualify them to participate in the expansion which is now taking place in the fishing industry, and particularly in our offshore fishing fleet.
We have now in existence three fishing schools on the east coast; one at Pictou, Nova Scotia; one at Caraquet, New Brunswick, and one at Grande Riviere in Quebec. We have the college, or the fishery university at St. John's, Newfoundland.
It is our intention to co-operate with those institutions in order that they be in a position 
to improve their facilities and to provide adequate training for young fishermen who are interested in getting involved in deep sea fishing operations.
Mr. Chairman, there is very little that I can add at this time on this bill. I sould be prepared to answer any questions from hon. members when the bill reaches the committee stage.
Reference has been made in the house to the fact that the fisheries department was considered as the orphan of the government. I do not want to cast aspersions on any previous administration, but I want to make it clear to hon. members that when I was assigned the responsibility for this department, the total estimates for the Department of Fisheries were in excess of $23 million. In less than three years the total estimates of the department have now reached, as evidenced by the estimates for the coming fiscal year tabled some weeks ago, a figure of over $40 million.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I dare say that when the supplementary estimates have been introduced for the coming fiscal year the total estimates of the Department of Fisheries will be in the vicinity of $43 million, an increase of 90 per cent in the last three years. It is evident that this act now under consideration will give the minister and the department authority to proceed with certain programs either totally federal or cost-shared with the provinces for the development of the fisheries of Canada and I hope this initiative will receive full support from all sides of the house.


Harold Warren Danforth: I am
certainly interested in the introduction of this Bill C-145 to provide for the development of commercial fisheries in Canada. I was particularly interested to hear the minister speak of fresh water fishing and of conferences with the provinces in this connection.
I admire the ambitious program set out in this bill but I hope it will not follow the course of so many actions taken by the Department of Fisheries in the past-the department seems to concentrate all its efforts on the development and promotion of deep sea fisheries, forgetting we have a multi-million dollar fresh water fishing industry in Canada right here in Ontario.
For the past few years fishing along the shores of the Great Lakes has been in dire
March 18, 1966

circumstances. For too long fishermen engaged in this industry have prayed for government intervention both provincial and federal to make it possible for them to maintain this industry. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the stock of fish in the Great Lakes suffered seriously throught the depredations caused by an invasion of lamprey eels. Tremendous efforts were made by the province of Ontario in conjunction with the United States to put an end to this serious situation, and these efforts may have been successful. But there has always been a feeling among fishermen around the Great Lakes that they are the forgotten segment of the industry. They have seen their waters depleted of fish. Moreover, neither the dominion government nor the provincial governments seemed to provide for them the same measures of subsidy or financial assistance as were enjoyed by coastal fishermen.
They have seen the numbers of species of fish in the lakes reduced until at the present time there are only two main varieties of fish which can be taken in any quantity-I speak especially of Lake Erie. These two varieties are perch and smelt, and if it were not for the tremendous efforts of local fishermen in developing a market for these fish the industry around Lake Erie would have passed out of existence.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Would the hon. member permit a question? I wonder whether he heard what I said a while ago when I stated that in recent months, or since last year, we have made available to the inland provinces, including the government of Ontario, most of the programs and most of the facilities which were previously available on the east coast or the west coast. So now it is really up to the provinces concerned to take advantage of these programs which are available to them.


Harold Warren Danforth: I thank the minister for his intervention. I have no quarrel with him there. It may be, as he has said, that this is the situation. But the fact remains that the lakes are being depopulated and tremendous efforts must be made to determine the cause. Some people have attributed it to water pollution. Some attribute it to the development of a particular species which, being cannibal in its nature, is harmful to the young of other species. Various reasons are given, but the fact remains there are fewer fish left each year for fishermen to take and the livelihood of these people depends on the quantity and quality of the fish they are able to catch.
Private Bills
I hope that as a result of this bill aggressive steps will be taken jointly with the province to determine the basic reason for the decline in the fish population. I hope steps will be taken to replenish the lakes with the stock necessary to provide the living to which these fishermen are entitled, having spent their lives in the industry and invested their life savings in equipment.
I understand that the United States government has taken a deep interest in the repopulation of the lakes, and it is my understanding also that some $5 million will this year be spent on this worth-while project. I earnestly hope that our government in conjunction with the province of Ontario will work with the government of the United States to launch a project which will determine once and for all the basic causes of the depletion in fish stocks, and then do something to restock the lakes.
For far too long we have seen the fish hatcheries either working at half their capacity or not working at all. I have seen hatcheries along the lakes shut down completely at a time when the fishermen were worried because they were unable to garner sufficient fish to provide them with a living. This is a serious matter as far as these men are concerned and I am looking forward to this bill having the scope necessary to make it possible for the province of Ontario, the federal government and the fishermen themselves, whose livelihood depends upon it, to do something in accord to settle this basic problem once and for all. These men are in dire straits. They must have help right away.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Batten in the chair.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Five o'clock.
Progress reported.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order. 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 and private bills.



CONSUMER CREDIT


Mr. J. B. Slewart (Parliameniary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the consent of the house to move that the subject matter of certain bills

March 18, 1966
Private Bills
be sent to the Joint Committee on Consumer Credit.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent to move this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Ryan):
That the subject matter of the following bills be referred to the Joint Committee on Consumer Credit: C-4, C-21, C-24, C-29, C-39, C-53, C-65, C-76, C-91 and C-92.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-6, to provide for the length of sessions of parliament.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-6 was originally prepared and introduced in the last parliament at a time when there was a great deal of discussion about the need for reform of the proceedings and rules of this house. It was never debated in the twenty sixth parliament because it was not reached in private members' hour.
This is a bill to provide for the length of sessions of parliament. Since the first introduction of this bill, a special committee on procedure and organization has made numerous reports as a result of which the rules of the house have been improved and amended in many ways. I personally believe, however, that a great deal of further improvement could be brought to pass if parliament were to plan its sessions and the House of Commons were to plan its sittings, and to fix the normal times of such sittings.
Hon. members may be of the opinion that it is better to look first of all at the forest and then at the trees. I submit if the size of the forest is first determined, then the number and location of the trees can be better determined.
In recognition of the fact that parliament must sit much longer than formerly, to deal with the increasingly complex and numerous matters of public interest, and that this places a great deal of strain on the staff of parliament; in recognition of the fact that ministers of the crown have departmental duties, and all members have constituency duties which must be attended to in periods free of parliamentary duties, I have caused this bill to be re-introduced in this parliament.

I feel that if this bill, or an analogous bill, were enacted, most of the necessary routine work of parliament such as estimates, supply and minor amendments to existing legislation could be programmed for a first mandatory session in each year, and that most legislation bringing in innovations could be given first reading in the mandatory session but could be programmed for the permissive session later in the year.
I submit that this would bring order in the conduct of our business where there is now chaos. This would prevent the use of estimates and interim supply in the annual game of fox and goose played between the house leaders, a game in which they try to outfum-ble each other. This would stop the kind of emotional brinkmanship which creates the atmosphere that even brings down a government, all too unreasonably sometimes to be in the interests of the country.
In clauses 2 and 3 the bill provides for a mandatory session that commences the last Thursday of January and could continue to the second Thursday of September each year. This is the first session of the year, the mandatory session. However, the House of Commons would not normally sit beyond the last Friday of June. The Senate could continue to sit, if it so desires, to finish its business without the pressure that it has now of having to rush in order to meet a House of Commons deadline. The Senate must rise, however, some time before the second Thursday of September, whereupon the session would end. Hon. members should keep clearly in mind, as I am speaking now, the distinction between the session of parliament and the sitting of the House of Commons.
If necessary, and I believe it usually would be, there would be a fall session in which the house would finish sitting on the second Friday of December, at the latest. The Senate could continue to sit until the last Thursday of January in the new year.
Clause 4 of the bill provides for an adjustment of the sittings in an election year, and also for emergency sittings.
Clause 5 provides for a day's debate in the house on the necessity of emergency sittings, if 50 members give notice that they do not consider the call to be one of urgent public importance. This is designed to be preventive and to discourage sittings that are not really necessary and in the public interest. It is also designed to concentrate opposition criticism to one day, rather than have such criticism continue through the sittings.
March 18. 1966

Clause 6 is a very important clause as it provides for government business and private business to be carried over from one session to the next, as if the two sessions were one continuous session. This provision would continue committees, for example, into the next session until their business is completed. Hon. members will appreciate that this would save a great deal of lost time, repetition and expense.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Clause 7 provides that the Speaker and two officials of the House of Commons may, after the house has stopped sitting, complete the formalities of receiving bills from the Senate that have been passed without amendment, without the necessity of the members of the House of Commons attending at the royal assent. This measure would come into force upon royal assent, but would first apply to the year 1967.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, would modernize section 20 of the British North America Act of 1867, 30 Victoria, Chapter 3, which simply provides that there shall be a session of the parliament of Canada once at least every year so that 12 months shall not intervene between the last sitting of the parliament in one session, and the first sitting in the next session.
As our constitution now stands, a prime minister could, in theory, call parliament to sit for one day a year and prorogue it at the end of that day. In practice, of course, a prime minister would, so acting, have great difficulty continuing in office even with recourse to Governor General's warrants. This is an area, however, in which a prime minister has exceptional power and freedom to manoeuvre. This bill, if enacted, would in large measure curtail existing prerogatives of a prime minister. This is not the motivation for this bill, but it would be a result.
Mr. Speaker, most democratic legislative assemblies in the world now have regular dates for the commencement of their sessions, and many spell out the duration of a session with precision. In West Germany the length of sessions generally is fixed by the parliamentarians themselves. There is a so-called steering committee made up of the president-the equivalent of our Speaker-and 30 members of all parties represented, according to their strength in parliament. In each month of a session, one week is devoted to committee work; one week is for the whole
Private Bills
parliament; one week is half committee sessions and half for the whole parliament. The final week is free. The West German parliament normally begins in the first two weeks of October and adjourns at the end of July, with three free weeks at Christmas and two weeks at Easter. These parliamentarians draw up a calendar for each year and spell out precisely the program for the year in respect of it, so that everybody who desires to have dealings in or with parliament has a better opportunity to plan or perform his parliamentary business.
Mr. Speaker, I am not recommending that the West German method be adopted here. I am merely illustrating the businesslike approach of another free legislative assembly.
The bill at hand would initiate the framework within which Canadian parliamentarians, by setting up a joint committee of the house and the other place, could further reform our rules and procedures to meet modern day requirements.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I always have been very fond of the private members' hour, especially on Friday when one gets a lift out of the crowded house and the packed expectant gallery.


Mr. Nicholson:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Certainly.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Are you sure you have not used the wrong words; should you not have said the "quality" of the members rather than the crowded number of those present.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I may say that both give me great pleasure.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is nice to have two ministers here today.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman who has moved this bill I am sure has been motivated by the kind of concern which must disturb a great many Canadians, especially those interested in public matters, because in recent months and indeed in recent years, there have been many aspects of our system here which, in unkind terms have become chaotic, and which in kind terms have become awkward. We have had so many elections that we sometimes find ourselves giving close scrutiny to the estimates of a previous year. We find ourselves facing a speech from the throne with items which are

March 18, 1966
Private Bills
very familiar; in fact, sometimes one's memory slips, and I am not sure there are not some things in the present throne speech which were read at the time that our party formed the government.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Lots of them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They will still be there if you ever take office again.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Over the years things have happened to the length of sessions, although so much has happened to the machinery for dealing with this matter. In 1867, in the first parliament when the country was being built and brought together, they met on November 6, 1867 and were through in May the following year. The next session began April 15 and ended June 22. I know they had a tremendous prime minister in those days, but nevertheless there is a contrast all down through the years, and I am not going to take up the time of this crowded house here today to go over all of them.
Even in 1908, at the turn of the century, the session commenced on March 8 and ended on July 13. In the depths of the depression, which in Canada began in 1929 and ended in 1939, in 1932 the third session of the seventeenth parliament, ran from February 4 to May 26. It grappled with the great problems which it had, and a tremendous amount of legislation, some of it of a new kind that was quite shocking, especially to some of the members of the party that was passing it. Then there was the session which commenced on January 17, 1935 and ended on July 5 of that year. This was one of the great dynamic sessions of all times, because this was the famous reform session of R. B. Bennett.
We have found great expansion in the estimates. One has only to compare the figures recently given by the Minister of National Revenue with the few millions of earlier days. We have to recognize, in short, Mr. Speaker, that this now has become a year-round task. No matter how we try to streamline our procedures, a member of the House of Commons of Canada today will find that the whole year must be devoted to his public duties. Now we have, as the mover has mentioned, improved the rules, and the committee and the Speaker in the past parliament deserve great credit.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I think there are many internal improvements which we can yet make. I shall continue to champion the installation of voting machines. As I sit here hour after hour

waiting for votes to be taken I can ruminate and reflect on the value of such a device. I am sure I will have the thing well thought out before this session is over.
We could benefit from the situation which exists in other legislatures. As we pass through crises, and we have passed through crises in recent years and in recent days, the mother of parliaments shows the way. Great fundamental issues of monumental concern and of deep emotional content have been met and dealt with in the British parliament in one day, and when the sitting expired the issue was resolved one way or the other.
I like many of the suggestions contained in this bill. I think we have reached the stage where we should know at least, if not where we are at, when we are going to get there, so to speak. We should know in years when there are not elections when the house will meet, when it will adjourn and when, as the hon. member so rightly pointed out, members can be in their constituencies for a good deal of time.
It is my suggestion that sessions should commence in January and have a proper break during July and August. This is where I would be inclined to differ from this measure. I think we should keep one session with an adjournment, rather than, as he has put it, two sessions on a mandatory and permissive basis. I am concerned about the fact that many of the functions and formula-like activities-opening ceremonies, set debates and what have you-devour a great deal of time, where an adjournment of a session would obviate this.
It is extremely important that we face up to the fact, as the British have done to a great degree, that we should work on a calendar year with set adjournments, so that our constituents and ourselves can prepare beforehand for a known and sustained period of time when we perform that important part of our work in our constituencies.
Reasonable adjournments at other times, such as at Easter and certainly at Christmas, should be provided. If there is one thing that pains and humiliates me as a member of parliament, it is the dangling of an adjournment before members suggesting that if we get through these, and these, and these-then emerges a great long list of legislation-we might have an adjournment. This is not a sin exclusively of the party how in power. I remember, the suggestions that if we got all the proposed legislation through we would prorogue, if not late in June perhaps in the
March 18. 1966

middle of July, but we were still telling this to one another on September 1. It is far more reasonable to decide beforehand that an adjournment will take place at a certain time, and I suggest this should be placed and set out right on the order paper. For instance, this house should now know, and this should be on the order paper, when we shall have an Easter recess and for how long. There is some psychological lift in knowing when you have to come to the end of a discussion. I think there is nothing like a self-imposed piece of discipline to bring great results, and to this extent I am very pleased with the hon. gentleman's suggestion.
I accept the hon. member's phraseology, that all these things should be spelled out with precision. This is a restraint upon the executive, but we have in other ways, through the passage of statutes, put similar restraints upon the executive before. If this bill be enacted it would perhaps require an amendment to section 38 of the British North America Act in reference to the Governor General calling together the House of Commons. I think the house has lost greatly over the years through a mad rush to prorogue; through crowded haphazard agendae and through the belittling of its own performances in the uncertain hope of finding a suitable time for an adjournment.
I think we will have to face up to this fact, Mr. Speaker, as other legislatures have. I am not sure that I am attracted by the West German method. I rather like the idea of committees functioning simultaneously with parliament. I believe that our new system of committees will greatly improve the over-all parliamentary performance.


John B. Stewart: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Certainly.


John B. Stewart: I have listened carefully to his remarks, and I should like to ask him whether he does not regard the proposal he is now supporting as one which would encroach upon the essential prerogatives of the Crown, specifically the prerogative of prorogation?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I touched upon that subject very lightly when I used the word "executive". I did not want to get into a discussion of the powers and prerogatives in a classical sense. I suppose if I wanted to be classical in my response I could say that a parliamentary body which could depose a
Private Bills
minister and dethrone a monarch is not inhibited from moving into this field. I did not wish to go quite so far because I do not think we have to discuss this in that realm.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Would the hon. member permit another question?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Certainly.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Does the hon. member not think that clause 4 provides an answer to the question asked by the parliamentary secretary, in that it states "except where necessarily consequent upon a dissolution"? Does that not make it clear that the prime minister's prerogative of proroguing would be maintained?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: The parliamentary secretary, my fellow maritimer, used the word "prorogation" rather than "dissolution". The bill does clearly provide for contingencies of dissolution.


John B. Stewart: May I ask the hon. gentleman another question prompted by his reply? On what occasion did a monarch lose his head by an act of parliament?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Did he say "head" or
"throne"?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I actually said "dethroned" rather than "decapitated".


Mr. McCleave:: He lost his seat, not his head. [DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that in 20 minutes I could not get back with my learned colleague into the 17th century, but I do think that the actions of parliament had a profound effect on the final phases of the monarchal performance. I would like to engage in a discussion with the learned gentleman about the steady advances in parliamentary rights and the consequent decline of privileges and powers. But with this packed house I am not sure that the great majority of our colleagues are philosophers, and whether or not we should become philosophic. Conservatives are notoriously pragmatic and I might lose my membership in my party if I spend too much time philosophizing or theorizing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They are not notoriously pragmatic: They are just notorious.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Now we have someone to the far left who is neither pragmatic nor a philosopher, but a cynic.

March 18, 1966
Private Bills
Now, to get down to something which is practical and concrete, Mr. Speaker, I should like to turn to another clause of the bill which concerns me, and that is the procedure whereby the Speaker and two officials of the House of Commons may, after the house stopped sitting, complete a formula for the receiving of bills from the Senate which have been passed without amendment, and not attend at the Royal Assent. I am thinking that this would seriously limit this important and powerful upper house if, in order to have brought to completion measures of importance, they would accept them from us without amendment. I believe this would put that powerful chamber, in effect-although certainly the bill is not headed that way-in a position explicitly to limit their powers and restrict their perusal as a chamber of sober second thought, and one with powers in almost every respect coequal with the House of Commons. I would have concern about this.
I have a great regard for the rights and privileges of that body. I realize how important it has been during the years. I do not wish to take up any further time, Mr. Speaker, because there may be others who would like to deal with this bill. I will say in conclusion and in summary that it is very timely and if this bill is not adopted soon, then some similar measure will have to be put into effect; otherwise our parliamentary performance will be greatly hampered by our failure to arrange logically, properly, and beforehand a satisfactory use of the time in any given year. I believe we have passed the stage where it is sufficient to have a haphazard calling together of parliaments, proroguing we know not when, catching an adjournment as we can best catch it, pushing through the ever-growing legislative mill, and questioning assiduously and carefully estimates at one early stage, only to be presented later on with multitudes of estimates in a minimum of time. I believe more careful organization is required. It is often said that this is not the place for efficiency, that there are other values. Certainly there are, Mr. Speaker. This is far greater and far more significant than any economic or commercial organization. But to change our techniques, our performance and our patterns when change is needed is surely a good and proper course. I am a conservative, but I am not a reactionary; the two are not ever the same thing.


Gordon Minto Churchill: No conservative is.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: And certainly no
Progressive Conservative could ever be a reactionary. However, I welcome this bill and I believe it is something which all of us and the Canadians whom we represent should think of. If some of these suggestions are a bit new, they are also quite worth while and I congratulate and commend the hon. gentleman for his initiative.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Ryan) who introduced this bill will not feel badly if we tend to give it the "you have got a good idea but we don't like the way you work it out" treatment. I suspect that that will be the verdict of this house during this private members hour.
I should like to join with the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie), despite the mistaken way in which he identified me, in saying that I too welcome an effort such as the hon. member for Spadina has made to get us to consider the planning of our parliamentary sessions. He has made it clear in his explanatory notes that this is the purpose of his bill. The member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) made a few references to the time consumed by earlier sessions. He did so by referring to the Parliamentary Guide. However, when you count the precise number of days that parliament sat in some of those earlier sessions, you will see that they were even shorter than appears from the dates given by the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie). I only mention this to underline the fact that there has been a tremendous change in the amount of work with which parliament must deal. In the first decade or two sessions of forty and fifty days were long sessions. Now we have enough work to take 150 to 250 days in a year to accomplish. Therefore the problem is with us and there is no use saying that we have to keep on doing things in the same old way. The problems are here and they call for some very real changes.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I would also like to draw attention to the fact that many years ago Dr. Beauchesne, in one of his writings, urged that parliament consider the idea of dividing the session into three parts. If I recall his paper correctly, he suggested that certain formalities such as the address in reply to the speech from the throne and items of that kind might be dealt with in one section of the session; legislation might be dealt with in another and estimates in the third. I forget which of the sections of
March 18. 1966

the session the budget was to be in, but I mention this just to indicate that people who have thought of parliament have had ideas of this nature from time to time, namely that it is not good enough just to go on as they could in the 1870's and 1880's, without any planning. We have come to the point where we have to do some planning of our parliamentary session.
To the extent that the hon. member for Spadina, in introducing this bill, is making us think of this fact, he has done us a service. I also say to him that it is a service to us for him to suggest some precise details. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I think I must point out that in my view some of the details which he suggests are a bit unworkable and would tend to stultify parliament in a way which I think would defeat the hon. member's purpose. When one takes a first look at the bill it looks as though the aim is to have a House of Commons session which begins in January and ends in June, but then the hon. member admits that in most years there would be a second session. So right away the notion that we are going to shorten our sessions is admitted by the hon. member himself to be invalid.
I agree with him that the aim in all of this is not just to shorten our sessions. There is really nothing wrong with our having to work most of the year to do the nation's business. But what we should be aiming at is the efficient use of the time we spend here. As I say, the hon. member immediately admits that what he proposes as the exception, namely a second session each year, is likely to become the rule.
Then I should point out to him that in his bill he has so many deadlines that I think we would find ourselves doing what we have already done to the Electoral Boundaries Act. We very solemnly passed in the last parliament legislation regarding electoral boundaries and we put into that legislation a provision as to what parliament must do. We said that members of parliament must debate any objections members have within a fixed number of days from a certain point. I think that is the first example, in recent times at any rate, of putting into a statute what parliament must do.
What have we done with that legislation, Mr. Speaker? We passed a bill through all three readings very quickly, and then the Senators did the same thing, just to change that deadline. X would suspect that if the hon. member's bill went through in its present
Private Bills
form with its various deadlines we would find ourselves at each and every session of parliament, both in the main session and in the second session, having to pass bills to amend the basic law relating to the sessions, so that we could do what needed to be done under the circumstances.
Therefore I think that the idea of fixing a precise calendar schedule by statute is one which would be pretty hard to stick to in the free kind of parliament that we have. After all, we are not just a business organization of the kind which can program its work as though we were turning it over to a computer. We are a living organization representing the life of the Canadian people as it exists in 1966 or 1967. The things which will happen and the needs which will arise create differing situations, and if we try to deal with all of them in a timed program which has been restricted and stultified, then I fear we would get into difficulty.
I do not say these things critically as though the hon. member should not have put these ideas into this bill. After all, he can come back to me and say that we have certain restrictions now. For example, we sit at 2.30 in the afternoon and quit at ten at night, except for the late show. We sit at eleven o'clock on Friday mornings and quit at six. We do not sit on Saturdays or Sundays. So we already have a great many restrictions. But so far as our work is concerned, a good deal of it is determined by the program which the government brings in and by the reaction of the opposition to the legislative program. I believe this necessitates a certain amount of freedom on the part of the House of Commons during the session to deal with its work as the situation seems to demand.
Having said this, having been critical of the hon. member's precise program, I want to come back and say I welcome the idea that parliament should discuss the planning of its work. I think we should take another look at Dr. Beauchesne's suggestion of some years ago of dividing the session into two, three or four parts and trying to see whether we can deal with some of the work in one part of the session, certain work in another part, and so on.
I also think-and here I hope my hon. friend from Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) will not mind if I disagree with him-that if we are going to plan our work there is something else we must do. I think we have to look at the importance, and I think the potentially greater importance, of our committee work.

March 18, 1966
Private Bills
If we are to do this, then where I disagree with my hon. friend from Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) is that I think we will have to provide time in the parliamentary year when committees can sit when the House of Commons itself is not in session. I have twice had the experience in the years I have been here of being on committees which sat when parliament was not actually in session, and it is my judgment that the committees which sit under those circumstances have a much better chance to do an effective job than committees which sit while the house is actually in session.
I am not suggesting that we take away from the executive any of the powers it has as far as legislation is concerned, but I am suggesting that committees could be upstaged and be given more importance and more work to do. This question was discussed last year or the year before in connection with our changes in the rules. Some misunderstanding developed; some people thought we were trying to arrange for holiday time, or what-have-you. I hope that those misunderstandings can be resolved and that we can take another look at this whole question of upgrading our committee work as part of the planning of the whole session.
I emphasize the fact that, in my view, this is probably the answer to our present problem, because we have so much more work to do now than we had 30, 40 or 100 years ago. Some of us have already talked about the length of sessions, which was six or seven weeks at the beginning of this country's history. I may say that the sessions really did not get lengthy until the second world war. Even the long sessions complained about just before the first world war were sessions which, in terms of total length of time, did not amount to more than six or seven months, or 25 or 26 weeks out of the 52.
We have much more work to do now because the amount of money we must consider has multiplied manyfold. We no longer deal as a parliament just with post offices, roads and defence. We deal with everything which affects our lives from the cradle to the grave. We go under the earth, into the sea, and we are concerned with outer space. Everything concerns us. I think it is unrealistic to think that, without any change in the rules or any changes in the matters we handle, we can do everything right here on the same floor in the same procedural structure in which we conducted our business 85 to 90 years ago in a matter of six or seven weeks.

To me the answer is not to pass the excess work to the executive or to the bureaucracy. To me the answer is to make greater use of our committees structure. But I plead the point that we are not going to get the full advantage out of our new committees structure, with smaller numbers on committees and so on, if we continue having committees sit while the house is in session. To me this is one of the major matters, as I say, which we should look at in connection with the whole business of planning our parliamentary year.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Obviously I could go on but I see the clock is moving and I think others should have the chance to speak. I will sit down by saying that even though I find many flaws in the details of the bill presented by the hon. member for Spadina and he will agree with me that he does not want to end up by stultifying the parliamentary year nevertheless, he has done us a service, by making us think about planning our parliamentary year. I hope that we will get around to planning it soon.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I only want a few minutes to discuss this bill.
First, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Ryan) for presenting this bill to us tonight, even if it does not seem to have the unanimous approval of the house. He has at least allowed the expression of several new ideas and the present discussion on this subject seems to indicate that we may soon have the opportunity to amend parliamentary procedure. Fixed dates for the opening and closing of parliament is quite a good idea.
As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) pointed out several minutes ago, our present work load cannot be compared with that of sessions several years ago. I believe it would be advantageous to set dates for the opening and closing of sessions, so that members of parliament would know where they stand.
I know that this would have been difficult these past few years because of the many sudden elections.
1 think that, in addition to determining the length of parliamentary sessions, this would exclude the risk of elections during the four years of the life of a parliament, and therefore it would be much easier to apply the bill introduced this afternoon by the member for Spadina.
March 18. 1966

I shall not pursue the subject further tonight, but I think that this idea should be carried further and studied in greater detail; I am convinced that we will find a way to improve, not the present debates, but the duration of parliaments, which will thus become more efficient.


Mr. Jean-Eudes Dube (Resligouche-Madawaska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add a few personal comments on the bill now before us, that is Bill No. C-6, an act to provide for the length of sessions of parliament.
As pointed out by the sponsor of the bill, the hon. member for Spadina, the purpose of this measure is to set definite dates for the opening and length of sessions. As a matter of fact, the bill provides as the opening date the last Thursday of January and as the closing date for the House of Commons, the last Friday of June. The bill also provides for an Easter recess of at least five days and the possibility of a second session in September.
At first sight at least, there can be no doubt that it would be quite desirable to limit the length of sessions and especially to know beforehand and with certainty the schedule of future sessions.
As one of the previous speakers said, sessions are getting longer because of the increasing complexity of the problems considered by the house.
A quick review of the parliamentary history of our nation shows that, in the first years of confederation, the sessions lasted between two and two and a half months. The 1912-13 session went on for six and a half months, but it was at the time of the famous debate on the naval forces bill. Of course, that session was an exception to the rule.
During the first world war, the sessions lasted about four months.
During the second world war, Parliament began to sit all year round, but sessions were broken by adjournments.
In fact, at the time of the second world war, Parliament did not sit more than six months per year. But since that time, the length of the sessions has grown constantly and we now sit almost the year round, except when we take holidays to go electioneering.
It is to be hoped that this type of holiday will not occur too soon.
It is, therefore, expedient to study the problem, to examine the bill and the reasons for setting definite limits to the length of sessions.
Private Bills
Mr. Speaker, I believe the role of a member does not only consist in sitting in the house, taking part in debates and working in committees; a member must also be the spokesman of his constituents. It is very difficult for him to perform this duty and to carry out this most important task effectively if he does not have the opportunity to understand their needs fully and to consider their views. Therefore, a member must have, as far as possible, some spare time to meet with his constituents, discuss with them and, at times, live among them several weeks during the year.
I believe the interests of democracy would be better served if hon. members could keep in touch constantly with their constituents and, especially if definite periods were set aside every year to allow them, not to take a holiday, but to pay a visit to their constituents.
Adjournments at definite dates, as proposed in this bill, would also allow ministers to catch their breath and to visit their own ridings as well as to prepare long-term programs for their department.
Mr. Strathearn Gordon published some years ago a rather interesting book entitled Our Parliament.
It deals, of course, with the British parliament at Westminster, but his remarks can be applied as well to our own parliament in Ottawa. And I quote, Mr. Speaker- [English]
I quote from page 58 of Our Parliament by Strathearn Gordon:
Another subject which is often raised is the length of the session. Why don't M.P.'s work for more than eights months in the year? The answer is that they do-but not at Westminster. Most Ministers undoubtedly look forward to the 'holidays', when they are free from parliamentary cares, as the periods when they can put their best work into their Departments. But for ordinary Members, too, reasonably long adjournments are a practical necessity. When a man has for many weeks been living a sort of double life, spending late nights at Westminster, speaking in his constituency at the weekends, working in the train in between, with his private affairs neglected and his nerves in shreds, it is surely right to allow him time to recuperate and think. Three hundred and seventy years ago the Lord Keeper was expressing the idea in almost lyrical style:
There the author goes on to quote the Lord Keeper:
The sessions (he said) cannot be long; by reason of the springtime, 'tis fit that gentlemen should repair to their countries; the justices of assize also to go to their circuits.
So the good hours should not be lost in idle speeches, but the little time we have should be bestowed wholly on such businesses as are needful to be considered of.

March 18, 1966
Private Bills
Finally the author quotes also the great parliamentarian himself, Sir Winston Churchill:
If you wish to say what is wrong with Parliament ... it is that it sits far too long in the year. I would lay down that except in times of war or great national emergency Parliament should not sit more than five months, with the ordinary short intervals, say, occupying six months of the year. That ought to be the maximum.

Mr. Speaker, it seems that the dates suggested by the sponsor of this bill are not so far removed from those suggested by the spokesmen of the other parties in the house.
The question has been brought up several times. I note, for instance, that the hon.
member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) who spoke previously, said in 1965, as shown in Hansard, page 1623, that we should be out of here in time to celebrate St. Jean Baptiste Day and come back after Labour Day.
During the same session, in 1965, the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) as shown in Hansard, page 2139, said that sessions should begin about September 10 and adjourn on December 20 to resume afterwards on January 10 till June 30. This year, the leader of the house-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Six o'clock, the end of today's sitting.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
March 18, 1966


[Stage Direction]
For some years the French Government has stressed on many occasions, both publicly and in conversations with Allied governments, its view that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization no longer meets, as far as the French Government is concerned, the conditions which prevail in the world at the present time and which are basically different from those prevailing in 1949 and the following years.
2.	In fact, the threat which weighed upon the Western world, particularly in Europe and which was the reason for the conclusion of the Treaty has changed in nature. It no longer presents the immediate and menacing character it once had. At the same time, the European countries have restored their economies and, as a consequence, are recovering their former strength. France in particular is developing an atomic armament, which, by its very nature, precludes its integration. In the third place, the nuclear balance between the Soviet Union and the United States of America which has replaced the monopoly held by the latter, has transformed the general conditions of Western defence. Finally, it is a fact that Europe is no longer the center of international crises. This center has moved elsewhere, notably to Asia, where the Atlantic Alliance countries are as a whole nof evidently involved.
3.	This evolution in no way leads the French Government to question the Treaty signed in Washington on April 4, 1949. In other words, and barring developments which, in the years to come, might basically modify relations between east and west, it does not intend to avail itself in 1969 of the provisions of Article 13 of the Treaty, and it considers that the Alliance should remain in being as long as the need appears evident.
4.	The above position having been stated unequivocally the problem of the Organization itself arises, that is to say all agreements, arrangements and decisions subsequent to the signing of the Treaty, whether they be multilateral or bilateral in form. The French Government considers that this Organization no longer corresponds to what in its opinion seems to be required.
5.	One could undoubtedly have envisaged that negotiations could have been undertaken to modify by common consent the provisions
in force. The French Government would have been happy to propose this had it had reason to believe that such negotiations would have led to the result it has in mind. Unfortunately everything indicates that such an attempt would be doomed to fail since all of France's partners seem or profess openly to favour maintaining the status quo, or reinforcing all that which is henceforth unacceptable from the French point of view.
6.	France accordingly is led to recognize the consequences for it in this situation and to take the measures which seem required and which in its opinion are not in the least incompatible with its participation in the Alliance, nor in military operations with its Allies should the need arise. Already in the past the French Government has taken steps of this nature with regard to its naval forces serving with NATO whether in the Mediterranean or in the Atlantic. What is now in question are its land and air forces stationed in Germany and assigned to the Allied Command in Europe. France intends to bring their assignment to an end. This decision will entail France's simultaneous withdrawal from the two integrated commands under which its forces are serving and to which it is contributing within the framework of NATO, i.e. the Supreme Allied Command in Europe and the Central Europe Command, and consequently the transfer of the headquarters for these two commands outside French territory. The implementation of all these measures raises of course a number of problems, which the French Government is now prepared to discuss with its allies. There will be a need to consider the liaison which should be established between the French Command and NATO Command as well as to determine the conditions under which French forces, particularly in Germany, would participate in wartime, should Article 5 of the Washington Treaty be evoked, in joint military actions, with reference to Command and operations themselves. This implies in particular that French land and air forces which are stationed at present in Germany would be maintained in that country under the agreements of October 23, 1954. This for its part the French Government is disposed to do.
7.	Consideration should be given, on the other hand, to problems which may present
[Stage Direction]
March 18, 1966
themselves to France with regard to the Military Committee and the Standing Group, including the problem of liaison between these bodies and the French Command.
8.	Such are the broad outlines of measures contemplated by the French Government which it regards as necessary to adapt to new conditions the modalities of its participation in the Atlantic Alliance. It is prepared to enter discussions with regard to the implementation of these measures, and it hopes that appropriate arrangements may be agreed upon by all its Allies.
9.	Multilateral problems are not however the only ones to be considered as far as Canada and France are concerned. Both countries have concluded agreements in the past concerning the construction and the operation of airports on French territory intended for the use of the Royal Canadian Air Force.
10.	The French Government considers that these agreements no longer meet present conditions, which lead it to recover the full exercise of its sovereignty on French territory, or in other words no longer to accept that foreign units, installations or bases in France should in any way be responsible to authorities other than French. It is ready to examine, and eventually to settle with the Government of Canada, the practical consequences this policy entails.
11.	Moreover the French Government is ready to discuss the military facilities which could be placed at the disposal of the Government of Canada on French territory in the event of a conflict to which both countries would participate under the Atlantic Alliance. These facilities could be the object of an Agreement to be concluded between both Governments.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 21, 1966