1966-03-15

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I should bring to the attention of hon. members that I have received from the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) a notice, as required by the standing orders, that he proposes to raise a question of privilege. I have also received notice that the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) wants to speak to the question of privilege, and I have received notice also from the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert).
However, before calling first on the right hon. Leader of the Opposition I hope hon. members will allow me to restate very simply and very briefly what I have already said on a number of occasions since the debate now before the house began on Thursday last.
Hon. members know that according to long standing practice, as explained in citations 104, 105 and 113 of Beauchesne's fourth edition and in May's seventeenth edition at page 134, a motion has to follow a question of privilege. The house cannot carry on a debate unless there is question before it and, in the case of a question of privilege, the subject matter of the discussion has to be a motion of privilege.
I might also be allowed to mention that there can be only one question of privilege before the house at any time. On this point I might refer hon. members to a ruling made by Mr. Speaker Michener as recorded in Hansard for March 19, 1962 at page 1915. This position was reinforced by a similar ruling rendered by Mr. Speaker Lambert, as reported in Hansard of January 21, 1963 at page 2935, where Mr. Speaker Lambert declared:
A matter of privilege cannot be raised when another one is already before the house.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
The Chair would therefore at this time call on the right hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday when speaking in the house, as reported at page 2624 of Hansard I used these words:
What has national unity got to do with this question of charging various members of the Privy Council indiscriminately with wrongdoing approaching treason? One of our colleagues has passed on. Today he has been mentioned as one of those two or more. He is referred to as one of them: and his son, an hon. member of this house, has no right of action. There is no action that a son, however honourable be his father, can take to preserve the reputation of his father. That was the situation in the Gladstone case.
What I was dealing with at the time was the danger of smear and innuendo through failing to name alleged wrongdoers and making wrongdoing have general application to a class; in other words, branding by inference all in a class by failing to name the alleged wrongdoers. Today after looking at the press I rise to say how deeply shocked I am to learn that this statement of mine has been misinterpreted.
Before I came into the house yesterday afternoon I was informed that two different parties had called up and stated that it had been broadcast that a distinguished former colleague, now deceased, was among those believed to have been among the two or more. Desirous of doing good, I am sorry to say that what I said, not having been as clear as it should have been, has been misinterpreted. Instead of saying "Today he has been mentioned as one of those two or more. He is referred to as one of them", I should have said "He was mentioned outside of this house in a broadcast."
There was no intention, and it was furthest from my mind, to say anything that could cause any misunderstanding that in any way there was any foundation for what was being bruited around. That is one of the great dangers of witch hunting, that the brand of inference is placed on men and women without reason or justification.
I hope this explanation will be accepted. I have deep regret that the widow and family have suffered because of misrepresentations of a statement that I made with the best of intentions.
March 15, 1966

Administration of Justice


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, on this question of privilege I would say that the right hon. Leader of the Opposition has perhaps explained and amplified his remarks of yesterday. He identified me and my family by referring to a former member of parliament whose son now sits in this house. That description fits no other person than my father. The right hon. gentleman's remarks were made in an attempt to show how insidious this blanket accusation of wrongdoing has become. But I do not think, and did not think at that time, that his statement was complete. He has made a complete and fuller statement today.
However, I thought I appreciated the context in which the remarks of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition were made until I saw the national television news last night, when the commentator said, amongst other things:
As for today's debate, one big development was Mr. Diefenbaker's hint about the identity of one of the other former ministers mentioned in connection with the Munsinger case. He referred to one who is now dead, whose son is now an M.P., who cannot speak out because the government has not named names. Around here they know who he is talking about, but he did not elaborate for the record.
My fears in this respect were heightened when I received a distraught phone call from home early this morning advising me of the banner story in this morning's Halifax Chronicle-Herald which stated, amongst other things:
Disclosure indirectly by Opposition Leader Dief-enbaker that former Finance Minister George Nowlan was being "mentioned as one of those two or more" in the rumours linking former members of his cabinet with Mrs. Munsinger-
Without being political or partisan, Mr. Speaker, I make a personal appeal to the Minister of Justice or the Prime Minister to stand up in this house and at least clear the dead, even though they refuse to charge the living. There are three ministers so exposed, Mr. Speaker; the late Sidney Smith, the late Paul Comtois and my father. Surely this parliament is not going to delegate its responsibilities in this regard and be dependent upon a serialized story 4,000 miles away. Unless the Minister of Justice or the Prime Minister can show the good grace and compassion they have, I shall have to consider whether I care to sit in this house while my father's name is under such a cloud.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, George Nowlan was my friend,

and a man for whom I had admiration and respect. Nothing I have read or seen in any report on anything has changed that admiration or respect, or modified in any way the high regard I have had and always will have for him.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I think in the context of the remarks which have now been addressed to this house, I must rise in order to deal with a situation arising out of yesterday's debate. It is not my intention to flog the Minister of Justice. I rise simply as a member of this house, as one who has occupied your position, as one who is conscious of the fundamental rights of this house and its members, as well as of the rules of this house and your responsibilities, Mr. Speaker, based upon those same rules and authorities that you, and your predecessors, have relied upon.
Today the situation is somewhat different. We have amended our rules from the day when I sat in your chair. There is no longer an appeal from your ruling. In this I heartily concur. However, in so doing I realize, having occupied that position, there is an even greater responsibility placed upon the Chair as the last repository of the rights of members, singly and collectively, against any undue action by a member, a group of members or the executive. In this regard we are all equal.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
It is not my purpose to expound upon the policies of that new theory of justice that was propounded last night by the Minister of Justice, as reported at page 2628 of Hansard, in which he said that having made his charge it is then upon the Leader of the Opposition, who has seen the file, to indicate those persons who are not implicated in the charge. As a fellow lawyer, Mr. Speaker, I find that a strange theory indeed.
With these words, Mr. Speaker, I will close my remarks on this particular phase of the matter. The events of yesterday and the passage into today of this discussion have given us the opportunity of reviewing what the executive has proposed. The executive had Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday morning to consider this question, and they disclosed their proposals to the opposition some time in mid-afternoon on Monday. Since the rights of the opposition were so seriously affected, is it strange, Mr. Speaker, that I and my colleagues should want more time to put forward our views? It is not only the rights of hon. gentlemen on this side who are privy councillors which are
March 15, 196G

in question in this case; it is also the rights of every member of the executive, who are our co-equals as members of the privy council.
These are the issues, Mr. Speaker. I make no apology to anyone, as I am sure neither do my colleagues, for exercising the right to consider just what is at issue and what is proposed by the executive in regard to this matter.
The hon. member for Medicine Hat last night raised a serious and important point in connection with the action being proposed by the executive. This point had been adverted to; but on mature reflection, and with the emphasis placed upon it by the hon. member for Medicine Hat, it has given me, Mr. Speaker, as a former Speaker, even greater pause, even though I too belonged for a brief period to the executive.
The question is simply this. Parliament was seized of a question which was deemed by Your Honour to be a prima facie question of privilege affecting the privacies of a certain number of members of this house. However, as I have indicated, in essence every member of this house, and equally the members of the executive, are also affected.
I say to the hon. member for Medicine Hat that it was a supreme contempt for the rights of this house for the executive to arrogate unto itself the authority to refer to another body not subject to the determination and control of this house a question involving the privileges of the members of this house.
What a precedent, Mr. Speaker. This is the beginning of the end of the privileges of this house; because if this is permitted with impunity or-by default by hon. members in this house, any executive in the future faced with an abuse or an infringement of the privileges of this house will have a precedent. If any of us have any admiration and love for the institution of parliament, then we must subscribe to the principles that I am now advancing: that no executive, no executive may arrogate unto itself the right to deal with a question of privilege of this house without the full consent and reservation of this house.
I thank the hon. member for Medicine Hat for bringing forward the citations in support of my colleagues, when he advanced the same point. I thank him for drawing that to the attention of this house. I trust it will be brought to the attention of those people who sit in judgment upon us in a gallery a little higher, and that they will bring to the attention of the country that parliament is not a second rate institution to be trampled under
Administration of Justice foot by every long distance commentator whose knowledge of the traditions and the workings and the people and the issues in this house is but second hand.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: These are my words of sincere protest to this unseemly spectacle, this unholy situation that has been created from the outside, where the events, the pressures and the love of the libido seem to crowd out all else. I refer to sensation mongering and this is a sincere cry of protest on my part.
To return to the point made by the hon. member for Medicine Hat, it is a serious one, and he could get all sorts of citations from May and Beauchesne to support him. There is no question whatsoever, Mr. Speaker, about the validity of the assertion that only parliament can dispose of a question affecting the privileges of parliament. No outside body can usurp this function, and this includes the executive. I was a member of the executive.


Miss LaMarsh:: Make your motion.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The hon. lady is rather impatient. Perhaps she is not as conscious of the rights of this house as she should be, as a member of my profession; and if I repeated her exact language for this house I think she would not be very happy.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: What is your motion?
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I say this. Nobody can usurp these rights. Yet this is precisely what has been proposed for us. The Prime Minister, in a conciliatory mood-I will concede this -introduced the motion yesterday afternoon. My hon. colleague from Kamloops surely had the right to make every point of criticism in regard to it. Did he at any point; did any one of us; did the hon. member for Yukon, ever say these were irreducible terms for consensus? Not one bit. Yet at ten o'clock, why, in all fairness and justice, did we find the Prime Minister saying to us "This is it. This is the word of the executive, and this is what will be done"? I trust those are not the right hon. gentleman's final words, because I will respect him all the more if they are not. The Prime Minister need not humpf and laugh when I say this; I say it in all sincerity, indeed in the greatest sincerity. What I intend to say in the motion I propose to place before this house is advanced with the same sincerity.
March 15. 1966

Administration of Justice
I am hoping that as a result of what I can do we shall be able to get out of the impasse in which this house now finds itself. I make no apology to anybody for taking this course-and I trust I can have a little more silence on the benches opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Well, I find the continual mumbling and bumbling that is going on opposite me is not conducive to debate.
What I propose, in all sincerity, is to express a valid objection that cannot be passed over without serious damage to the right of parliament to deal with its own privileges. After all parliament is not the executive, and the executive is not parliament. This issue is of such importance that it should appeal especially to those who may feel they should not behave as rubber stamps, and their number includes many of those opposite who have been here long enough to have sat on the opposition benches. I am merely making myself an echo of the sentiments they expressed on many occasions, and I think they are more honourable men for having expressed such views. I also, having sat on the government side and then with the opposition, assert that self-same right.
It is an issue which concerns hon. members to my immediate left. When I consider the remarks made by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis); when I consider the remarks made by the hon. member for Bur-naby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas); and when, in particular, one recalls how a legislator of very respected memory in this house fought with force and courage along with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to protect the rights of parliament during the pipe line debate, I am just wondering what Mr. Coldwell would say now in the face of this executive order.
The hon. member for Medicine Hat dealing with this question yesterday pointed to the remedy open to the house, that is, the privilege of moving a motion once a prima facie case had been established. And he objected because no motion had been made. Well, Mr. Speaker, you and I know we had a long discussion over the nature of a motion which I put forward. You know there is an honest difference of opinion, a difference which is not all that broad. But efforts were made to put forward an acceptable amendment.
I would invite the hon. member for Medicine Hat to consult the record; he was

not here during a large part of this debate. I will say this. Within the terms of the rules of this house governing questions of privilege; also within our amended rules, my hon. friend from Calgary North and others have done what they could to get a motion before the house so that we might make progress with this matter. If the hon. member would consider these efforts I think he would agree that every attempt was made to put forward a motion. I do not think anyone can be faulted because the motion he put forward was ruled out of order on procedural grounds. Now I intend to move a motion which I trust, Mr. Speaker, will be in order. I do not make any charge in my motion. It is a motion designed to deal with the objection raised by the hon. member for Medicine Hat, an objection which is in the minds of many members both on this side and on the other side of the house at the present time.
I think the hon. member for York South gave his approval to the course which will be the substance of my motion, one which is based on a suggestion made by my hon. friend from Kamloops. It is a motion designed to bring about a consensus between the course decided upon by the executive and that which this house may wish to take. As the hon. member for Medicine Hat pointed out, the terms of the order in council constitute a challenge to the rights of parliament and an invasion of its privileges. I say that we, individually and collectively, must always stand fast against such an infringement. We must always preserve our privileges.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Queens:
That the terms of reference of order in council P.C. 1966-482 dated March 14, 1966 and tabled in this house on March 14, 1966 be referred to a special committee to be composed of seven members of this house and that such special committee be empowered to sit at such times it deems necessary to examine the said terms of reference and to report what revisions and amendments it may recommend to this house for decision by 2:30 p.m. on Thursday, March 17th, 1966.


Mr. Speaker:: Have hon. members any comments to make in connection with this proposed motion; principally on the point of order rather than on the admissibility of the proposal?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I should like to confine my remarks exclusively to the regularity of the motion which has been put before the house by the hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat, limiting my observations to
March 15, 1966	COMMONS
the point of order. I reserve the right to deal later with the arguments of substance which have been advanced by the hon. gentleman with respect to the alleged usurpation of the rights of parliament by the executive.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
May I remind hon. gentlemen of the situation which exists. On Thursday last a question of privilege was raised against the Minister of Justice. It was raised initially by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness). Consideration was given to that matter by Your Honour, who had the responsibility to determine whether a prima facie question of privilege did exist. That decision was made; Your Honour declared that in your view there appeared to be a possible question of privilege. Then after your decision was made, Mr. Speaker, it was up to the house to take the next necessary step; that is, to propose a motion directed against the Minister of Justice, because the complaint had been lodged that he had breached the privileges of this house That is the situation which is confronting us today.
The Minister of Justice still is alleged to have committed a breach of the privileges of the house, and there is a traditional way by which his conduct can be subjected to question. You have declared, Mr. Speaker, supported by judgments made by previous Speakers, that any motion in order to meet the specifications at this time must first of all declare a special charge against the Minister of Justice. You have quoted a judgment by Mr. Speaker Michener to the effect that it is simple justice, prior to putting the conduct of an hon. member of this house under scrutiny, that a charge be preferred against him. That is the essential ingredient. It is open to hon. members to charge the Minister of Justice, to take the responsibility for making the charge, and to take the responsibility if the charge is proven to be unfounded.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Hon. gentlemen have
made several unsuccessful attempts to formulate a motion. Each motion has been declared defective by the Chair because it lacked this essential ingredient.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Otherwise this motion
makes no sense; it has no place within the house if it does not relate to the conduct of the Minister of Justice, because it is not open to the house at this particular time to make a
DEBATES	2689
Administration of Justice motion referring an order in council to a committee. That is unheard of; it is a grotesque parliamentary device at this particular stage, but it would be completely proper and could be made later in the day in the ordinary way on a supply motion. It could be entertained then, and it would be perfectly proper; it would be a perfectly proper procedural effort on the part of the hon. member.
I suggest, however, Mr. Speaker, that when the conduct of the Minister of Justice is called into question a specific charge is necessary in the motion; but it is quite impossible under this particular guise to send an order in council to a committee for study. I respectfully suggest on this particular procedural point that the motion cannot be entertained by the Chair.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I think we should bear in mind that we are dealing with at least two and probably three separate matters at the same time. One of the things which disturbs me, and I think you will agree, is that this discussion at this stage, except during the last few minutes, has been completely out of order because we have not even had a motion. We are dealing now, at least to some extent, with the order in council P.C. 1966/482. We are dealing with the whole matter of whether there should be a judicial inquiry, and the order in council; but I think, Mr. Speaker, we would be wise to consider the overriding matter that is before this house, and that is this matter of privilege. It is a question of privilege affecting certain members of the former Conservative government.
Whether or not this motion which has been moved by the hon. member for Edmonton West is in order, it may be a way in which we in fact can initiate some kind of action to deal with this question of privilege; because, Mr. Speaker, as I said last night, I think we would be making a serious mistake for a long time into the future if we were to accept the proposition that by an order in council a judicial inquiry can in fact deal with a question of privilege affecting members of this house.
I do not withdraw from that position. I am pleased to hear the opinion of the member for Edmonton West, and I know this is the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister, that this house is supreme and deals with its own questions of privilege. When I made this plea last night I think I was misunderstood by some of the
2690	COMMONS
Administration of Justice members of the house; because the Minister of Agriculture, for example, got up and asked me a question respecting the function of this judicial inquiry. He said-and I think I am quoting him correctly although I do not have his words before me-that this judicial inquiry should gather the information, get the facts, and that the question of privilege would be decided by this house, using this inquiry as a basis for getting the information; that the matter of separating that part of the file-or wherever the information is to be taken from-must not be made public because of the security nature.	'
I agree; but, Mr. Speaker, the reason I made the appeal last night is that all the changes and amendments laid down by the hon. member for Kamloops in respect of the terms of reference in the order in council to me appeared impossible to make; that is, it appeared to me impossible to make all those adjustments.
I am not saying that the argument of the hon. member for Kamloops is impossible. When I use the word "impossible" I mean that it seems to me there is no possibility of agreement on all sides of the house that the terms of reference in the order in council could be accepted. Well, Mr. Speaker, if we have reached the stage where there is a complete impasse as of today in respect of the situation in which the house finds itself, then I think we must go back to the authorities, the precedents and the traditions which we have. It is easy to quote chapter and verse, citation after citation with regard to what is necessary, if we have reached that stage. The rules which we use are spelled out in the standing orders, and we have the precedents and so on to give us guidance in respect of what to do when we cannot reach agreement on all sides of the house.
At this stage, Mr. Speaker, it appears to me that we cannot reach agreement. Therefore the next step that is clearly laid down in the rules is what I was asking should be done. It is easy to quote dozens of citations from Erskine May, Beauchesne and Bourinot as to what has to be done when a question of privilege is raised and once the Speaker has accepted that there is a prima facie case. But the most succinct one is that which you quoted this afternoon from page 134 of Erskine May's 17th edition where it says, with complete clarity, that a motion must be moved by the person making the complaint. That, Mr. Speaker, is open to any member who feels abused or aggrieved by the statements of the Minister of Justice.

DEBATES	March 15, 1966
* (3:20 p.m.)
The Minister of Justice has not raised a question of privilege in the house. If he chooses not to name the names I cannot see any way, according to the rules or precedents, by which we can force him, or any other member, to say more than he wants to say. If he chooses not to name the names, then the only step that is open to those who feel they have been done wrong by his statements is to make a substantive motion outlining the charge.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Exactly.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Further, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that there can be more than the charge because, at page 102 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 113 says:
Members often raise so-called "questions of privilege" on matters which should be dealt with as personal explanations or corrections, either in the debates or the proceedings of the house.
Then it says this, Mr. Speaker:
A question of privilege ought rarely to come up in parliament.
We agree, but in our opinion this is a situation that is serious enough to justify a bona fide question of personal privilege. The citation also says this:
It should be dealt with by a motion giving the house power to impose a reparation or apply a remedy.
Therefore within this motion they could lay out the charge as well as include the remedy.
Each of the motions that were made last Friday, and on Thursday when I was not here, although I have since read them, called for the resignation of the Minister of Justice. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that that could be included in the motion I am speaking about. In other words that is the remedy that would satisfy this question of privilege, but that by itself is not sufficient. The charge against the Minister of Justice must also be in the motion, as well as the remedy.
I can quite understand Your Honour ruling the previous motions out of order. One moved by the hon. member for Yukon, for example, just simply said that the minister should resign. There was no charge there. All that was there was the remedy.


Mr. Starr:: A good remedy.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: So, Mr. Speaker, the reason I raise this matter about the propriety of anyone outside this house dealing with a question of privilege affecting the members of the
March 15, 19G6

house, is that it seemed to me we had reached the stage yesterday, after hearing the speech made by the hon. member for Kamloops, where it was not possible to get agreement from all corners of the house on the terms of reference, or perhaps on anything else.
Let me make it abundantly clear that I think this judicial inquiry can serve a useful purpose in supplying the information that the committee on privileges and elections may need to deal with the question of privilege; but let us also be perfectly clear that no judicial inquiry, no matter how eminent, shall have the right to deal with a question of the privileges of the house. I also say there is a possibility something should be done with the motion moved by the hon. member for Edmonton West.
I am not going to repeat those things that the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and other hon. members said so well yesterday. We need to get this whole matter out of the house by having it investigated by the committee on privileges and elections, with whatever assistance that committee needs, so the house can get on with the job that its members were elected to do.
I think perhaps this motion could be accepted although it refers only to the terms of reference in the order in council; but I think it fails to recognize that the inquiry set up by this order in council is not going to deal with the question of privilege. So far as we are concerned the terms of reference set out in the order in council for the inquiry are broad enough, and they are not offensive; because they say the inquiry may look into all statements concerning the case in the House of Commons, all statements made by the Minister of Justice in press conferences, and into almost anything else.
If this judicial inquiry is to be but an inquiry to supply some information to the committee on privileges and elections I cannot see why there need to be any amendments moved to the terms of reference. Let us be clear, Mr. Speaker, that the judicial inquiry is not going to settle or even consider the question of privilege.
I would like to suggest to the hon. member for Edmonton West that we set up this committee of seven to deal with this matter that is before the house, no matter how difficult it may be to define that matter, but leaving out the terms of reference given in
Administration of Justice the order in council. I suggest that a committee of seven members be set up so we can have some discussions to see if we can find some kind of agreement on how we can deal with this whole matter and take it out of what the hon. member for Edmonton West suggested is this morass.
I agree with the Minister of National Health and Welfare that it would be difficult to accept the motion as it is because it does specifically set out that the terms of the order in council be referred to this committee. I think the executive has the authority to go ahead with the order in council and set up the inquiry, with or without the approval of this house, but that again does not satisfy the question of privilege that has been raised, I think quite properly.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, if we can have this committee of seven consider this matter for the next two or three days-the date is acceptable; I think the hon. member said 2.30 on Thursday, March 17-if we can have this committee try to find some way out of the impasse, I believe we should go ahead with it. If not, Mr. Speaker, then I suggest the burden is transferred back to your shoulders, and what you have to do now is to insist that any member who feels he has a question of privilege must get up and move the substantive motion that is required according to all the authorities. But, Mr. Speaker, I personally, and I think my party, would rather refer the whole matter to a committee of seven which would come back with some suggestions about what can be done about this question of privilege.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the motion proposed by the hon. member from Edmonton West is a most unusual motion. However, we in this house are in a most unusual situation. I think we all agree that it is our responsibility to do something to resolve the situation in which we find ourselves.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I want to say at the outset that I do not find it possible to agree with all the things the hon. member for Edmonton West said. I do not wish to argue with him at this point but I think the record should be clear. I do not believe that the order in council that has been referred to transfers the question of privilege to the commissioner. There is no word anywhere in the order in council that does this. What is referred to the commissioner is the statement made by the Minister of Justice. The question of privilege remains
March 15. 1966

Administration of Justice with this house-indeed, it apparently remains on the floor of this house-until we do something about it. Even though I find that flaw in the argument advanced by the hon. member for Edmonton West, I agree with him that we should do something about this situation, and do it quickly.
You have ruled, Mr. Speaker, and I agree with you completely, that the only kind of motion that is in order at the present time is a motion based on the question of privilege that is before us. I thought, until I saw yesterday's Votes and Proceedings, that we were still on the question of privilege raised last Thursday by the hon. member for Calgary North, but I take it that officially we are now on the question of privilege raised yesterday by the hon. member for Kamloops. In any event, it is the same general question.
I read again two sentences read just now by the hon. member for Medicine Hat from citation 113 of Beauchesne, fourth edition:
A question of privilege ought rarely to come up in parliament. It should be dealt with by a motion giving the house power to impose a reparation or apply a remedy.
This confirms what you have said many times, Mr. Speaker, that we should not still be debating this matter unless there is placed before us a motion based on the question of privilege that has been raised. I submit, if I may quote just part of that sentence from Beauchesne, that what the hon. member for Edmonton West has proposed is a motion to "apply a remedy" to the question of privilege that has paralysed the business of this house. It is a proposal that it go off the floor to a special committee of seven to see whether that committee cannot agree on something that might be acceptable to all sections of the house.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Is the hon. member suggesting that the matter of the order in council and the consideration of its terms of reference be sent to a committee or that the procedural impasse with which the house is gripped be sent to a committee for advice and recommendation? I should like his clarification on this particular aspect.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not know whether the hon. member for Edmonton West intended to make this distinction, but I think he did


when he used the phrase "terms of reference of the order in council" and not the phrase "the order in council" itself. It is something like the distinction that we make on second reading of a bill between the bill and the subject matter of the bill.
I submit that there is no challenge in this motion to the unquestioned authority of the executive to pass an order in council. The executive had the authority, it passed it and at the moment it is part of the law of this land. It is also possible, of course, for parliament to try to persuade the executive to change that order in council. I remind the government that this was done in the Rivard case. After certain appeals from this side of the house the government passed an order in council setting up the Dorion commission, but as a result of negotiations, the letter from my friend, the hon. member for Greenwood, to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, questions and debate on the floor of the house, the original order in council was amended by the passing of another order in council.
I would say to the Minister of National Health and Welfare that this is the course I see this matter taking. I do not think the house by a motion and decision, say on Thursday afternoon, can amend the order in council or tell the government what it must do. But this is a means by which we can make known to the government our general desire for a change as we did in the Rivard case, and the result of this could be an awareness on the part of the government that it would be a good idea to amend the order in council along the lines proposed by the seven-man committee.
I recognize that there are deficiencies in this amendment. I think the requirement that a recommendation be made back to this house for decision raises a very interesting point, especially the words "for decision". But surely the overriding fact is that for the fourth day in a row parliament is paralysed by an unusual situation, and if we are presented with a motion based on the question of privilege which seeks to apply a remedy to this situation I think Your Honour should allow the house to vote on the motion and say whether or not we accept this remedy.
Before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, I want to say something along the lines of the concluding remarks of the hon. member for Medicine Hat. I think we have reached one good point in this sorry mess in that we are now discussing a precise motion. Whatever happens from
March 15, 1966

now on, I hope the house will support Your Honour in insisting that there be no more discussion of this matter unless there is an actual motion before us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope Your Honour will allow this motion. I think the discussion on it can be very brief. Perhaps it might be voted on without any discussion at all. If it is passed, this matter will be off the floor of the house and Canada will rejoice. If it is defeated, I urge the house to support you, sir, in insisting that there be no further discussion of this question of privilege unless there is another motion based on it which is properly moved and accepted by Your Honour.
In the meantime I repeat what I said at the beginning. I think in this unusual situation we should realize we have a right to pass a motion that applies a remedy and should do our best to cope with this matter by accepting the motion and applying this remedy to this unusual situation so that we can get this whole matter off the floor of the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would permit me to ask him a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman is making an appeal to the Chair to accept a motion which he considers, in the circumstances, defective? Is that the correct interpretation?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am saying that it is an unusual motion. Mr. Speaker himself has pointed out that in the 99 years of this house there has been only one kind of motion based on privilege which has been accepted. But I do not know why we should not break some new ground. We have certainly broken some new ground in the last four days.
Some horn Members: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I also say to the Minister of Transport that if I had been drafting the motion I would not have put in it the phrase "recommend to this house for decision", but I do not think that because there is something in it I do not like or do not approve of this throws the whole motion out. I think the general idea of the motion, based on the whole question of privilege, that we seek to apply a remedy is one that merits consideration.
Administration of Justice
The only motion that Your Honour has said up to this point would be in order is a motion to refer this matter to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. It is not a very far cry from referring the matter to the Committee on Privileges and Elections to referring it to a special committee that the house sets up for this particular purpose.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak only very briefly on the point of order and then I shall make a plea to the house and especially to the government with respect to the point of order. With respect to the point of order the two branches of my remarks will be related. It is true that we have here an unusual motion, but the house is, of course, the master of its own procedure and, subject to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, the house can say that it will accept the motion even though it is not usual and would not apply in ordinary circumstances. I hope, therefore, that the house will bear with me if I suggest that this motion is very close to what could be described as a motion dealing with the business of the house, which as I understand it can be moved at any time without notice and taken under discussion at that time.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
The terms of reference setting up a commission of inquiry were tabled in the house yesterday. Those terms of reference were discussed last evening. They were, therefore, dealt with in the process of the dispatch of business, if I may use that term, with respect to what was before us; they formed, in effect, the business of the house at that time. We have now introduced a motion suggesting that the matter be disposed of by reference to a select committee to be set up for that special purpose.
I am not going to press this point any further. I say, however, that there is a basis upon which the house may quite properly find that, although somewhat unusual, this is a proper motion and should be allowed to be put, by unanimous consent if necessary.
Having said that, sir, I should like to urge upon the house the reasons I trust the house will follow that course. I am not asking anyone in any part of the house to commit himself as to how he will vote on the motion, if hon. members agree to allow it to be put. I want to make that clear. All I am asking is that the house be allowed to deal with this motion. Naturally I hope it will be accepted because I think this would be the best way of
March 15, 1966

Administration of Justice dealing with the impasse in which we are now. I want to say that very strenuous efforts have been made, by way of informal negotiations, to find what I would describe as an honourable means of disengagement from this really very damaging situation in which we are now.


Mr. Lewis:: Of disinvolvment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not going to deal with those discussions. The discussions were informal and no one was committed. This, I understand, is the position. I am therefore not going to go into detail. I am simply pointing out to the house that there have been strenuous efforts made to devise means by which we could resolve our difficulty, at least for the time being, and get back to the Order Paper. Then our discussions would be at least within the ordinary routine of business.
As I said, I am not asking anyone to commit himself on how he will vote on the motion. What we have attempted to do, so far as the Conservative opposition is concerned, has been to find some means of expressing our desire for some modification of the terms of reference. We made certain proposals last evening but they were not accepted. We urge now that the matter be referred to a committee so that there can be some discussion. A 48 hour delay alone would be involved. It is possible there may be agreement. If there is not, then the government at least has the authority to go ahead.
I trust that the Prime Minister and hon. members opposite will appreciate, even although they may not agree with what we are requesting-I am not going to revive the debate so I want to choose my words carefully-that in a matter so unusual and so unprecedented, which nevertheless involves the process of making a report and passing judgment on the conduct of members of this house, surely those affected should be given the right to discuss the terms of reference under which that inquiry is going to take place and ascertain if they can be agreed upon. It is this for which we are asking.
We are asking also that we be given an opportunity now to vote on this proposal. We know-and I make no commitment, utter no threat or attach no conditions-as everyone does that this procedure cannot continue. However, we feel we must exhaust every proper means within our power of finding an acceptable method of getting out of the situation in which we now find ourselves. We

think this is a proper and sensible proposal by which that can be accomplished.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, at least the opinion of the house or the sense of the house on the question should be ascertained by allowing the motion to come to a vote. I trust, therefore, that members opposite will withdraw their objections which require you to make a ruling. I have suggested a basis upon which you may rule the motion in order. Let us see if we can at least deal with this matter in an attempt to find some way of getting back to the Order Paper and getting on with our business.


Mr. Gregoire:: I should like to ask the hon. member for Kamloops a question. Suppose the house gives unanimous consent to accepting this motion, will the hon. member undertake that after the vote has been taken and the motion approved or defeated the members of his party will not pursue the debate? Will he give that undertaking?


Michael Starr: We cannot speak for you.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not in a position to give that undertaking in those words. I have said that strenuous discussions have been carried on in an effort to find an honourable means of disengagement by which we might withdraw from this process. This statement was made in all sincerity. I think that assurance should be accepted for what it is. I am not the house leader and I am not in a position to commit this party. I am confident I have expressed the sense of this party and the desire of this party if we could be allowed to deal with this motion.


Gilles Grégoire: May I ask a supplementary question? I have confidence in the word of the hon. member for Kamloops. Could he ask his house leader to give an undertaking that immediately after the vote we will be through with the discussion and not have any more speeches?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that after the vote is taken we wish to get on with the Order Paper. I can go no further than that.


Mr. Turner:: I rise on a point of order. I should like to address a few remarks to Your Honour. I want to suggest to you that if you find the motion moved by the hon. member for Edmonton West defective you will have achieved the same result by that decision. If the motion is defective and not admissible, then on the basis of the remarks made from
March 15, 1966

various quarters of the house, including those made by the hon. member for Medicine Hat, there is no question or business before the house. It would be within the discretion of the Chair to ask the house to return to the ordinary business. The undertaking suggested by the hon. member for Kamloops, even were he able to achieve it, could be as easily achieved by the Chair itself if the Chair were to decide that this motion was out of order.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Oh, boy, what rationalization that is.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


John Napier Turner: I am going to suggest to Your Honour that the motion is clearly out of order. I align myself with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who seemed to imply the motion was defective and yet invited Your Honour to accept it none the less. I believe it is defective for the reasons he suggested as well as other reasons. The argument advanced by the hon. member for Edmonton West was as follows: In approving the order in council the executive arrogated to itself a decision on privilege which properly lay within the confines of this house alone, that the right to deal with questions of privilege rests with parliament, and that the order in council was thereby a challenge to the rights of parliament. I hope I have not done the hon. member an injustice by that summary of his argument.
I want to say to Your Honour that I do not think the order in council is a derogation from the privileges and rights of parliament at all, and I will suggest why. The order in council merely sets up an inquiry. An inquiry is not a trial. It is not a criminal tribunal, as certain hon. members suggested last night. It is merely a fact-finding body.
Until the facts are established there can be no question of privilege at all. It will be on the basis of facts judicially weighed and determined by a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, who is free from the pressures of this place, that the rights and privileges which apply to those facts will be determined-


Mr. Churchill:: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


John Napier Turner: -but not until the facts are determined.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not want to interrupt unnecessarily, but is not the hon. member now rather enlarging the debate? I thought
Administration of Justice we were keeping strictly to the point of order. The hon. member is now bringing out arguments which some of us would like to answer, but we are trying to restrain ourselves.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, an earlier inquiry, the Dorion inquiry, did not decide whether anyone was guilty or not guilty; it merely established facts. Following the ordinary criminal process charges might later be laid. Therefore under this fact-finding inquiry the rights and privileges of the house would not be affected. It would still be open to the House of Commons, on the basis of facts judicially determined by an impartial arbiter, to determine upon its rights and privileges.


Hon. Mariial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question now to the Minister without Portfolio?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, when I have finished my statement, I shall accept the hon. member's question.

After those facts are established the rights and privileges of the house will remain intact. Therefore, since there is no question of privilege abrogated by the order in council, the motion of the hon. member for Edmonton West, not going to a question of privilege, should not properly be entertained by Your Honour.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George not feel that the statements made by the Minister of Justice, both outside and inside the house, are matters about which members may raise the question of privilege?
The statements made by the Minister of Justice, I repeat, both outside and inside the house, constitute a revelation of facts which, in my opinion, entitles any hon. member to rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order.


Mr. Fairweaiher:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio, if I may. I was interested in his argument but I am wondering whether he really believes that the result of the findings of a judicial inquiry or commission would not in fact have the same effect, as if a trial were held in a court
2696	COMMONS
Administration of Justice of law. In other words, the result of the findings for certain members of this house-I do not now ask where they sit-will be just as inexorable as if a judge had found them guilty or innocent.


John Napier Turner: In answer to that, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the inquiry will not determine rights. The inquiry will determine facts. In the same way the Dorion inquiry did not determine rights or declare people guilty or innocent but just determined facts.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: But after the Dorion inquiry it was surely inexorable that action would be taken and in this case hon. members would be affected just as if a trial had been held.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I refrained last evening from participating in the debate because I have no more than a passing interest in what is taking place in this Chamber. However, we are now endeavouring to bring about a measure of rapprochement, if you will, within this chamber so as to restore something of the loss of prestige and the grandeur of parliament within our country. We are trying to do something to get parliament back once more to the discharge of its responsibilities.
It has been said that there is no precedent for this motion. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, with his vast knowledge of the subject, agreed that the motion before you could be accepted. The hon. member for Medicine Hat made a plea last evening which I must say had a tremendous appeal to me.
I speak as one who, as all of us do, loves this institution. We do not want to continue ad infinitum the arguments, the disputations, the invective of the last few days. We want to get on with the responsibility of parliament. May I say to you, sir, that in the occupancy of your office in the last few days you have added adornment to the greatness of your office by the way in which you conducted yourself.
Som hon. Members: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I will say nothing in the course of my remarks that will in any way be provocative. Two of us in this house have a higher responsibility. All other members have an equal one but two of us have a higher responsibility, namely, the Prime Minister of Canada and the Leader of the Opposition.

DEBATES	March 15, 1966
I want to see parliament back on the rails. If there is no precedent, then this is the supreme court of parliament and it makes its own rules. That was the way in which the common law was achieved. If today there is no statutory regulation about a certain matter, then the ordinary principles of equity apply. The whole basis of our parliamentary system is that we accept the traditions of the past and that from precedent to precedent we build for the future.
There is nothing in this motion of a nature to cause harm or hurt to any member of the house. Surely we are not going to be bound by the past and mummify the operations of parliament because never before has a situation such as the present one developed.
I make an appeal to the Prime Minister who I am sure, in his person and the power of the position he occupies, will join with me to forget the acrimonies and difficulties of the past and give support to this motion which has been placed before the house so that we will be doing something for Canada, something for parliament and something for freedom.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I recall someone on the other side of the house, I think it was the right hon. gentleman who has just sat down, being reported as saying the other day, "If we in the opposition stand steady, they will always give way."


John George Diefenbaker: No, no.


Lester Bowles Pearson: "They will capitulate."


John George Diefenbaker: No, no. This is not capitulation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind giving way in a good cause. I do not mind trying to find a compromise when compromise is desirable and necessary. But what have we here, Mr. Speaker? I do not want to go over old ground but I repeat that we have been out of order for three days. You have relaxed the rules, quite rightly, to permit a discussion in a situation which was unusual and which could not be brought under the rules because the opposition did not submit the kind of motion which would have been within the rules and could have been discussed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is the situation we have been in. Now it is suggested, Mr. Speaker,
March 15. 1966	COMMONS
that to get back into order and get ahead with our business we should accept a motion which the greatest rules authority in this house has suggested is defective but which embodies a good idea.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the right hon. Prime Minister permit a question? I wish to direct a question to him because I gather he was referring to me.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I was referring to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I know how ridiculous my statement just sounded, because it seemed to refer to something that the Prime Minister said. However, he did refer to someone who had stated, in his words, that the motion was defective but that it contained a good idea. I do not think the Minister of National Health and Welfare said that.
I wonder whether the Prime Minister is aware of the provisions of citation 199 in Beauchesne, fourth edition, which give Mr. Speaker the authority to suggest any corrections that are necessary to make a motion conform with the usages of the house. I wonder therefore if it would not be possible for one to argue that the general purport of this motion is in order, that there may be a defect in it, and I think there is one defect in it, but that Mr. Speaker himself could suggest to the mover that it might be corrected.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I realize I made a great mistake in making a reference that could be even interpreted by the hon. gentleman as referring to him because I knew that if I did that I should have Beauchesne thrown at me at once. I yield to his superior knowledge of Beauchesne but I do not think that that particular reference covers the point we are dealing with.
The precedent that we should be establishing if this motion were accepted would mean that if an order in council passed by a government in the future in the discharge of its responsibilities-and it alone has the responsibility of passing orders in council-if an order in council were passed and the terms of reference were considered not suitable by the opposition, then under the guise of a discussion on privilege a motion could be made submitting the terms of reference of that order in council to a committee for reconsideration. This would be the precedent we should be establishing and, Mr. Speaker,
DEBATES	2697
Administration of Justice in this case to a committee of seven on which no doubt all five parties in this house would be represented.
That is the kind of proposal that is being made to the house. If, Mr. Speaker, you rule the motion out of order, then I hope, and I repeat the hope expressed a moment ago by the Leader of the Opposition, that we can get on with the business before us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If, Mr. Speaker, you take another decision which results in a vote, then at least we shall have decided the matter at once and can get on with the business before us. Naturally we will abide by whatever decision you make.


Mr. Terence Nugent (Edmonion-Slraih-cona):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Minister without Portfolio and the Prime Minister made certain remarks on the point of order with which I should like to deal. First, I was a little puzzled by the remark made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare that there were no charges against the Minister of Justice. Certainly the essence of the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Calgary North is a charge against the Minister of Justice that he has violated the privileges of this house.
Sir, there is nothing further that needs to be mentioned; there is nothing further that needs to be said. That is the specific charge with which the minister is charged and which the hon. member for Calgary North has brought before the house. The minister has been supplied with the particulars of the charge in that it is alleged that the statements he made inside the house and also outside the house on the Munsinger affair cast a shadow on his honour and on the integrity of members of this house. There is therefore a specific charge and I do not see why the Minister of National Health and Welfare is puzzled about a charge against the Minister of Justice.
Next, referring to a statement by the hon. Minister without Portfolio on a ruling by Your Honour respecting the question of privilege, I say that what he said does not follow. A motion based on a question of privilege is one method suggested by the hon. member who moves the motion of dealing with the question of privilege. In the present case the privilege of many members of the house is
March 15, 1968

Administration of Justice affected by the question of privilege brought up by the hon. member for Calgary North. I submit, sir, that it is clear there is nothing in the rules suggesting that only one type of motion may be moved or that only one method of dealing with such a situation should be adopted.
I submit that if the motion based on the question of privilege were found in order and that motion or the substance of that motion were dealt with by the house, the question of privilege would be finished with. But if the motion itself is found out of order you cannot just by finding a particular motion out of order kill the substantive question. I only have to refer the minister to any piece of business dealt with by the house. If a motion were made to proceed with any substantive motion dealing with government business and the motion was then ruled out of order, on the minister's argument the government's business would be finished. I submit, sir, that in that context the argument of the minister does not stand up.
Next I wish to refer to the contention of the Prime Minister that for three days this house has been- out of order. It is my contention, sir, that we have been in order throughout this time. On all occasions that members have been talking about the question of privilege they have been in order in that they have the right to talk on a matter of privilege. They have the right to raise it and to suggest methods of dealing with it. There is nothing out of order in our proceedings at this time except, as has been pointed out on several occasions, that the Chair has been lenient in that three or four different matters of privilege have been talked about at the same time.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There is one point, Mr. Speaker, that I should like to mention. If it will assist the house to get out of the impasse it is in, which was the motivation of my motion, I am quite prepared, although I reserve my rights as to the correctness of my motion, to remove the words that might be offensive, "for decision," and I can speak as well for my seconder. If this is the matter that provides the stumbling block at this time, in the spirit of co-operation I am quite agreeable to removing those words. I am sure Your Honour would agree that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was quite correct in setting forth the authority of the Chair with regard to correcting a motion in this way.

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


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise merely for a moment to say that those of us who discussed the possibility of getting this matter off the floor of this house and getting down to business expressed the hope that any procedural debate which might take place would be a relatively short one. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the debate on whether or not this motion is in order has already gone on for well over an hour and, with the greatest of respect, I wonder whether Your Honour is now prepared to make a ruling instead of this debate continuing any longer and the whole purpose of the discussion being destroyed.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Could I be permitted to make a suggestion?


Mr. Speaker:: It is certainly true that with the consent of the house a number of speakers have been speaking more than once on the point of order. Again, I have been lenient, possibly too lenient. But the house might wish to allow the hon. member an opportunity to add a word or two to what he has already said on this point of order.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It is not on the point of order. I wish to make a suggestion. I have a wording prepared as a substitute motion. Perhaps the hon. member for Edmonton West would be prepared to listen to it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: There was a suggestion made by the hon. member for Edmonton West that if he were allowed to do so by unanimous consent he would amend his motion. I wonder whether this should be considered by the Chair at the present time. It would, of course, require unanimous consent.


Mr. Nielsen:: You can do it.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Yukon says I can do it. Perhaps I am starting my comments at the wrong end, but if that is the suggestion made to the Chair-order, please. I suggest to hon. members that they allow me to put my views before the house. With a great deal of patience during the last few days I have listened to hon. members, every one of them, including those who have spoken more than once when perhaps they should have spoken only once on a question of privilege. But we all agree that things got somewhat complicated. One of our difficulties last week was that we had three questions of privilege before the house at the same time.
March 15, 1966

The reason was that each was followed by a motion, each of them unusual to the extent that the Chair thought there might be something so unusual about these motions that they might be in order. But they were not. We eventually came back to one question of privilege which was raised subsequently, that is, yesterday afternoon, by the hon. member for Kamloops, and I suggest this is the question which was before us until today although, as the hon. member knows, no motion was made as required by the rules. The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings also brought up a question of privilege this afternoon on which no motion was moved.
So we are left with the motion moved by the hon. member for Edmonton West of which he has kindly given me notice and which we have now discussed together at length. As he says, there is a degree of disagreement whether or not it should be accepted.
Perhaps I may restate the views I have expressed on Thursday, Friday, yesterday and again today as to the general rules on a question of privilege. I do not think it should be necessary for me to repeat the citations, Nos. 104, 105 and 113 of Beauchesne, except for the one which has been quoted by a number of hon. members and which says:
A question of privilege ought rarely to come up in Parliament. It should be dealt with by a motion giving the House power to impose a reparation or apply a remedy.
That is citation No. 113. Now I am doing what I said I would not do. I am quoting from both Beauchesne and May.
It is irregular to make a complaint unless the hon. member intends to follow it up with a substantive motion referring to the matter which he has introduced to the notice of the House

That is from May's 17th edition, page 134. I would also remind hon. members that the house cannot carry on a debate unless there is a motion before it, and in the case of a question of privilege the subject matter of discussion has to be a question of privilege; in other words, not another substantive motion but a motion of privilege.
Here I express a view which is shared by many hon. members who have had considerably more experience than I have had in this matter. I may say, as an aside, that when I try to go back in Hansard to look for precedents I am always impressed to see that so many hon. members who are still in the house today have contributed the precedents upon which the Chair must rely at this time.

Administration of Justice This includes the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I may say, if it will make him feel better, that when the Prime Minister referred to the "authority on the rules", I found he was referring to the Chair.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Touche.


Mr. Speaker:: It has been said, of course, that the house is master of its own rules. That is obvious. The house can at any time change the rules and decide that it will accept a motion or not accept it. It can decide to change the Standing Orders under which the Chair has to operate. But this is not the task of the Chair.
For instance, Standing Order 41 says that the setting up of a committee is something which must be done by a substantive motion with notice. This Standing Order is before the Chair. The Chair cannot change it unless hon. members tell the Speaker that they do not want him to respect it, or any number of other Standing Orders. This is a rule I am faced with. I am faced with this practice and unless hon. members can give me a list of the Standing Orders which I should disregard I am bound by it. If they give me such a list, I will be guided by it because I am the servant of the house. But as long as I am not told there are specific Standing Orders which I have to disregard I am afraid the Chair is bound to rule according to the standing Orders which are given to me to respect and obey and which I ask hon. members to respect and obey along with me.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre quoted citation 199 and said I have the power in the Chair to suggest changes to a motion. My answer to this is that certainly the Chair can do so when there is only a question of form to be considered. But the Chair cannot take it upon its own initiative to alter the substance of a motion moved by an hon. member and suggest in what way it could be made acceptable to the Chair and to the house.
I am sure I am forgetting many of the things on which I wanted to comment, because there were such excellent contributions made by all hon. members. I know that these comments were made not so as to be obstructive in any way but so as to be helpful to the Chair, and if there was ever a Chair which needed help it is this one.
March 15, 1966

Administration of Justice
With all due respect, I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Kamloops, as, indeed, most of the hon. members who have taken part in this debate on the question of procedure, would have to agree with the Chair that this is not a motion which could be accepted at this time. It is irregular for reasons which I gave in detail when I ruled out three previous motions. I can assure hon. members that it is with a sad heart that the Chair must come to this conclusion because nothing would please me more than to be able to accept a motion which would take this matter away from the responsibility of the Chair, upon whose shoulders, it has been suggested, it now rests. But I am prepared to accept my responsibility and my responsibility is to decide that this motion should not be accepted, and I so rule.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, if I may say so,
I agree with your judgment in this regard. But I had hoped that hon. members opposite would have borne in mind Standing Order 42 which says:
A motion may, in case of urgent and pressing necessity previously explained by the mover, be made by unanimous consent of the House without notice having been given under Standing Order 41.
It was with this sentiment in mind that I advanced my motion.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Under standing order 42 I should like to move the following motion-
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that the hon. member for Medicine Hat has a proposition or another motion to make and I am prepared to hear him.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, before that I wish to be helpful to Your Honour. I have a suggestion to make.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I could hear the hon. member for Medicine Hat and before proceeding any further after I have heard him I will hear the hon. member for Yukon. I do not wish to be unfair to the hon. member for Yukon but two members rose at the same time and I recognized the hon. member for Medicine Hat. I suggest that perhaps I can hear him without prejudice to the hon. member's suggestion.


Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Medicine Hat on a point of order.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, under standing order 42 I would ask the unanimous consent of the house to accept the following motion:
That a special committee be set up, composed of seven members of this house; and that the special committee be empowered to consider the "procedural impasse" respecting the alleged questions of privilege and report its recommendations to this house by 2.30 p.m. on March 17, 1966.
There may be some difficulty in respect of the language. I think you will realize, Mr. Speaker, that this motion was written here at my desk within the last few minutes. I hope it will be accepted by the house as a means of finding some way around this procedural impasse. In this committee there could be cool and thoughtful consideration given to some way to deal with the matter.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. At the beginning of the sitting this afternoon-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before hearing the hon. member for Sherbrooke, who has risen on a point of order-

I should like to refer to the motion made by the hon. member for Medicine Hat who moved, seconded by Mr. Thompson, that a special committee, composed of seven members of this house, be empowered to consider the procedural impasse respecting the alleged questions of privilege and report its recommendation to the house by 2.30 p.m., March 17, 1966. This is the same type of a motion as one submitted to the Chair previously. I advised the hon. member for Yukon that I would do nothing to prejudice his position. I understood from what he said that he had a helpful suggestion for the Chair. The hon. member for the Yukon.


Erik Nielsen: Your Honour has a motion before you now. I was going to suggest that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre pointed out a Standing Order of which Your Honour might avail himself in order to regularize the first motion by striking out the words which appeared to be offensive to the
March 15, 1966
other side, and Your Honour did not exercise that prerogative.


Mr. Speaker:: My understanding is there was a reference made by one member that it was within the competence of the Chair to make alterations, but in answer to this I say that my interpretation of citation 99 of Beauchesne is that these changes are only in respect of form and that this is done frequently by the Chair, particularly in committee where, because of a suggestion of the Chair, certain changes are made in a motion which has been proposed. This can even be done in the house. However, this has to do with form and not substance. Therefore I could not accept the interpretation of the hon. member for Edmonton West. I appreciate the helpful suggestion of the hon. member for Yukon.
We now have a motion and a request by the hon. member for Medicine Hat for unanimous consent for the Chair to propose this motion.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: It is with regret that I cannot accept the motion because there is not unanimous consent to the dispensation of the requirements of the rules in respect of putting the motion to the house.

The hon. member for Sherbrooke rises on a point of order?


Maurice Allard: I may be a little late in doing so, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to be enlightened on something of which I cannot make head or tail.
Last night, at ten o'clock, we were discussing the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). I am of the opinion that we should now resume discussion of the matter, by virtue of standing order 7.
Your Honour pointed out to the house, at the outset, that three members had questions of privilege to raise.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to find out whether we are always considering the question of privilege, now that three questions of privilege have been raised, one by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and two by two hon. members, or whether the business of the house has been adjourned.
Administration of Justice
Standing order No. 7 of the rules of the house provides that:
At the ordinary time of adjournment of the house, unless otherwise provided, tthe proceedings shall be interrupted and the business under consideration at the termination of the sitting shall stand over until the next sitting day, when it will be taken up at the same stage where its progress was interrupted.
When the house adjourned last night, we were listening to the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire). Well, I am of the opinion that we should resume the discussion on that matter this afternoon.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
The point raised by the hon. member is interesting, but obviously the ruling of the Chair was to the effect that this motion should follow the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Kamloops. No motion having been moved, the Chair allowed this morning the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) to move another motion, followed subsequently by another motion moved by the hon. member for Edmonton West, which has been rejected.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I think we have come to a position now where we in the opposition have endeavoured to do everything possible to bring about a just situation for those who are affected by this affair. We have pleaded with the Prime Minister and have pleaded with the government as a whole that justice be done, that a travesty upon the rights of individuals in this country should not be carried out and that justice should not be reversed. All of these arguments have been made effectively, I feel, and with passion. But the government is immovable in this regard. They have decided to go ahead with this plot that they have woven in order to bring about the conclusion they have in mind. There is nothing further we in the opposition can do.
I would suggest Mr. Speaker, that we proceed with Orders of the Day. Because of the fact that this would have been the second day of a supply motion and because of the lateness of the hour at which we will reach Orders of the Day and the question period, I would ask the government house leader to shelve the supply motion for today and I suggest that when we reach Orders of the Day we proceed immediately with government business as outlined by the government house leader last week.

March 15, 1966

Statement on Seal Slaughter [DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I doubt very much that we can proceed with a supply motion in any event as the rule states that it must be commenced on a Monday. We would be very glad to proceed with the business outlined at page 2472 of Hansard for Wednesday, March 9.



FINANCE. TRADE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS THIRD REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West) presented, in French and English, the third report of the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, on February 24 last, I was asked and I agreed to table the regulations of the American government governing immigration.
I am now prepared to table them if there is no objection.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to table the documents to which he has just referred?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



FISHERIES


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement concerning sealing operations off Canada's east coast. I am prompted to make it now in view of the numerous letters and telegrams which have and are being received by hon. members on both sides of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order in the house.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I hope this statement will privide hon. members with information on which they can reply to representations which they are receiving on this matter. First, let me say that adequate measures are being taken for the conservation of the seal


herds by my department. These measures are based on conclusive scientific evidence resulting from about 20 years' work by the Fisheries Research Board and there is no possibility that the Atlantic seal herds will be exterminated.
Indeed, our regulations in the gulf of St. Lawrence, where the fishery in 1965 and 1966 was exclusively Canadian, are designed to increase the herds. Following Canada's initiative, taken at the 1964 meeting of the International Commission on the North Atlantic Fisheries, we expect international conservation measures in other areas very shortly.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are too many conversations going on in the house at the moment.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Sealing last year put an additional $1,640,254 into the pockets of fishermen in three Atlantic coast provinces and is, therefore, an important source of income to those who have access to this fishery. While we do not have the value of seals to Prince Edward Island fishermen, we do know that last year sealing to Newfoundland fishermen was worth $901,663; to Nova Scotia fishermen $549,986, and to Quebec fishermen $188,605. In addition, of course, plant workers who process the skins on shore also benefit from this operation.
Following consultation with the industry and with humane society representatives, regulations governing sealing off the Atlantic coast were revised and made much more restrictive for the 1965 season. Open and closed seasons for operations from ships and aircraft were retained as before, and a number of new control measures were introduced.
For conservation purposes in 1965 a quota was applied for the first time to a large area of the gulf of St. Lawrence limiting the kill by sealers operating from ships and aircraft to 50,000 harp seals of less than a year in age. The killing of adult seals in breeding patches was prohibited. There was a new prohibition against the killing of hood seals in this part of the gulf. Steps were taken to limit the use of aircraft in the actual taking of seals to that area of the gulf of St. Lawrence where they had already established an operation by 1964. To avoid waste, new regulations limiting the time that seal skins could be left on the ice before removal to a base of operations were also brought into effect.
March 15, 1966

I realize, however, Mr. Speaker, that the great concern expressed in the house, and by the general public in hundreds of letters, is with the elimination of inhumane methods of harvesting this resource. There has been a great deal of publicity, both in this country and abroad, which has raised a storm of protest. Much of this publicity is exaggerated and some of it completely untrue. It has been said, for example, that seals are deliberately skinned alive in order to improve the quality of the pelts. There is not the slightest basis for this assertion. The quality of the pelts would, in fact, be damaged by such an inhumane practice.
Furthermore, part of that film which was shown in Canada and abroad, and which created such adverse publicity for Canada, was taken two or three days before the opening of the seal season in 1964 and some of the scenes shown were put-up affairs which grossly exaggerated the operation which normally takes place by regular operators.
I have already expressed my belief that, in general, the methods used by sealers, are humane in that the seals are killed instantly although some inhumanity can result from careless, unscrupulous or unskilful operations.
This was clearly evident from the report just submitted to me of the visit to the sealing grounds of the official team of observers who, at my invitation, were in a position to consider on the site the methods used in the slaughter of seals in area 2 of the gulf of St. Lawrence.
We are all equally concerned over the problem of preventing cruelty. After consultation with representatives of the humane societies and the industry, measures bearing on this problem were incorporated in the regulations for the 1965 season and further restrictions were brought into effect this year.
As this house knows, I made a personal visit to the ice in the gulf of St. Lawrence at the opening of the sealing season on March 7. As a result of this visit and seeing things at first hand, I am now in a much better position to make further improvements in the regulations to ensure that seals are killed in the most humane way possible.
As I have just stated, this year several representatives of humane societies were also present in the gulf at my invitation, and arrangements were made by officers of my department for them to see the sealing operations. I have received a report from the Ontario Humane Society which was jointly
Statement on Seal Slaughter prepared by representatives of provincial and international humane societies. This report, which suggests certain improvements, will be discussed by the department, following the conclusion of the sealing season, with representatives of industry and humane societies with a view to further improvement of the regulations.
Commencing in 1965, the department has greatly increased its enforcement activities. Every sealing ship has aboard a fishery officer tc see that the regulations are enforced. In addition, fishery officers patrol the ice where operations are being carried out by sealers both from ships and aircraft. Officers also check on quotas at landing points. I must stress that these officers are working long hours and are dedicated to their task.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I have been assigned the responsibility to introduce and apply regulations which will prevent such abuses as we have witnessed in the past in an operation which has proven most difficult to control. I have approached this problem with a sense of responsibility, fully aware that better and proper methods of killing had to be introduced and enforced if the whole sealing operation was to be conducted in full accordance with humane practices.
I should like, in closing, to assure those who have expressed concern about the sealing operations that additional steps are to be taken to improve the enforcement procedures and even more fishery officers will be at the scene of operations during next season to ensure that regulations are obeyed. It is my intention to arrange further visits to the ice in 1967 of representatives of humane societies and associated agencies, and also to have more consultation with them in a continuing effort to see that the most humane methods possible are used.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I begin by saying that I know the minister is tremendously interested in this problem and the voyage that he took to ascertain the facts was in keeping with his desire to do everything possible. The minister speaks of the pictures that were shown in various parts of the world which gave Canada a very black eye. He stated that these pictures were certainly not true representations of the slaughter of seals. Those pictures, however, were taken last year. The minister was present during the opening day of the sealing season this
March 15, 1966

Statement on Seal Slaughter year and various television organizations took pictures, which were shown across Canada. While not seen by me personally, they have been described by correspondents in various parts of this country as revolting, nauseating and shocking.
We want to do everything we can to remove the possibility of there being inhumanity in this slaughter. I have before me a Canadian Press article which says in part:
Fisheries Minister H. J. Robichaud cuddled a baby seal and watched one being slaughtered yesterday as the annual hunt opened-
It goes on to say:
One of the swilers-
A swiler is one of those engaged in this work.
-demonstrated the killing and skinning. The minister borrowed a gaff and poked the carcass.
"I don't think there's any doubt that the little thing was dead when it was skinned," he said-
T. I. Hughes of Toronto, general manager of the Ontario Humane Society, agreed that the swiler had probably done a good job of killing the pup. "He wouldn't want to do a bad job with the minister there."
Mr. Hughes suggested that some other weapon should be used. He took along a pistol and a .22 calibre rifle equipped with special plastic bullets, which indicates that he felt vast improvements ought to take place in the killing operation. The article then says:
At the same time, Dr. N. D. Scollard, director of Toronto's Riverdale Zoo, will examine hundreds of skulls scattered over the blood-splotched ice to determine how efficient the clubbing method is.
When we were in office we brought about legislation to assure in the slaughterhouses humane killing of cattle, hogs and sheep. It is not a responsibility resting solely on the minister; I am not placing it there. We as a nation must assure that cruelty shall be banned. The pictures shown over national television this year were not of the nature to lead people to believe that everything has been done that ought to be done.
The minister has indicated that not everything has been done that ought to be done because he said that further changes will be made after an examination of the recommendations that are before him. I hope that we in this nation will not allow anything to be done that will permit the continuation of a blot on our country. To prevent the situation depicted in other parts of the world requires the strictest and sternest action so that these poor little animals shall not for private gain or decoration be subject to unnecessary cruelty.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the right hon. gentleman a question? He has referred to pictures which were shown by the C.B.C. this year. Is he aware that those pictures were extracts of the film that was taken last year? I refer to the pictures shown on "This Hour Has Seven Days".


John George Diefenbaker: I am told the hon. gentleman was in the pictures.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: No, not in those pictures.


Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief in speaking on this topic. In the first place I would say that we appreciate the information which the minister has given us on this matter. Second, I want to say that his leadership has apparently resulted in some action being taken to reduce the cruelty which has been for so long involved in the slaughter of seals. Third, I believe, and I think other hon. members agree, this is an indication of what aroused public opinion can do to bring pressure to bear on officials to take action along humane lines. We think something has been done to reduce the cruelty involved in the killing of seals but we also believe, as I think the humane societies do, that more has to be done. We shall be watching in the future to see what continued progress is made to reduce the cruelty in sealing.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, we wish to express our appreciation for the fact that something definite is being done to meet this situation. I am sure that none of us appreciates the publicity that has been given during the past two or three years to the slaughter of baby seals. It has pointed up the fact that there are still those who for personal gain will bypass even the rudimentary principles of kindness to animals. I am sure we all recognize the fact that unless these people are willing to co-operate, some concrete action will have to be taken to insist that they recognize these fundamental principles.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganlic):: Just a few words, Mr. Speaker, to express to the minister our group's gratitude for his intention of handling, precisely, this problem which for many years already has caused great concern to the Canadian public because of the means used in seal hunting every season, or every year this operation is allowed.
March 15, 19G6

Mr. Speaker, naturally we hear arguments that it is not worse than hunting and wounding other animals which cover many miles in a sad condition before dying.
Many such examples could be given. But a distinction must be made clearly and definitely, and that is the excuses or the methods, in short, the inhuman practices used in some areas.
Very often, when hunting, for instance, certain methods are used involuntarily, but this is no excuse for resorting to a practice or another method in some other field, like during this season when the skins of baby seals are mostly obtained. In addition, it is a hunt organized on the spot. Therefore, the practices used at present should not be tolerated.
I am sure the minister intends to introduce legislation to amend sealing regulations and, for our part, we can assure the minister of our full co-operation with a view to using efficient sealing practices in the general interest.
What methods does the minister intend to suggest? What legislation does he intend to introduce in order to indicate the methods to be used? It is up to him, but in any case, before deciding on a method care must be taken to choose the surest, the most efficient, the most humane one, so that present practices will no longer be tolerated.
We are anxiously awaiting the measures that the government intends to take and I hope it will be to the satisfaction of all, in order to put an end to this inhuman situation which occurs every year at this time during the seal hunt.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)



BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance) moved: the first reading of Bill No. S-14 (from the Senate), to amend the Bills of Exchange Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Yesterday, I inquired of the 23033-1711
Inquiries of the Ministry Secretary of State for External Affairs regarding President de Gaulle's message to the various NATO countries. The minister stated he could not give any information on this question, yet yesterday in Britain information was given. I ask the minister this: Is Canada prepared to accept the idea of President de Gaulle that Canadian troops on French soil should be under French command? Is Canada going to accept such a proposition, whether or not there has been consultation with other countries?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I have read what was said in Britain yesterday, and I think they have not been more forthcoming, and understandably so, than we have.


John George Diefenbaker: They have been much more.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not believe so, on the basis of the information that was given in Britain yesterday. With regard to the specific question, the Prime Minister has already said the answer would be no, Canada would not.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Lewis: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Justice arising out of the discussion to which reference was made earlier today. I should like to ask the minister if he would inform the house whether he has a transcript of his press conference of March 10? If so, is he prepared to attach a copy of such transcript to the order in council establishing the commission of inquiry? Would the minister also inform the house whether he is prepared to offer himself as the first witness before the commissioner?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some doubt whether this question should be accepted. There is perhaps a point in the subject matter the hon. member is raising now. I think we are certainly embarking on a wrong course if we allow the hon. member to ask this question at this time.


David Lewis: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, may I inform you that I know the minister is prepared to answer? I suggest,
2706	COMMONS DEBATES	March 15. 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry with the greatest respect, that it may serve a very useful purpose to this parliament if the answer were on the record.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: If there is agreement between hon. members that the question may be asked, I have no objection.


Michael Starr: I think this is a very important matter. The minister may have an answer and I think at this point particularly it may be helpful.


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Justice):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is a transcript of the press conference I made on March 10. In order to allay the concern of the hon. member for York South and the concern in the minds of many hon. members, I would be prepared to have a transcript of my press conference of March 10, which is referred to in the order in council, transmitted along with the order in council. In so far as the second question is concerned, I am prepared to make myself available as the first witness before the commissioner in support of the statements that I have made on this matter.


Michael Starr: May I ask a supplementary question? Can the minister advise us if this is the exact transcript of the tape, without changes?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I can assure the hon. gentleman that it is an exact transcript. If he does not think so, then I will hand him the tape.


Michael Starr: Don't be so touchy; I only asked, I did not say.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp). Would he tell us whether there was an agreement between himself and the governor of the Bank of Canada before it decided to increase the interest rate?


Mitchell William Sharp: 
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Finance tell us what motivated such increase in the interest rate? Is it due to an increase in the value of Canadian currency? If so, what was the percentage of such increase?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question is not acceptable.


Gilles Grégoire: I wish to put an acceptable question on this matter which is very important to Canadians. Will the minister tell us if the increase in the interest rate is due to the increase in the cost of the paper and ink used to print Canadian dollars?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Hon. J. W. Monieith (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. I think he remarked in an answer given a few moments ago that under the present circumstances he agreed with the recent action taken by the Bank of Canada in raising the interest rates. I am wondering whether the government is planning any other moves because of these present circumstances.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman will have to wait for my budget, which I hope will be coming down reasonably soon.


Mr. Henri Lalulippe (Compfon-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Finance?
Could he tell the house what reasons prompted the Bank of Canada to increase its rates of interest?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I believe this question was put earlier.


Raymond Langlois: I have a question for the Minister of Finance, or possibly for the Prime Minister. In view of the statement of the Governor of the Bank of
March 15, 1966	COMMONS
Canada, does the government agree with the Governor of the Bank of Canada-[DOT]


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Raymond Langlois: This is not the
same question as I asked-


Mr. Speaker:: Whatever the hon. member wished to ask, it could not be in order after the words he had used up to this point in his question. Whether the minister agrees or does not agree with the Governor of the Bank of Canada is not a question which can be asked at this time.


Raymond Langlois: 1 will put it this way, then. Does the government intend to react to the statement which the Governor of the Bank of Canada has made to the effect that Canada faces serious danger because of the high cost of living?


Mitchell William Sharp: I can answer that question very directly. The Governor of the Bank of Canada did not say that.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: My question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and concerns the present threat of the Watusi invasion of Rwanda, poised on the Burundi-Rwanda border. I ask my question because it involves the safety of Canadian nationals in Rwanda, including some 100 on the teaching staff of the Rwanda National University.
My second question is, as a result of the fact this threat of warfare has been hanging on now for more than a month, has anything been done by the United Nations to try to relieve the situation?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: No, Mr. Speaker; at this stage this is clearly an internal matter. There has been trouble there since January. The situation varies in intensity, and amounts almost to insurrection. There are about 100 Canadians, most of whom are at the university which is directed by the Rev. Father Levesque.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose my
DEBATES	2707
Inquiries of the Ministry question should properly be addressed to the Secretary of State but in her absence I will address it to the Prime Minister. It arises out of a news story in the paper which appeared on my desk a few minutes ago and announces that tonight the C.B.C. is going to give the first television interview of Gerda Munsinger to be shown in North America. The interview will form part of a one-hour broadcast known as "C.B.C. News Magazine" and also includes comments from Montreal, Toronto and Ottawa on the Munsinger affair.
My question to the Prime Minister is this. Will he take some action to prevent this performance going on the air, because it seems to me that this matter may fall within the bound of being sub judice. In any event, it is certainly a grave impropriety that such a show should be put on now, in view of the appointment of the commission.
Righf Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad indeed to bring the hon. member's remarks and my reply to the immediate attention of the C.B.C.
[Translation1



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene). Has the minister met with his Quebec counterpart or any Quebec government official concerning the amendments to the Crop Insurance Act and has the minister taken cognizance of the suggestions of the Massicotte report on this matter.


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Is he in a position to give us a report on the investigation into the part carried out by the department in relation to possible lay-offs of tool and die workers at the Ford plant in Windsor?
2708	COMMONS DEBATES	March 15, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, following a meeting held on February 25 with the U.A.W. at Windsor, we sent two officials to Windsor, one from the Department of Industry and the other from the department of immigration, to inquire into this very serious problem.
Last week I received a very extensive report on the situation. At the time of the meeting the union suggested to us that the company intended to close down its tool and die room at Windsor. The result of the inquiry shows that that actually was the intention of the company. It is regrettable that the company did not co-operate more in this matter with the union, but I think we have to face these lay-offs and see how we can help the workers involved. We have asked our national employment service office to take the matter into immediate consideration.


Mr. Max Salisman (Waterloo South):: supplementary question. In view of the answer the minister has given, can he tell the house whether he has any intention of seeing that the evil effects of lay-offs as a result of the automobile agreement are mitigated by making representations to the automobile companies regarding future lay-offs, so as to ensure that consultation will take place with their employees prior to a lay-off taking place in the manner in which this one did.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, it is our intention to do this.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: May I direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. The day before yesterday the minister announced the opening of an immigration office in Tokyo, among other changes in the immigration set-up. Can he advise the house what he proposes to do at this time with respect to the office in Hong Kong, with a view to correcting the grave shortage of examining officers at that bureau?


Jean Marchand: Does the hon. gentleman mean the shortage of personnel in Hong Kong?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I refer to the shortage of examining personnel in Hong Kong, which was admitted by the minister's predecessors

and which I personally verified some months ago.


Jean Marchand: This is the first time I have heard of this, Mr. Speaker. I will inquire and make a report later on.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. This is the third time I have asked this question and I hope he has now had time to get a reply from the C.N.R. It concerns an inquiry which I requested into passenger service in the Bay of Chaleur.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I regret I have not yet had a reply.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. J. W. Fane (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs having to do with the international commission in Viet Nam. I want to ask the minister whether recently a member of the Canadian delegation was killed in the performance of his duties. If he was, was he buried in Viet Nam; and with what flag was the casket draped at the burial?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that question as notice.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Fane) asked me a question a few moments ago, which I took as notice. I had not fully understood whether his question had to do with an airplane accident in which one of our very able foreign service officers, Mr. Turner, was killed. Of course, that airplane in which he lost his life has not been found. With regard to deaths previous to that, the bodies of personnel serving Canada have been brought back to Canada.
March 15. 1966


Robert Norman Thompson: My question is supplementary to the question before the last one. How many Canadians were killed along with Mr. Turner in this carrying out of duties that Canada has as a member of the international control commission?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I think that before giving this information I should like to check the details.


Frank John William Fane: I should like to address a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs in order to obtain a further explanation. According to my understanding of his answer to the question I was asking him, the death was not that of a Mr. Turner but of another man who was killed by his jeep passing over a land mine two weeks ago. I was informed that the casket-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has asked his question. We have spent a fair amount of time on this particular question. If the minister has a further answer he may ask it, quickly.


Frank John William Fane: I would ask my question, now. Was the casket at this funeral draped with the flag of the United States or with the Canadian flag and, if not by the Canadian flag, why not?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question might be placed on the order paper.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Did the minister receive a delegation this morning from the Voice of Women to discuss Canada's role in the war in Viet Nam? If so, what progress was he able to report to them in regard to Canada's efforts to reconvene the Geneva conference?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have not seen such a delegation. I understand that they will come,
I think it is, next week.


Winona Grace MacInnis: The news reported that it was today.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, I have not seen them.

Inquiries of the Ministry FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of all the interest expressed about this matter today, I should like to know whether the carcasses, after they are skinned, are used commercially?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: No, Mr. Speaker; in most cases they are not used commercially.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: A supplementary question. I listened carefully to the statement of the minister today and I know of the great interest in this matter; but in an effort to control the sealing industry would the minister give consideration to issuing licences to cover the quota in the gulf of 50,000 only to licensed inshore and deep sea fishermen? With this action he would, I believe, curtail the indiscriminate hunting of seals by people using aircraft and other means.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to do this. I believe it would be pure discrimination and I do not think we could allow this in this country. I believe we have other ways of keeping full control without having to take such measures as suggested by the hon. member.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Postmaster General concerning a matter which could affect quite a large section of the civil service. Has the minister since taking office issued any regulations with respect to the length of hair male members of his staff are permitted to maintain while on duty, and particularly when in uniform?



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General and I think it is in order as it deals with the question of personal liberty, and is therefore urgent. Is the minister aware that
March 15, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry the Attorney General of Ontario has indicated that any review of the conviction and trial of Steven Truscott is, in his opinion, the responsibility of this the federal government, and can the minister undertake to expedite his study of the facts revealed in the trial of Steven Truscott, which have greatly disturbed a number of members of the house?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the remarks of the Attorney General only through a radio report. However, I can assure the hon. member for Greenwood that this matter is under active study at this moment and that I hope to be able to make a statement very shortly.



CAPITAL PUNISHMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I come back to a subject which I have raised on previous occasions. Quite a number of men are awaiting execution in various parts of Canada, and naturally the subject of the abolition of capital punishment is of very great importance not only to them but to all Canadians. Will the Prime Minister say now when it is expected to bring on this debate, because I think there should be as little delay as possible?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I entirely agree that there should be as little delay as possible. I hope we will be able to get on with the consideration of this vitally important matter immediately after we complete the business before us; or, if not, then within the next day or two. There may be one or two small measures which have to be dealt with very quickly because of certain time limitations, but it is our intention to proceed with the matter mentioned by my right hon. friend immediately after them, and, of course, after the supply debate has been dealt with.



WINTER WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gustave Blouin (Saguenay):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Labour?
I would ask the Minister of Labour whether he has received a telegram from the United Steelworkers of America, local 6797, Sept-Iles, asking him to make representations to the officials of the unemployment insurance commission, so that the workers engaged in the winter works of the municipality of Riviere-au-Tonnerre may get their unemployment insurance benefits without delay?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think the hon. member can put such a question under the circumstances.


Gustave Blouin: Mr. Speaker, this is very important and very urgent.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member does not admit the correctness of the ruling of the Chair, he can always report the matter for further debate upon adjournment of the house.


Gustave Blouin: Ten o'clock tonight.



EXTENSION OF OPERATIVE PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in his capacity as future minister of manpower?
Following the telegrams sent to the minister by various municipalities throughout the country with respect to winter works this year, and since those works have been greatly delayed due to the weather, does the minister intend to announce shortly in the house his decision to extend the period for winter works?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not remember having stated that we would extend the period for winter works. We received a few telegrams, but the extension of this period is not being considered this year.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Some time ago in this house the Prime Minister agreed to a cabinet meeting with specific representatives from Calgary to Winnipeg regarding adequate passenger rail service on the Canadian Pacific. My question

March 15, 1966

is, has a definite date for this promised meeting been set?


John Whitney Pickersgill: A definite date has not been set, because it was understood, as I think the hon. gentleman knows, or perhaps I should say that it was our understanding that the representatives of the municipalities, of the cities out west also wanted to appear before the parliamentary committee. I think there would be no difficulty about agreeing on a day or two days in succession when they could see a committee of the cabinet, and appear before the other committee as well. We want to make it as convenient as we possibly can for them.


James Ernest Pascoe: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has a request been received from these specific representatives to have the cabinet set the meeting date first, so that they could make arrangements for a meeting on that date?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am afraid I should have to inquire into that. I have been rather preoccupied for the last day or two.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I want to ask the Minister of Transport a question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister suggesting or recommending that all of those who have petitioned and appealed the judgment handed down by the Board of Transport Commissioners should appear before the standing committee to argue, or present their viewpoint.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, sir, but I did understand from an inquiry made by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Pascoe) that the group, whose spokesman was the mayor of Moose Jaw, wanted to do both. I think it would be a convenience to them if we could arrange things so that that could be done on one single trip, particularly in view of the shortage of passenger service.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister advise the house whether there have been any curtailments of R.C.A.F. overflight privileges over France, utilizing Marville in its United Nations operations to North Africa or the Middle East?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Is my hon. friend suggesting recent curtailment?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker. I will have to take that question as notice. If there are any curtailments I will advise my hon. friend.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister ascertain whether there have been some rather odd delays of one day, which have thrown schedules out?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, I will be glad to ascertain that, Mr. Speaker.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: My question is for the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. I would ask him if he is ready to comment on the negotiations between Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and Canadian Westinghouse.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to have a chance-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that it is not in order to ask whether a minister of the Crown is prepared to comment on a certain situation. Certainly that is not a proper question.


John Mercer Reid: May I rephrase the question, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday as reported in Hansard the minister said that he would have to answer the question asked by the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. Southam) concerning the state of negotiations between Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and Canadian Westinghouse. I would ask the minister if he could give us the information now.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I think it would be fair for me to answer the hon. member for Moose Mountain, who asked me yesterday where the heavy water plant project of the Canadian General Electric Company would be located. Mr. Speaker, the 90 day survey period agreed upon between C.G.E. and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited will end on Friday next, March 18. We shall have to wait until that date to get a decision.
March 15. 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN ECONOMY



STEPS TO MEET INCREASE IN COST OF LIVING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Prince Edward-
Lennox): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Due to the continuing rise in the cost of living, will the government not act and legislate forthwith, to allay the burden of these high costs upon Canadians of meagre and limited means?
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: My hon. friend should wait for the budget and the financial legislation which will be embodied in it.



OLD AGE ASSISTANCE

[Stage Direction]
REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON INCREASED PAYMENTS On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the Prime Minister if there are any further statements he might make in regard to the possibility of the increase in the old age security payments.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not art the moment, Mr. Speaker.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Prime Minister a question about the forthcoming announcement concerning bilingualism in the Civil Service. I do not think he fully understood my question. One part of my question was this: Has the government's committee on this subject received a report from the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Bicul-turalism, because I know that they have been making a considerable study of that subject.


Lester Bowles Pearson: When the interdepartmental committee was considering the matter, I understood they had talks with employees representatives of the Bilingualism and Biculturalism Commission, who were concerned also with this matter. They had an exchange of views at this time, and that was of assistance to the interdepartmental committee, and the report.
[Mr. Pepin.)



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON PRODUCTION OBJECTIVES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. I wonder if he would some time in the very near future, prior to the beginning of seeding, make a statement that would indicate objectives for grain producers in western Canada.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to take this question as notice. I am not sure whether it comes under my department, or under that of the Minister of Finance in his capacity of being in charge of the Wheat Board. I shall be glad to take it into consideration, and to give the hon. member an answer shortly.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: I rise on a question of privilege in which I know I am associated with a number of hon. members of this house-and as the facts are outlined I am sure I will be associated with the majority of hon. members of this house. This is the first appropriate opportunity which has presented itself since last Thursday night for me to rise on this question of privilege.
Last Friday afternoon during a day-long discussion of a certain matter, one of the members of this house made a reference to the judiciary and spoke in these terms:
-it was the establishment again coming up with some idea of how to get out of this mess and how they could, by suggesting a judicial inquiry, shove it off on to some unbeknown judge who would work on their behalf.
At this point the Minister of Labour rose in his place, quite properly, to state:
On a question of privilege, the hon. member suggested that a member of the judiciary of this country would be made a tool of this government. By doing so he reflects on the government and on our judiciary.
I am not supposed to refer to the action of the Speaker, but Your Honour then stated: Order, please. In general terms, the hon. member knows no comment should be made which reflects on the judiciary.
I rise at this time to state publicly that I dissociate myself 100 per cent-and I believe I am speaking for many members of this
March 15, 1966

house-from the remarks made in this chamber last Thursday night during what is known as the late show by the hon. member for Kootenay East.
There were only seven members of parliament in the house at the time, one of whom was in the Chair. In discussing this Truscott case the hon. member for Kootenay East went so far as to say this about the conduct of the case:
I ask hon. members is this not a grotesque display of our much vaunted British justice? Even if the child were guilty as charged, and I have very serious doubts that he is,.. There are many serious minded persons... who share my view. Among them is Hon. George Wardrop...he expressed grave doubts of Steven Truscott's guilt... the cards were stacked against this boy... The defence evidence was glossed over in the charge to the jury by the trial judge.
Defence evidence which would have proven conclusively that Steven had left the little girl far from the scene of the murder, and a perfect alibi, was disallowed. Mr. Speaker, 1 personally am so convinced of this boy's innocence that I am prepared, if necessary, to stake my seat in the House of Commons-
Brave words.
The hon. member had been listening to a previous discussion here:
-on the outcome of an inquiry, or a royal commission, that would examine all the circumstances of the conduct of all the persons involved- including the roles of the judge, the prosecutor, the police officers, the three Crown doctors, and all other persons who took part in the proceedings.
Mr. Speaker, this case was tried before Mr. Justice R. I. Ferguson, a member of the Trial Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario. The conviction was appealed and the appeal was heard by five members of the Supreme Court of Ontario-Hon. Dana Porter, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal; Hon. Mr. Justice Gibson, Hon. Mr. Justice Schroeder, Hon. Mr. Justice Lebel and Hon. Mr. Justice Morden, now deceased.
I wish to dissociate myself publicly from such remarks against the judiciary and, if I may be allowed to do so, I wish to compliment Your Honour on your ruling on Friday afternoon.


Mr. Byrne:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I can understand the desire of the hon. member for Kootenay East to reply to the comment made by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. But before he can do so, a ruling has to be made by the Chair on the question of privilege. As hon. members know, the Chair has to decide whether there is a prima facie 23033-1721
Bank Act
case of privilege. I rule there is no prima facie case of privilege and therefore there can be no further discussion of the matter.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: On a point of order, the hon. member has raised a question of privilege which he says affects all members of the house. Then he read the statement which I made. I said I was prepared to stake my seat on the outcome of an inquiry. If the hon. member wishes to lay a charge against me, let him do the same.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Starr: The usual Liberal defence.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister? In view of the announced intention of the Canadian Pacific to discontinue a few more of its railway passenger runs, will the government make a statement to the house at an early date as to its intentions regarding further air routes that are being competed for in this country?


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is a matter which we are considering, and if a statement can be made we shall be glad to make one.



BANK ACT AND QUEBEC SAVINGS BANKS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, March 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Sharp for the second reading of Bill No. C-3, to amend the Bank Act and the Quebec Savings Banks Act.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Has the Minister of Finance finished?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before the hon. member for Edmonton West begins perhaps we might wait a few moments for order to be restored. Order. We are trying to restore order in the chamber so that the hon. member can make his speech.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Just before you called for order, Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister whether he had finished his remarks. I had forgotten that somewhat

March 15. 1966
Bank Act
strenuous exercise in extension of comments in which the minister indulged last Thursday when he proceeded to talk out his own bill until six o'clock. Be that as it may, the minister did make reference to certain studies which the government was making of this legislation at the present time. I intend to refer to this a little later. First, I should like to hark back briefly to some remarks made by the minister's predecessor in office on June 14 last when we were considering a similar bill at the resolution stage.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
The minister at that time could not follow a suggestion I had made that the bill should be extended to June 30, 1966 rather than December 31, because he did not feel that following the announced summer recess we would have time to hear the public representations, make the appropriate deliberations and guarantee that the bill would be through this house and the other place. There was a procedural difficulty. However, I wondered how sanguine the Minister of Finance was really being at the time and whether he was not speaking with his tongue in his cheek. Obviously he had made up his mind he wanted an election in the fall and he knew then that if there were to be an election in the fall there would be no question of the house considering the bill which was before us then in time for the expiry date of December 31. However, I think events have been fortuitous in that in the interval there has occurred an event which has given the government an opportunity to review the amendments it had proposed to the Bank Act.
Criticism had been made to the original version of Bill C-102 that there was insufficient control over certain trust companies and near banks which are involved in our financial system and, of course, the Atlantic Acceptance Corporation debacle with all its consequences certainly demonstrated that. Certainly in the end result Canada and its financial organization will be the better for the fact that the Bank Act had not been considered and passed prior to these events.
The minister did indicate the other day and also at the Canadian Club on January 23 that the government was considering many changes with regard to the Bank Act. The minister was a member of the ministry which last year put forward a certain Bank Act bill. Presumably he agreed with the amendments at that time, but now he has had an opportunity for further thought and has made 
other proposals. May I hope, in all earnestness, that these will be in those areas which will be of the greatest benefit and that we will not have some of the difficulties that were pointed out in the last version of the bill. In any event I do not anticipate that we will receive the new Bank Act before the budget; I do not think one can expect it. Therefore we are waiting with anticipation not only for the budget, but for the changes in the Bank Act. Frankly I am a little dubious about the date of December 1, 1966. A great deal of water has to flow under the bridge before the amendments will receive the appropriate consideration in this place and in the other place, taking into account the public representations which have to be made. However, I can assure the minister, on behalf of myself and my colleagues who are members of the Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs Committee, that we intend to give the bill the most careful scrutiny in the committee, and the earlier the government can bring it forward the better off I think the whole business community will be. I urge upon hon. members of this house the early passage of this bill.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, March 10, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) in his brief speech mentioned the amendments and reforms which the government will soon bring to the Bank Act.
As reported at page 2498 of Hansard, the Minister stated:
-there will be some desire to know what progress the government is making on this very important legislation namely, the substantive amendments that I hope to bring forward in due course in the next few weeks.
And several comments followed.
Since the Chair allowed the minister to open the way to eventual reforms, I take the liberty today to suggest some reforms that might be contemplated in the present economic situation.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Bank of Canada increased its discount rate to 5J per cent, it is more necessary than ever to remove the 6 per cent interest rate ceiling imposed on chartered banks.
Besides, that suggestion is based on comments and serious studies made in that regard. I would like to quote, among others, the
March IS, 1966

comments made in the Porter report. Here they are:
The 6 per cent interest rate ceiling introduces undesirable rigidity in the financial system and hampers and distorts the working of markets. It also has arbitrary effects on the institutions' competition for business and on their ability to serve the community well which were not contemplated when the ceiling was originally introduced and subsequently amended.
We recommend that it be removed regardless of other changes in the legislation. The ceiling stands in the way of flexible lending by the banks in that it frequently prevents them from making loans on which higher rates must be charged to cover administrative costs and risks. Obviously, this is to the banks disadvantage; more importantly, however, it discriminates against borrowers such as small businesses which, if they are to obtain funds at all, must turn to other lenders which charge rates well above those the banks would ask if free to do so.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, that suggestion to abolish the 6 per cent ceiling imposed on chartered banks was also made in another report, that is the second annual report of the Economic Council of Canada, whose conclusions and recommendations should be taken into account because those studies were made by experts in those various fields with regard to the development of our country and its economic growth.
I feel that those serious and detailed studies must not be disregarded.
As a matter of fact, the second annual report of the Economic Council of Canada made the same recommendation to enable the individual who needs money to borrow it as cheaply as possible from his bank, something which will not be possible in a number of cases unless the 6 per cent ceiling is abolished.
We know that chartered banks get a lower revenue than that on the short and medium term capital market. That market is slightly over 6| per cent. That ceiling must be abolished also, as pointed out in the reports I mentioned a little earlier, to allow more competition between the banks and the loan companies.
Everyone knows how the personal loans companies operate and what rate they can charge the consumer.
If the 6 per cent ceiling were abolished, it would enable the banks to get a better rate, since the rate of the Bank of Canada was increased to 51 per cent. As a matter of fact, it would enable the chartered banks to put up a better fight and, in the end, it would benefit the consumer, the middle class and middle income Canadian.
Bank Act
One knows that when the worker, the farmer, the white collar worker, the store clerk is in financial difficulties, he is forced most of the time to borrow from finance companies at rates which are excessive and even abusive as far as he is concerned. If our chartered banks could loan money at an interest rate of 6J to 7 per cent, it would be to the advantage of the consumers.
I feel that, in addition to contemplating a reform, the government should, in its new bill, consider also the possibility of amending the Small Loans Act and the Interest Act, precisely to prevent abuse. The interest rate should be set at a maximum of 12 per cent, in order to allow for a better balanced competition between the banks and the small loans companies and also to allow the small loans companies to lend money up to $5,000 at a very reasonable rate.
In fact, I put two bills in the order paper for the benefit of the average-income Canadian.
There is no doubt that the removal of the 6 per cent ceiling will contribute to the development of our economy and lessen the effects of the American decision.
For some weeks, we have directed many questions to the Minister of Finance concerning the implications of the American decision on our economy and our financial situation. Again yesterday, the minister told us that the question was under consideration.
Mr. Speaker, many Canadians are concerned about the implications of this American decision which will necessarily take away from Canada some of the capital it needs to develop its economy and its natural resources.
The province of Quebec is especially alarmed at the implications of this American decision.
Consequently, if we allowed our Canadian banks to lend more and use the money we have in Canada, this would help to lessen the prejudicial effects of the American decision to reduce American investments in Canada.
I also ask the minister to take into consideration in his plans of reform, the possibility to enable provincial governments to hold a number of shares in chartered banks.
Mr. Speaker, it is understood that banking operations are under the jurisdiction of Ottawa but the monetary and financial policies are not foreign to the economic policies of the provinces which would like to have their

March 15. 1966
Bank Act
say in the direction of financial policies with consequential effects on economic policies coming under their jurisdiction.
Mr. Speaker, we should not be afraid of the provinces, even if such a concern has already been expressed in statements made here and elsewhere. I feel we should not be afraid of the Canadian provinces.
In fact, if we look back, if we refer to past relations between the central government and the provinces, we notice that the provinces of Quebec and British Columbia have expressed themselves openly through their prime ministers.
But I want to speak more especially about the wishes of the province of Quebec where I live. Quebec wants to invest in chartered banks for two reasons: to be able to purchase a number of shares which would enable it to have representatives in the boards of directors where the financial policies of the country are developed, and this precisely because Quebec is experiencing an upsurge of its economy.
Quebec is also conscious of the fact that, in order to be able to do any long term planning, to guide the development of its economy, it must have a say in the institutions which determine our financial policy and control our monetary policy.
Another reason for Quebec to want to buy a number of shares in the chartered banks is because French Canadians would be allowed more openly and obviously to sit on the boards of the chartered banks, so they may be provided with the opportunity to play a part in this sector which is just as important and prominent as our Canadian economy, in Quebec as well as in the whole country.
I should like also to point out to the minister that it might be appropriate to let it decide on the approach, either by invitation or some amendment, to the Bank Act.
However, if my memory serves me right, there is nothing in the constitution of the Bank of Canada which prohibits loans to provinces, municipalities and school boards.
In fact, I believe that, at the beginning, the Bank of Canada did that on several occasions, until 1936, but since then it has not granted any loan to a provincial government, a school board or a municipal corporation.

Our provincial and municipal governments and our school boards have been forced sometimes to go and borrow from other sources, and often from foreign markets. And we know that by doing so, they are subjected to the often unilateral variations and decisions of other countries, which interferes with the long-term planning of our provincial governments.
The Bank of Canada is a Canadian institution which should serve usefully our Canadian people; it could play a wonderful part in considering the feasibility of lending funds to our provincial and municipal governments and school boards, at very reasonable rates; this would allow it to play a direct role in the development of various administrative sectors of our country.
Mention was made, of course, in some places and mainly in the Porter report, of the advisability for the near-banks to come under the Bank Act.
In that respect, Mr. Speaker, I think that we should wait for the report of the commission set up a few months ago in Quebec especially to consider this particular problem. In fact, the Quebec government expects to receive this report toward the end of 1966.
I feel that it would be premature for the minister to introduce within the next month or two his proposed reforms to the Bank Act. By so doing, he would, in a fashion, be dealing categorically and inappropriately with the problem of all near-banks, with a view to establishing if they fit in and where, and their relationship with regard to other banks.
I humbly submit these few suggestions to the hon. minister, without dwelling on the matter too long.
However, there is no doubt that this act and the reforms the minister proposes to bring to the Bank Act, as well as the invitation he will probably extend to the Bank of Canada, will enable us to strengthen the Canadian people's confidence in our financial institutions.
There is, at the present time, some concern in industrial and business circles, especially with regard to certain decisions made by the government in Washington with regard, naturally, to foreign investments. There is some concern even with regard to launching major development projects in our country. It rests therefore with the hon. minister, as well as the acts and reforms he will present, to bolster the trust the Canadian people have in our financial institutions.
March 15, 1966	COMMONS
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, this bill is a rather slender peg on which to hang a speech, although I must commend the minister for the heavy garment of words he was able to hang on it last Thursday. It is, of course, a necessary piece of legislation at this time because we have to extend again the life of the bank charters. The revision of the Bank Act is now more than two years overdue and I trust that we shall soon be able to get to the work of revising that Act. This matter is of course not nearly so colourful as some of the matters we have been discussing of late. In fact, the thin attendance in the house is a rather interesting commentary on the order of priorities that members of parliament give to the business conducted in this house.
This bill is in a way a preliminary to the introduction of the new Bank Act. I hope the minister will be able to place his version of the revised Bank Act in our hands fairly soon so that long before the expiry of the time set forth in this bill we shall be fully seized of the ideas he wishes to advance for the revision of the Bank Act.
There has perhaps been some excuse in the past for delay in this respect. The delay was occasioned originally by our waiting for the Porter Commission report to be filed. That report has now been in the hands of the government for some time. It is to be hoped that the minister has made his decisions with regard to some of the recommendations in that report and that before long we shall be able to proceed with the work of revising the Bank Act and the Quebec Savings Banks Act as is provided by law in this country. I think that is about all that needs to be said at the present time. I hope this bill goes through quickly and that before very long we shall have on the Order Paper the bill to amend the Bank Act and that the bill will be in our hands.


Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, in a very few words I should like to state it is regrettable that as of this date we have not dealt with the amendments that are necessary in connection with bank operations. The fact is that due to the long drawn-out flag debate, another federal election and one or two other things we find ourselves in the position where we now have to extend the life of the banks' charters until late this year.
In our view the Porter Commission report recommends some very desirable changes. We
DEBATES	2717
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion believe, for instance, that it is essential that some means be found whereby the banks of this country will be able to take security on certain fixed and capital assets. There will be a great deal of interest in the changes to the Bank Act. I believe there will be more interest in this regard than there has been for a long time due to the fact that we have had bank mergers of late and there are before us applications for new banks to be created in western Canada. This means, of course, that the committee will have a great deal of work to do. I hope we can get at this work at a very early date in order to make certain that all interested parties are given a chance to appear before the committee and state their views.
The members of this committee will be able to examine in great detail the banking system in this country not only as it affects Canada as a nation but also the influences that our bank legislation has so far as other countries are concerned and in regard to the over-all banking system of the world. With those few words, Mr. Speaker, may I say that we hope real action will be forthcoming very soon to make sure that we finish our consideration of the Bank Act before the charters have to be extended once more.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. In accordance with standing order 37 (3) I must advise the house that if the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) speaks now he will close the debate. The Minister of Finance.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I rise only to thank the members of the house for their willingness to proceed so rapidly with the approval of this bill in spite of the length of the introductory speech made by the minister. I can assure all hon. members that it is the intention of the government to bring forward the substantive amendments to the Bank Act and to the other financial legislation as soon as possible.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39Ar to

March 15, 1966
Private Bills
inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Kootenay-West (Mr. Herridge), Power-Columbia River-safety of High Arrow dam: the hon. member for Saguenay (Mr. Blouin), Winter Works-Riviere-au-Tonnerre-payment of unemployment insurance benefits.
It being six o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely private bills and public bills.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-7, to incorporate Evangelistic Tabernacle Incorporated-Mr. Stefanson-Mr. Batten in the Chair.
On clause 1-Incorporation.
Mr. Howard:: Before clause 1 carries, Mr. Chairman, perhaps the sponsor of the bill will recall that on second reading we expressed the thought, directed at this bill but also applicable to other bills of the same class, that there should be some other means of having groups and organizations such as this incorporated. They should not be subjected to the process of petitioning parliament and going through the mechanics of moving the bill through the Senate and House of Commons just as would be done in the case of an extensive public bill introduced by the government. I wonder whether this matter was raised in the committee and whether the sponsors of the bill, who undoubtedly knew of the debate we had on second reading, expressed any opinion one way or the other as to which would be the more desirable procedure? Were they satisfied with the manner in which this bill was dealt with?
I do not know what took place at the committee meeting. If we could have some indication of the attitude of the sponsors on this question it might help us look at the rest of the bill in a light other than that in which we may have to consider it if their attitude is not known. Does the hon. member who is sponsoring the bill know if any opinion was expressed on that particular aspect?


Mr. Stefanson:: Mr. Chairman, when the bill was before the Miscellaneous Private Bills Committee there was a question directed

by the hon. member for Ottawa East as follows:
I wonder whether you could instruct us as to the reason why all these bills come before this committee? Is there no provision within the Committee's Act or Provincial Act to do the same-
The parliamentary agent for the group answered as follows:
There is provision in the Provincial Act, but there is no provision which could give religious powers under the Secretary of State, and the Canadian Corporation's Act. The main purpose is, as you will appreciate, Mr. Richard, the necessity as a limited company and the limited liabilities. The ability to hold land, without having, this is throughout the country, as opposed to having a provincial charter and having to get extra provincial licences to carry on a term of business, or a licence to hold land, which is expensive and would be ten times the expense for a group of this sort.
This was the explanation given to the committee by the parliamentary agent for the particular group.


Frank Howard: If the situation is as related by the hon. member it seems somewhat regrettable that this state of affairs has to be allowed to continue. In the past the house has treated such matters rather casually and looked upon the duty which devolves upon us of dealing with private bills as being an inheritance of our British parliamentary system. I am sure that most members of the house, if they were asked to answer the question in a yes or no fashion, would say they do not believe it is the business of the House of Commons of Canada to spend its time dealing with the incorporation of organizations such as the Evangelistic Tabernacle. I am quite sure the great bulk of members would answer in the negative. They would say that in this day and age it should not be one of the functions of parliament but that parliament should be concerned with the public business in the broadest possible connotation of that term. Parliament should be enacting statute law relating to the general public and not enacting laws which relate to a group of private individuals.
I do not know anything about the Evangelistic Tabernacle which is being incos-porated. I do not know anything about the sponsors of this bill or what the organization has been doing in the past. I really do not believe that should be my concern because I do not believe this bill should be here in the first instance. I am quite sure we could bring about a change in the general law, if parliament so desired, through a rather tortuous process. You may well remember, Mr. March 15. 1966

Chairman, that this purpose was accomplished a few years ago with regard to other private bills which no longer come to this chamber. However, it was a very awkward way of doing things. I am quite sure the same sort of approach could be used, if we desired to do so, to accomplish the same purpose, namely, to get bills such as this out of our hair so that we could spend this hour dealing with public business, motions or public bills introduced by private members.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
1 am neither in favour of the bill nor opposed to it. Within the framework of the attitude I have that we should be spending our time on public business, it is immaterial to me whether or not this bill is passed. If there were some general authorization given within a public act which would permit groups such as this to become incorporated by somewhat the same mechanism as private companies become incorporated, namely, under the Companies Act, then no one in this house would be concerned one way or the other about whether or not this organization became incorporated because that would be the desire and the decision of a private group of people. Parliament does not care or concern itself with whether or not Company X becomes incorporated under the Companies Act so as to carry out certain objectives. Presumably companies are incorporated every day under the general law in order to conduct their business. We look upon that as private business, not public business, and I think we should look upon this bill in the same light.
We cannot be so callous, of course, as to say that we do not care whether or not this organization is incorporated, because the bill is before us. Even though we may not agree with the procedure through which the bill passes in coming here and with the procedure which forces the group of people named in clause 1 to come to parliament in this fashion, nevertheless the procedure exists and parliament has undertaken this responsibility.
Whether or not we care if the Evangelistic Tabernacle is incorporated, as individuals we still have to decide yes or no. That is one of the reasons I am now on my feet and why I was earlier on second reading. I want to put forward the general proposition that this bill shauld not come before the house. I want to put forward the prospect of a group of members of parliament at some future time, which may not be too far away if the general
Private Bills
law is not changed, saying to themselves that they should not have the responsibility of dealing with the private affairs of people in this particular fashion. I want to put forward the proposition that a group of members of parliament might in effect get their backs up and refuse to pass such bills. I would not want to see that happen but it could happen. A similar thing occurred before with another class of bill which does not now come before us.
I seriously urge upon the government and upon any member who sponsors a private bill the thought that parliament desires to pass a public law to permit private individuals, such as those named in clause 1 of this bill, to apply to some public body for incorporation under the general law of Canada instead of exposing their private dealings to view and subjecting themselves to harassment and appearance before committees in Ottawa. They should not be subjected to the whims of a committee or be subject to other overriding business of parliament. We should not have to put people such as those named in clause 1 to this rather costly process in order that they may carry on their private business.
The public law should be stringent enough that the public good is preserved, but I urge upon the government and upon any member sponsoring a private bill that they start serious discussions in government circles to see whether or not such a public law can be drafted. Otherwise we are likely to sit through private members' hours between six and seven, so long as they last, expressing the same sort of views and general objections about the passage of bills such as this when we know very well a much better method can be found at much less cost and harassment of the individuals concerned, a method which will give parliament that most needed extra time to deal with the public business of the country.
I do not care one way or the other whether this group is incorporated, but I do say they have the right to become incorporated under public law in a different manner. If that right exists for them, then subject to the bounds of whatever law exists for the public good, God bless them. Let them become incorporated in that manner. But there is no public law of parliament and has not been for some time which enables one to assess this particular bill from the point of view of the public good. Parliament is asked to be a watchdog not over this bill alone but over all bills of the

March 15. 1966
Private Bills
same class. Parliament is asked not to concern itself with whether these individuals have the right to become incorporated as Evangelistic Tabernacle Incorporated but parliament must concern itself with whether, if they do become incorporated, their subsequent actions will be for the public good and whether the public good will be best served thereby. I say we are not competent to make this decision because we are in the position of picking and choosing what is for the public good.
The sponsor of the bill may have one concept of what is for the public good so far as this particular group is concerned. Another member may have another concept as to how the public good can best be served by the incorporation of this group. But I do not think parliament can afford to go through the same general debate about whether or not the public good will be served each time a bill such as this comes before us. The public law should be invoked in the first instance, and once we establish the criterion of what is for the public good so far as such groups are concerned we must make it clear to all that the public good will be protected.
I do not intend to say any more about this particular aspect at this stage. I do not look forward to the prospect of having to make these same comments on each and every private bill that comes before us. Even though there are no cabinet ministers in the house at the moment, I hope we will have a declaration on this matter from a member of the government. I am sorry; I did not see the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) who is not in his seat. I apologize for my oversight. But I am sure that other members would like, as would I, in the not too distant future a declaration by the government that it intends to draft a public law which will establish criteria as to how the public good would be best served and which would permit of some machinery whereby a group such as Evangelistic Tabernacle Incorporated and others in the same class can be incorporated without going through the present procedure. Now they go to the Senate with their bills, because it happens to be cheaper over there. These bills have to pass through all readings and the committee proceedings there. Then they come over to this house and have to pass through three readings and the committee stage, with all the difficulties attached thereto.

[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
I am sure the Solicitor General is not in a position right now to make a declaration of government policy in this regard but I should like him to take this question to the cabinet. I realize the cabinet has many other things to deal with but one of its responsibilities is to promote public law and to introduce into the house bills reflecting this policy. I think that government policy in the general field I have discussed should be the same with respect to companies incorporated for the carrying on of private business.
Some time in the future I hope that cabinet will come to grips with this matter so that we may have a declaration along the lines I have suggested and so that we do not have to go through the same tortuous process every time private members' hour comes on.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. When the hon. member for Skeena began his remarks I had hoped they would be a little shorter than they have been. I would draw to his attention that the house has already accepted the principle of this bill on second reading. I think there is a distinct difference between discussing the method of passing legislation and one particular piece of legislation. The remarks that the hon. member has just made might more properly have been made at another stage of the bill or on some other question having to do with general legislation. I would hope that the hon. member would not continue his remarks in this vein.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I could not agree with you more. There is no question but that within the strict application of the rules I was out of order. I saw you were not seeking to interrupt me, so I proceeded. Perhaps I took advantage of your kindness, but that was not my intention.
I wanted to get across for the second time what I think is a much better way of dealing with this and similar bills. My transgression of the rules was not designed to embarrass anybody or to flaunt the rules. I think that we could proceed in a much better fashion than we are.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 1 carry?


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to repeat what the hon. member for Skeena has said but I presume it will have to be repeated many times before a change is made in the format of these bills. This bill has been before a committee. Those who were not on the committee would be well advised to take
March 15, 1966

a look at the minutes of proceedings of the Miscellaneous Private Bills Committee. They will be struck by the fact that the only questions asked appeared to be put for the reason of getting the names of those asking the questions on the record. There does not seem to be much justification otherwise for the report.
When this bill was up for second reading the same kind of questions were asked about the government's intention with regard to doing something about the format and method of introducing such bills. I had hoped that this matter would be discussed in the committee. I find that it was not. I think that the chairman is lacking in this regard in his chairmanship of the committee because I think that in this case the relationship between the individual and the public at large is not necessarily being protected. I believe the evidence will bear this out. The hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Richard) drew certain things to the attention of the committee and the representative of the organization and he asked a question which I shall read. I quote from page 8 of the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills for Tuesday, March 8, 1966:


Mr. Richard:: Mr. Belfoi, I wonder if you could instruct us as to the reason why all these bills come before this Committee. Is there no provision within the Committee's Act or provincial Act to do the same-[DOT]


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. The hon. member is now discussing something which is not contained in the bill itself, although I recognize that the bill itself is contained in the general observations he is making. I think it might be better if the hon. member were to confine his remarks to the bill in general, since we are on clause 1, and not discuss the method of handling this particular piece of legislation.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I only referred to the committee report. I would assume that reference to the committee report covering the discussions that took place in the standing committee would be in order. Otherwise Your Honour would probably have a responsibility to draw to the attention of the house the fact that the chairman of this committee did not carry out the duties we gave him in referring this bill to the attention of that committee.
The problems that we are concerned with in this bill are fairly general. You will notice from the report that in six lines all sections of the bill were moved and carried without
Private Bills
any discussion at all. The discussion came before the sections of the bill itself were introduced.
In the committee questions were asked why this matter should come before parliament. I think this is where the problem in regard to this particular bill might lie. We are certainly not opposed to the Evangelistic Tabernacle or to their parliamentary agent, Mr. Belfoi, making a presentation to the federal parliament for incorporation of the Tabernacle. I think it is the natural thing to do. But the question I want to ask is, why should they come to the federal parliament? Why should they ask for a present form-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. I must advise the hon. member that he is still out of order. He is talking about something not contained in clause 1 of this bill. He is making references to the method by which such legislation is handled by parliament and why it is handled in that way. That is a separate question altogether from what is before us now, which is clause 1 of the bill, the principle of the bill having already been approved.


William Arnold Peters: We shall accept your ruling, of course, Mr. Chairman. However, I contend that on clause 1 of a bill it is usual to have a general discussion. Unless we have new rules, there can be a general discussion on the bill.
My point is that parliament is being asked to incorporate the Evangelistic Tabernacle which is coming here because of the requirements of federal legislation contained in the Companies Act, a federal statute. The Tabernacle seeks to be incorporated and to do a number of things set out in this bill. The objects of the corporation include such things as promoting, maintaining, superintending and carrying on, in accordance with the Christian faith, certain things. A number of things are outlined that it seeks to do.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
My purpose in discussing the general terms of the bill on clause 1, and I am surprised that the parliamentary agent was not asked this question, is to ask why the bill is in this form. I believe we can reasonably ask why an organization of this kind should require all the things outlined in detail in the bill such as the power to hold property, lend money, borrow money, establish and administer trusts and so on. With these powers one could effectively operate a corporation of almost any stature.

March 15. 1966
Private Bills
On reading the report of the committee I find that the general purpose for which this measure is required, as set out by parliament counsel, is to ensure that a religious organization which is unincorporated at the present time may get together and have an incorporated body to carry on religious organization and to get affiliation and other religious provinces to associate with it. What parliamentary counsel appears to be saying is that these people have one branch of a small church in the city of Winnipeg. Since 1956 they have had affiliated with them other small groups in Saskatchewan, one in Vancouver, one in the Okanagan Valley and one in Kenora, Ontario.
It is true that this makes it an interprovincial matter. It was pointed out that in every case except one, that is, in the province of Saskatchewan, there were no buildings owned by the applicants. There was some land held in Saskatchewan and apparently they owned their hall there. It therefore seems to me that a religious organization of this kind should be able to apply for incorporation without assuming by reason of this action all the liabilities, responsibilities and obligations, financial and otherwise, which we are providing in the present measure. These things were not asked for and it seems to me they are unnecessary.
I am surprised that the members of the committee were apparently unconcerned about the type of format we are using in the present bill, one which contains 18 clauses including some very onerous and complicated ones. In many cases the sponsors of the bill have not indicated that these powers are necessary and their parliamentary counsel has not done so either. The point I am making is that this is not the type of format which should be provided. It is archaic-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I am sure the hon. member realizes he is ranging beyond the terms of clause 1, the general clause of the bill. The question of the format of this particular type of bill or whether the bill has come before the house under the Companies Act is something which may have to be discussed when the house is engaged on some other business. At the moment this particular bill is before us and I think the hon. member should confine his remarks to a general discussion of the measure as is usually done. Remarks as to the method by which this bill comes into the chamber or by which the legislation is carried out are out of order at this stage.
[Mr. Peters. 1
blr- Peters: On the point of order, I would call attention to clause 1 of the bill where the following phrase appears-
-for the purposes set out in this Act and, in particular, for the purpose of administering the property, business and other temporal affairs of the Corporation.
This is why the present bill is before us. This is what is being sought. This is what we are discussing under clause 1. My contention is that what we are providing for these people is much more than they are actually seeking and much more than is necessary. I do not see why clause 1 needs to be worded in its present manner. It is clear from the report of the committee that when this question was discussed parliamentary counsel indicated that the Evangelistic Tabernacle was seeking an act which would allow particularly Raymond Lee Bradley, who is a clergyman and the main petitioner, to establish an alliance with several other churches of like denomination and with persons similarly inclined in the province of Manitoba and to allow them to incorporate this religious body in other provinces. I believe this is all that was asked for. Yet because we presumably do not have any other format we have this long and detailed document in terms sufficient, I suggest, to establish the Bank of Canada, finance companies or anything else one might think of.
For these reasons I am of the opinion that this measure should be returned to the committee. I believe the committee should hear this application again, discuss the matter, and refer it back to the Senate in order that a modernization of the format can be brought about and a change made. If it is in order to do so on clause 1, I would move reference back to the committee for such a study.


Edward Nasserden: I have one question I should like to ask on the motion which has been made by the hon. member for Timis-kaming. Does he not think there is a better opportunity to bring about changes in the rules of the house, or rather in its procedure in a matter of this kind, than by moving the particular motion he is now thinking of making? After all, he will have plenty of opportunities to try to bring about the changes in procedure that he wishes to introduce without inconveniencing the people involved in the bill before us at the present time.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, in considering whether or not this motion is in order may I suggest that what is before the committee at
March 15, 1966

the present time are the terms and conditions of Bill S-7 which has been passed by the Senate, has been given second reading by this house, has been considered by the Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and now has been returned to the house for consideration in detail. I have listened very carefully to the arguments advance by the hon. member for Timiskaming and he has not raised any objection to clause 1, the clause we are on. He has objected continually to the procedure in bringing bills of this kind into the whole process of parliament in order to set up this type of corporation. Therefore it would seem to me that the only kind of amendment which would be proper at this time would be an amendment to clause 1.
I take it from the remarks of the hon. member who is trying to move this motion that he does not have any specific objection to clause 1 but is objecting to the procedure. The hon. member for Rosthern said that if it is the procedure he is objecting to surely that should be brought up when the procedures of the House of Commons are under consideration. As you have pointed out on many occasions in the last few minutes, Mr. Chairman, the procedures of the house are not under consideration at the moment. What is under consideration is clause 1 of Bill S-7 and nothing more.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. The hon. member for Timiskaming has moved the following motion: That Bill S-7 be not now read but be referred back to the committee for reconsideration. The motion as it stands affects every clause of this bill when only clause 1 is before us. I suggest the proper time to move such a motion would be during second reading or third reading of the bill. It is out of order at this particular stage.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I have been reading clause 1 and have been following the very well thought out arguments of my colleague, the hon. member for Timiskaming. In my limited understanding of this matter it does seem that we are being asked in effect to buy a pig in a poke. For the benefit of those who may not have followed the refinements of my argument earlier, I was not objecting to the procedures of the house but rather to the fact that there is not a general public law in existence which would permit this group to be incorporated in another way and not by way of statute law.
Private Bills
In the last clause which was read by the hon. member for Timiskaming there is something in its construction which concerns me a bit. It says:
-for the purpose of administering the property, business and other temporal affairs of the Corporation.
These are the objectives and they are spelled out in more detail in subsequent clauses of the bill but particularly they are for the purpose of administering the property, business and other temporal affairs of the corporation. It would seem to me that the word "other" should not be in here because the implication is that the corporation would administer the temporal property, the temporal business and other temporal affairs. It would seem to me we should take out the word "other" to make it clear that we are not interpreting the administering of the property and the administering of the business of the corporation as being temporal affairs, although perhaps in the strict sense of the word it is correct.
When the hon. member for Timiskaming read that I came to the conclusion that the word "other" really was adding a bit of confusion to what the particular propositions of the corporation are. I should like to have some comment from the sponsor of the bill in respect of what the petitioners felt about that aspect, whether they felt anything or whether grammatically it is the correct way to phrase it.
There is another matter which I should like to raise, but in doing so I think I have to make reference to the fact that there is no public law in existence under which such a group can be incorporated. If there were we would have the guide lines or criteria established with regard to what the corporation could or could not do. As it is now parliament has to decide in every individual case what the corporation can or cannot do. Parliament has to decide what is or is not in the public good.
I suggest to the hon. member for Timiskaming that one of the reasons there were not very many questions asked in the committee is that there was not that much interest in the committee and that the members who attended the meeting were not too interested in this particular bill one way or another. I submit that that is an attitude a great number of members take in respect of private bills of this nature. They give lip service to the concept that we have a bounden duty to

March 15, 1966
Private Bills
pass on these matters and that is the extent of their participation.
Parliament is in the position of having to decide whether or not the incorporation of this group, the Evangelistic Tabernacle, will serve the public good and I submit we are not competent to do that. Surely we are being helped in our ignorance of the matter here because clause 1, after it mentions certain individuals, reads:
-together with such other persons-
That is satisfactory.
-and congregations as become members of the religious body-
They do not say what is the religious body to which such other persons and congregations can adhere or join and what constitutes the congregation is extremely vague. In the committee proceedings this matter was mentioned briefly by Mr. Smith asking:
Is there only one congregation of this organization?
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
Mr. Belfoi replied by saying:
The present incorporate corps are a Winnipeg congregation of about 120. There are four other groups, one in Saskatoon, one in Vancouver, one in Okanagan Valley and one in Kenora, Ontario.
Mr. Smith then asked:
Do the other groups have such an incorporation?
To which Mr. Belfoi replied:
No, the other groups do not, but they will all form part of this incorporation, after it is incorporated, of course.
There is no doubt in Mr. Belfoi's mind that the other groups will automatically become an integral part of the incorporated structure which we are now being asked to pass on in this house. If we are always going to be faced with the prospect of determining whether or not in the case of any bill, and with particular reference to the one before us, incorporation of the group will serve the public good, then we shall have to ask the committee to examine all groups and in this particular instance all the other potential congregations, especially the ones mentioned in the reply which I read just a few moments ago. The minute we get into the ludicrous situation of having to examine sundry unknown people and congregations, we might as well ask the Prime Minister to set up another royal commission of inquiry, because the matter will be that extensive.


Edward Nasserden: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the only thing ludicrous about this is the way the hon. member is dealing with it. Everyone knows what the definition of a congregation is in the sense in which it is used in this particular instance. We have here and now a display of a type of tactic to hold up the business of the house. It happens to be private members' hour, but this is an indication of something which has been done by the hon. member for Skeena and the hon. member for Timiskaming so many times during the last few years. On a question such as this I think they should think twice. They will have other opportunities to bring forward their ideas in regard to the procedures of the house rather than take up our time now.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, it is too bad one cannot approach an important matter such as the bill now before us in a reasoned way without having to be subjected to the asinine comments of the likes of the hon. member for Rosthern.
If I were to think twice about this that would be five times as often as the hon. member for Rosthern, because if he had half thought about the proposal I am making he would see the merits of it and would not have resorted to the mild castigation he indulged in just a moment ago.


Edward Nasserden: It is just obstruction.


Frank Howard: The hon. member says "obstruction". After the last four or five days I am sure he has served his full apprenticeship in that field. I am merely seeking to try to serve the public good in the best way I can and to examine the prospects-


An hon. Member:: Hypocrisy.


Frank Howard: There is another comment about hypocrisy. Hon. gentlemen to my right in the Conservative party are past-masters of that. There is no question in my mind about the passage of this bill by seven o'clock. All I want to do is place before the committee what I consider to be reasonable proposals. I will not disclose the names or the constituencies of members of the party to which my hon. friend for Rosthern belongs who said to me that I have got a good point and that we should try to do this some other way.
All I am trying to do is to seek to examine the bill in that light, and if the hon. member for Rosthern does not like it he can go and have supper. Perhaps he will listen carefully to what I am trying to establish. When a
March 15, 1966

company is incorporated to engage in a mining venture, a logging venture, a manufacturing industry or any other form of business, it is incorporated under a law that sets out the criteria as to how that company will operate and what it shall do and shall not do in order to serve the public good. But here in parliament we have no such rules or criteria as to what a body such as this shall or shall not do in order to serve the public good to the best advantage. That is the point I am making. We have to approach it in our own way or not approach it at all.
As a matter of fact, I submit that approaching it in our own way is a most unsatisfactory way to pass statute law for the incorporation of companies because we are doing it on the basis of what each member of parliament happens to think is the best way to do it.
The hon. member for Rosthern should know this, having listened to what 1 said on second reading and on the first clause of the bill a little while ago. I am advocating that we get this sort of business out of parliament so that we do not have to do it here.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. There may be a good deal of merit in what the hon. member for Skeena has been saying but his objection is not against the bill now before us. His objection happens to be against the Companies Act or any other legislation which allows the bill to be put before us in this way. Right now it is not the method of passing legislation that is in question. What is before the committee is this Bill No. S-7. The method of passing the legislation is a subject quite different from clause 1, which is what we are discussing.


Frank Howard: I could not agree with you more, Mr. Chairman. I have refrained from transgressing against your original ruling, but I was inveigled by the hon. member for Rosthern into explaining my position and that is what I was trying to do.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 to 18 inclusive agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Now.

Penitentiaries Committee


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Mcllraith, seconded by Mr. Benson, moves that the said bill be now read a third time and do pass. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether it is a good thing to have ministers of the Crown on the record as having moved and seconded a private member's bill. I think there should be unanimous consent to have that changed to the name of the hon. member sponsoring the bill and the name of another private member.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frank Howard: You can use my name.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I did not hear the suggestion of the hon. member for Skeena.


Frank Howard: I just said I would be glad either to move or second the motion.


Eric Stefanson: I will move the motion.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I was not heard just a few moments ago. The moving and seconding of the motion on the private member's bill was indicated as having been done by two ministers of the Crown. That was done inadvertently. In order not to establish a precedent which might cause difficulty in the future the names of two private members should be substituted for them. I believe there is unanimous agreement.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I recognize this was done inadvertently. I do not know whether I had better apologize to the two ministers of the Crown or to the two private members involved, but may I ask for unanimous consent of the house to have the names changed to the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Ste-fanson) and the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. Southam)?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
[DOT] (7:0O p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The house will now resume the business interrupted at six o'clock.



PENITENTIARIES


Lawrence T. Pennell: That a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons be appointed to consider the state of
March 15, 1966

Penitentiaries Committee
penitentiaries under the control of the government of Canada and the plans of the government In relation thereto with powers to report from time to time its observations and opinions thereon; send for persons, papers and records; adjourn from place to place; sit during sittings of the house; and print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by the committee, and that standing order 66 be suspended in relation thereto;
That 15 members of the House of Commons, to be designated at a later date, act on behalf of the house as members of the said committee; and
That a message be sent to the Senate requesting that house to unite with this house for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deem advisable, some of their members to act on the proposed joint committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully commend this motion to the house. The subject matter, I believe, does not raise differences in a party sense, although I recognize that there may be difference of opinion among members in their individual capacities. It is within the recollection of the house that I made a reasonably lengthy opening statement regarding penitentiaries on the calling of the estimates of the Department of Justice. I therefore do not propose to trench upon the time and patience of the house except to offer two short points in support of the motion.
We are now well into the first half of the ten-year penitentiary plan and I humbly suggest that it would be profitable to examine our physical plant before launching into the second part of the program. I do not conceal from myself or the house that there has been some criticism of our new institutions. The principal target has been the special correctional units, one of which will be completed later this year at St. Vincent de Paul. The penitentiary service appreciates that such criticism is inspired by a genuine interest in this important matter. The building of three other units has been stayed, and I believe it would be worth while for the members of a committee to have a first hand inspection of this one unit so that they would have an opportunity to voice their opinions before we march forward.
A question was raised during the estimates debate whether a penitentiary committee was necessary having regard to the fact that there is a Justice and Legal Affairs Committee already in existence. It is interesting to note that of the 14 members who last year offered enlightened opinions on this important subject of penitentiaries, all of whom I believe are still members of the house, only two are members of the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee. In other words, I am saying that

many members whose training and experience is outside the legal world have a deep and abiding interest in penitentiary affairs and the failure to establish this committee might mean that the house would be deprived of the benefit of their judgment.
I do not, of course, suggest that the members of my own profession are not competent to deal with this matter, but I do want to emphasize that the subject of penal reform in this modern age is no longer the private preserve of judges, jailers and lawyers. The penitentiary service is faced with a building program of formidable dimensions and great urgency. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I renew my plea that this motion be adopted, fpr I believe that a committee can render valuable assistance in drafting the blueprint necessary for the development of our penal institutions in the difficult days ahead.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the views that have been set forth to the house in this regard. We appreciate the fact that the plan in respect of penitentiaries is of a rather extensive nature. We certainly recognize the need for this program and the need of the community at large in so far as penal reform and our present institutions are concerned.
We, too, believe that this motion should be adopted without extensive debate. However, we in the opposition think that the justice committee as constituted at the moment might well deal with this question and so avoid a great deal of conflict in regard to these matters. So far as the participation of members of the other place is concerned, we believe that they could be asked to join the justice committee for this purpose.
The minister stated that the interest of people hitherto concerned with this problem might not be taken into account, but we believe that those who were interested might well become members of the committee for this purpose. We do not believe that a duplication of committee responsibility is necessary. We believe the division of the Department of Justice has caused concern in regard to the responsibilities of the ministers involved. These questions are all in the field of justice and we would ask the minister to allow the present standing committee to deal with this problem.
Recognizing the need and the fact that the committee might well get to work immediately in the areas the minister has suggested, I
March 15, 1966	COMMONS
suggest this would be the best possible way to deal with the questions at hand. We would then be studying this problem on a continuing basis and continuity would be established in successive sessions. I ask the minister to take this suggestion into consideration. I also ask hon. members to consider my suggestion when placing their views before the house.
I believe that the adoption of this suggestion would expedite the formation of the committee and dealing with the work at hand. As I say, Mr. Speaker, we agree with the need, we agree with the objectives, and we are interested in seeing the committee get to work at a very early date.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to say a few brief words in support of the motion. We do not think it is so much the name of the committee that is important as the authority of the committee, its responsibilities and the fervour with which the committee members prosecute the responsibility given to them.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
If we hark back a couple of years we find the origin of this proposal. At that time the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott), the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) and I took occasion to make a number of rather dramatic visits to that hell hole in Montreal, St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary. This visit caused such public concern that the then minister of justice and the then minister of public works, Mr. Deschatelets, paid an unprecedented ministerial visit to St. Vincent de Paul with an entourage of some 50 or 60 newspapermen, radio and television men, complete with cameras, recording equipment and the like. One of the officials of the penitentiaries branch with whom I spoke said that some of his predecessors would turn over in their graves if they knew this were happening.
It was following that visit by the then minister of public works and the then minister of justice, and following upon our persistent demands for a parliamentary committee to inquire into the whole situation, that an annoucement was made that there were going to be two committees. One would be a committee of experts which would look into the sociological and penological aspects of our penal system and the other a parliamentary committee which would look into the state of the penitentiaries. This presumably refers to the physical facilities, the buildings and conditions. The Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell)
DEBATES	2727
Penitentiaries Committee nods his head in assent that this is a correct interpretation of the word "state".
We are of the opinion that the committee should not look at the word "state" in the narrow sense of merely going around peering in corners to see whether or not they have been swept out or ascertaining the size of cells, what sort of facilities exist for segregation and the like. The committee should concern itself with the use to which these facilities are being put. There is not much sense in examining a cell to ascertain its dimensions and its sanitary facilities, because a person will be locked up in that cell. There is not much sense just looking at the physical aspects of penitentiaries unless the committee also concerns itself with what is going to happen to the individual who is in that cell once he is released. I think that in this sense the construction of the motion is lacking.
I am afraid there will be a tendency to look purely at the physical state and condition of the penitentiaries rather than looking at the after effects of incarceration. For years we have had the cycle of arrest, conviction, incarceration and release. Upon release the person has been in the position of starting the cycle all over again. History has proven that it does not really matter what the state of the penal institution is because people still manage somehow or other to get into it. As so-called civilized people we deplore the state of some of our prisons. We think that sanitary facilities are not what they should be. We concern ourselves about the paint, the calcimine, the white-wash, whether the bars are shining, whether the clothes are suitable, whether the food is good, whether the shoes are satisfactory, but we do not concern ourselves with what happens to the individual once he walks out through the gates. The whole emphasis of any study of our penitentiary system must be on this point, to ensure that we are doing as much as we possibly can to see that the human being we lock up in a cell is treated as a human being. The state of the cell really does not matter, although our sensitivities may be offended, because we should concern ourselves with assuring that everything possible is done to give the man the best possible chance of not returning.
This is the point with which the committee should concern itself. This should be the mental orientation of every member of that committee regardless of the fact that it is set up merely to consider the physical facilities that exist. I urge upon all the members of this committee, and I say this because of my
March 15, 1966

Penitentiaries Committee interest in penology and because of visits to a number of penitentiaries, to disregard as much as they can the terms of reference when they visit the institutions. They should think in terms of the human beings who are held in these institutions and in terms of making as sure as they possibly can that all these human beings have the best chance for success in society once they are released.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I want to say first that we support the motion to set up a joint committee of the House of Commons and Senate to consider the state of penitentiaries under the control of the federal government. The resolution also calls for the committee to consider the plans of the government in relation, I presume, to the state of penitentiaries under federal government control. I feel this is the wrong time to go into a detailed discussion of what may be right or wrong with our penitentiaries. I think we should wait until we receive a report from the committee that is being proposed and then, in some degree at least, accept the advice of the 15 members of the House of Commons who will have had an opportunity of making a detailed study of this matter.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that while there has been a great public outcry about the rehabilitation of prisoners in penitentiaries and it has been said that the penitentiary program ought to be redesigned with more emphasis on rehabilitation, I think we can go too far with this concern. I have no objection whatever to more emphasis being placed on the rehabilitation of prisoners but I believe we forget, at least in some degree, that the reason they are in penitentiaries is that they have demonstrated they are not fit persons to be in society. We as members of parliament, as well as the government of Canada, also have the responsibility of protecting society generally against this kind of individual. I should not like to see this committee call for new plans with regard to penitentiaries which would be so overweighted in favour of the prisoner and the rehabilitation of the prisoner that they overlook the fact these people are dangerous to society. It has been proven it is not safe for them to be ordinary citizens, with all the freedom of ordinary citizens.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, as other hon. members have indicated in this discussion this is not the time for a full scale debate. However, I should like to

say a few words just in case I do not happen to be fortunate enough to be appointed to this special committee.
As the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler) intimated, it had been the hope of this party that the work of this committee might be carried out by the justice committee already appointed. However, the minister has indicated that this is to be a committee of experts or at least of members of the house who are primarily interested in the state of Canada's penitentiaries. I do not pose as an expert, although I first started visiting penitentiaries back in 1940. At that time an excellent report had been brought down by the then government of Canada-I think the date of publication was in 1938-the well-known Archambault report. The Archambault royal commission had been constituted because of the riots in Kingston penitentiary during the mid-1930's, and as I recall that report was a rather definitive examination of the problems which prevailed in Canada's penitentiaries at that time.
It is said, Mr. Speaker, that it takes 37 years before the birth of an idea is implemented in this house in the form of legislation. If that statistic be true, we are almost reaching the stage where Canada and this parliament are ready for a major breakthrough in our approach to penology. In addition to the Archambault report we have as background the Fauteux royal commission report which confirmed and re-endorsed many of the findings of that earlier period.
Like other members who have participated in this discussion I hope that the phrase "state of penitentiaries" is not going to be restricted to the bricks and mortar aspect of the problem. I rather had the impression from the minister's statement that he is willing to put a broader interpretation on the terms of reference. Indeed, the very fact that a special committee is being brought together with a broad interest in the subject suggests that the minister wants to enlarge the terms of reference so that they can provide for a thoroughgoing review of the matters discussed in the earlier reports to which I referred. Otherwise I think the effort made by such a committee would be rather sterile, if indeed the time is not wasted.
As I read the further words of the resolution I note that it empowers the committee to send for persons, papers and records. This, it seems to me, is the aspect of the operations of the committee which may make it possible to
March 15, 1968	COMMONS
embrace a wider perspective. I say this because it will provide an opportunity to bring before this committee of special interest people and groups in Canada who themselves for a long period of time have had a special interest in the question of modern penology. I refer, for example, to the representatives of the John Howard Society who have had broad experience in this subject. I think it would be almost imperative that they have the chance to present their views to the committee. As a result of their close contact with the problem I am sure they would give some advice on the structural or bricks and mortar aspects of the problem as well as on the sociological and psychological aspects.
My own experience, which goes back 25 years, was in connection with the Salvation Army's interest in penal matters. I think it is another organization which would have something helpful and useful to say to the committee.
During the past 30 years, ever since the Archambault report was brought down, there has been a tremendous improvement, I would say, in the attitude of the general public toward the group in society to whom we refer as criminals. My good friend from Medicine Hat indicated that he hopes there will not be a tendency-I am paraphrasing what he said -to be soft toward those who find themselves embroiled with the law. In another day and finds itself behind bars-I think it was by age reference was made to the group which John Wesley-in these words: "There, but for the grace of God, go I".
I associated with and personally was in touch with many of these men when I was active as what used to be called a prison worker but is now called a correctional officer, which indicates a shifting emphasis in our attitude toward the handling of these problems. I found very little difference in attitudes between those who often find themselves behind bars and those who find themselves outside bars. Indeed, even were it not so, we must protect society from the criminal element, but in almost very case, in fact, in every case involving a penal or criminal offence eventually the person concerned will have to return to society. If that particular person has not been prepared for this return by a process of training, education, rehabilitation and all the other services now available to deal with problems of human behaviour, it means that eventually he will fall afoul of the law once again and the problem of recidivism, which has been one of the
DEBATES	2729
Penitentiaries Committee chronic difficulties in Canada's penal system, will remain with us.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
It is not necessary at this stage to quote statistics. I am sure they will be brought out during the course of the committee's hearings. I commend the government for bringing forward this resolution at this time and I hope the committee will interpret the terms of reference relating to its functions to make it possible to deal with all aspects of the problem. After a delay of 30 years or more, in the history of coming to grips with the matter, I think this is our opportunity at last to get some concrete legislation on the subject. I do not say that nothing has occurred in the intervening years. Indeed the minister in his statement said that we are now in the midst of a ten-year plan to improve our penal facilities. The hon. member for Kamloops, when he was the minister responsible, endeavoured to come to grips with this matter. No doubt he will be representing this party on that committee, and will of course be a worthy spokesman.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to delay or oppose this measure before the committee. As I said when we discussed this question last year, I think we are approaching the problem from the wrong direction. I emphatically disagree with my good friend the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson), with whom I so often agree when issues are discussed in this house, when he expresses the view, the view of many people in Canada and of many members of parliament, namely that because people have committed crimes, have been brought to trial and been found guilty, the answer is to lock them up.
We have not done much to find better ways of dealing with offenders. Locking a person up does not do much for that person, nor help him in the future. When a person is sentenced to a penitentiary in Canada, he is really being sent to a university of crime.
Some time ago when the son of one of my constituents was sent to a provincial jail for stealing a car, she said to me, "When my son first went to jail he only knew how to start one type of car without a key. When he came out of jail, he could start any car without a key". That is the value of what happened to that boy in jail, and that is the sort of thing that happens to most people whom we send to our penitentiaries. They come out, and then go back a second and third time.

March 15. 1966
Penitentiaries Committee
I was disturbed by a speech the minister made some days ago in this house in which he said, and I am speaking from memory, that the present penitentiary population is 7,000 and something, and the predicted penitentiary population in the early 1970's probably would be over 10,000. I think that was a disastrous speech for the minister to make, and a disastrous approach for the minister to have. It indicated to me a shocking situation. Nothing the minister has said since that would indicate that it is his feeling that we can do something to change this.
A committee is being appointed to look at our present penitentiaries, which are a disgrace. That committee will bring back reports which will contain recommendations for parliament. Many people know the kinds of penitentiaries we have. The situation in St. Vincent de Paul is a disgrace in a modern society. What is it proposed that the government should do? It is proposed that the government spend somewhere in the neighbourhood of $200 million in the next ten years, to build new penitentiaries.
Anybody who has any kind of heart at all will agree that even if people do commit crimes, they should not always be put into penitentiaries. They should not be put into the kind of buildings we have here, the kind of buildings of which St. Vincent de Paul is an example. By building better buildings we shall have accomplished nothing in solving the kinds of problems which make people commit crimes. I know that this is not the place to discuss jails, but we are talking about the spending of $200 million to build buildings. I think it would be better if the minister would come forward and say, "We know on the basis of experience that probation works. Probation keeps 85 to 90 per cent of the people who are handled by the probation service in the province from committing a second crime, and from going to prison possibly a second time."
Surely the minister and the department, instead of talking about spending a tremendous amount of money on buildings to house people who have committed a first, second or third crime, might do better by saying to this house: "We are going to propose to the provinces an expenditure of several millions of dollars which, if they are prepared to match that, would mean that they could expend very large sums on probation services." Certainly probation is the responsibility of the provinces at this time. If the suggestion I put to the house were carried 
out, it would keep people out of the penitentiaries, and that is what I would like to see.
Another thing we are going to propose, Mr. Speaker, is that people with better than grade 10 or grade 11 education be employed at penitentiaries. These people will not just be guards. I am not being critical when I say this, nor am I being critical of people working in our penitentiaries. We have the kind of peoople there we want, and that we are prepared to pay for.
I hope the minister in the very near future, if he cannot do so tonight, will say, "We are going to raise the standards required for a person to get a job in our penitentiaries, and we are going to increase the salary range to get the kinds of people who will not just be guards, but who will be able to do rehabilitation work. We are going to allocate enough money so that we will not just have a few part time psychiatrists."
I happen to know the psychiatrist who works at St. Vincent de Paul. I know his reputation in the field of correction. I am not being critical of him, but a psychiatrist for three half days a week cannot possibly do the job he is supposed to do.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, instead of spending money on buildings, we should be coming forward with a program to take on psychiatrists, psychologists, and teachers who are aggressive and dynamic, who would make prisoners enthusiastic to learn so that they could upgrade their education. If prisoners upgraded their education they might be able to get a better job when they come out, so that they would not have to commit crimes and go back to penitentiary again.
It is not my intention to make a long speech, or to hold up this resolution. I say tonight, as I said during the last session when this resolution was being debated, that we are putting the cart before the horse and we are going in the wrong direction. We do not need a committee to tell us that we need better buildings. We know that. The Archambault report and the Fauteux Report have already told us that. Experts have looked at the whole question of correction. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the whole point of this committee is superfluous. It seems to me wrong to think in terms of large expenditures for buildings. If we are going to have as many people in the penitentiaries as the minister predicted, the situation is hopeless
March 15, 1966	COMMONS
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)
What we are going to do in the next ten years is more of the same that we had in the last 20 years. This is a course of action which has failed miserably, a course of action which, when compared with countries such as Great Britain-though there have been problems in recent years-puts us to shame. It is a course of action which has led to this situation-that in a survey done by one of the United Nations agencies about this correctional problem, Canada-I am speaking from memory-ranked 48th among 50 nations in the way it was handling its correctional institutions.
I do not intend to oppose a study by this committee, but I hope that when the minister has had an opportunity to look at the whole question he will call a halt at once to the present trend, just as he has already called a halt to certain aspects of the prison building program. I commend him for the further consideration he has given to the building program at Montreal, now unfortunately almost completed. I hope the minister will call a halt to the building of more such buildings upon which too much money has already been spent, and that he will turn in the direction of changes which will emphasize that our determination that the number of people sent to these institutions shall be reduced rather than raised.
This can be done if we make up our minds to adopt an aggressive program of probation, parole and rehabilitation, using modern methods instead of the traditional methods of conviction and locking people up-methods which have been used in this country for far too many years.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: May I ask the hon. member a question? I am sure he would want to be fair? Would he not agree that I did not say the only solution was to lock people up. I suggested that the members of this committee should be as concerned about their responsibility for the protection of the public as they are for the rehabilitation of prisoners.


David Orlikow: I consider the hon. member for Medicine Hat to be a friend of mine. 1 consider him to be one of the best members of this house and if, in my desire to express my disappointment with his speech I over emphasized what I consider to be one aspect of that speech, I want to withdraw that impression. I do feel, however, that the record will show that the hon. member for Medicine Hat was, in effect, saying indirectly,
DEBATES	2731
Penitentiaries Committee if not directly, that we must continue the program of building buildings and locking people up, and so on.
Of course I agree with the hon. member for Medicine Hat that we have to think of the victims of those who commit crimes. I do not think we should simply allow people to continue to commit crimes against other citizens. The hon. member and I may have a basic difference of opinion, and time may prove that the hon. member for Medicine Hat is right and that I am wrong. But it seemed to me the hon. member was saying that society must protect itself against crime by continuing to do what has been done in the past, namely to apprehend the culprit, put him on trial and then lock him in a penitentiary.


An hon. Member:: And throw away the key.


David Orlikow: I certainly would not accuse the hon. member for Medicine Hat of taking that attitude. But that is the way I interpreted his remarks, and if I interpreted them wrongly, I apologize. I did not think, when I rose, of making an attack on the hon. member for Medicine Hat, who happened to speak just before I did. But I am critical of the approach which the department now headed by the Solicitor General is following.
I hope the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) and his department will move in the next year or so to adopt the proposals which were made very fairly and convincingly in the Archambault report and in the Fauteux report, and which will, I am certain, be made by the committee of experts the government has appointed. I feel sure the recommendations they will make will be along the lines of those contained in the Fauteux report. I hope that when this report is brought down, if not before, the minister will give serious consideration to an approach of the kind I have suggested, rather than the enlargement of a building program which is doomed to failure.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I do not agree with the interpretation the hon. member has made of my speech.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: should like to speak on this resolution for a few moments. First I wish my good friend the Solicitor General well in his efforts, as far as the penitentiaries aspect of his portfolio is concerned, and tell him that we look forward to the setting up of this committee because I think it is the proper move for us to make. As members of the House of Commons we should always be endeavouring to keep up to
March 15, 1966

Penitentiaries Committee date in every aspect of the penitentiary service, determined to see we move always in the right direction. I should like to point out, in passing, that the Fauteux report has been before us now for a great many years. It would not be right or proper for us to rest on that report without attempting to go forward.
I commend the minister and the government for continuing the program initiated by the former minister, my hon. friend from Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) to provide for the enlarging of institutions and the construction of new ones across the country. No one who has been in Dorchester penitentiary as often as I have, for short periods of time, can fail to appreciate the difficulty faced by those associated with the Canadian penitentiary service when endeavouring to put rehabilitation programs into effect. It is next to impossible to try to operate such programs when there are far too many individuals incarcerated in our institutions, as a result of which security becomes the thing uppermost in everyone's mind.
I should like to say this to the minister: I believe that at the present time the morale of the staff is anything but good. This has nothing to do with their pay. I realize that everyone wants more money, no matter what job he may be doing. People are always endeavouring to secure new fringe benefits. I appreciate, also, that the government has a new system of pay for its employees under consideration at the present time. It is not this aspect which concerns me. It is the fact that they are uncertain about what is likely to happen with regard to individuals such as Reginald Colpitts, Leopold Dion and Georges Marcotte. They do not know how many more such individuals they are likely to have in a system which was not built to maintain people of this kind.
The guards at Dorchester penitentiary asked for danger pay of $1,000 a year. I do not think they were really concerned whether $1,000 was paid to them. I believe they were more concerned about the government taking action to protect them against inmates of this type. As far as I am concerned, our laws are not geared to allow such inmates to remain in our penitentiary system at the present time. The sooner we get on with the debate on capital punishment, whether for the abolition or retention of the death penalty, the earlier will every man in the penitentiary service be in a better position to know what lies before him. I think this house will be in a better position to know what needs to be done with

this type of individual presently in our institutions. Not until then will we be capable of making the kind of decisions about them that we should be making.
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)
I would like to say also-and it was inherent in the speech by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)-that there is a great danger we are getting too soft about those people who go into our institutions. I believe in rehabilitation; I believe in doing everything possible to prepare a man to go back to life in our world, in society, but I believe he should go back only after he has realized he has committed an offence against society, and that to do it again will be to his detriment only.
I do not believe in providing radio facilities, all the other forms of entertainment, and all the other things which are available to a free man in society, to an inmate who has committed dastardly crimes to society, before he recognizes the seriousness of what he has done and is willing and ready to mend his ways and prepare himself for re-entry into society.
I believe, if we are to be practical, we must have maximum, medium and minimum security institutions. I do not believe we have enough to look after not only the population that is in our institutions today but also the population which is entering our institutions every day, and which is continuing and growing at a frightening rate. Certainly there are approaches we have to take which are different, which are new. These approaches are not necessarily to be accepted by everyone, but they are approaches which are far reaching and which in many cases have been proven to be acceptable, to a degree, in other countries of the world.
I believe the parole system we have established today is good. I believe naturally there are holes in it, like there are in anything else, but I do not believe there is anything significantly wrong with the approach we take today toward parole. I do not think there is anything more I would like to say. I would like to repeat however that I do believe this committee will be of value not only to the members who serve on it, but also to parliament. I hope the committee will be set up, set up quickly, and that we will get on with the consideration of this matter.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. minister speaks now, he will close the debate.
March 15, 196G


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to deal briefly with the matters which have been raised. I recognize the point made by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler). I would say to him, with respect, that this is not the occasion for me to discuss the merits or demerits of the argument he proposed. I also recognize the points made by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) and his colleagues who I know are deeply interested in matters relating to penal reform.
If I may be permitted to say so, the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) made a short but interesting contribution. I turn now to the remarks of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) who entered a disclaimer of being an expert on penitentiaries. I must do the same thing and say, with some regret, that some of my former clients have much more knowledge of penitentiaries than I possess, but it will be my duty to rectify that situation. The hon. member made the point that penitentiaries are something more than just bricks and mortar, but are essentially people. In reply to him, and the hon. member for Skeena, as I interpret the terms of reference, they will include not only the physical plant, the cells and so on, but also matters such as staff training and such things as the program within the institution to prepare the inmates for their release.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) suggested I made a disastrous statement, and I take his remarks in the spirit in which he made them, because I know he has a genuine interest in this matter. However, I am sure he did not wish to do me any injustice. He was referring to my statement when I said that the inmate population would increase to over 10,000-and he was quite right in the figure he gave. I was only pointing out that with the growth in population and the present trend it would reach this figure. He made a statement concerning probation officers and his remarks fell on sympathetic ears. Over the last year we added 21 new parole officers. I realize it is not a large figure in terms of our inmate population, but it is a step in the right direction.
The hon. member said I should do something about upgrading the staff. We are doing something about it. We are building new staff training colleges in Kingston and in Montreal, and are upgrading the skill and capability of the correctional staff. He also made the interesting statement that perhaps we should not
Consumer Credit Committee be concerning ourselves, nor should the committee concern itself with the matter of putting up new buildings; that we do not need a committee to tell us that we need new buildings. That is not the purpose of the committee. It is to determine the matter of putting up the right type of new buildings. I suggest this is very important.
I thank the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Coates) for his kind remarks and for the support he has given this committee. He said we lag behind in penal reform. I must say I think there is some truth in this, but I think we now are moving forward. There has been developing a new sense of responsibility in this field. The initial impetus for this new sense of responsibility came from the previous administration, and I have no desire to conceal that fact. I hope we can continue it.
I am not suggesting we are going to build a new heaven on earth in our penitentiary service, but I do think we are taking a step forward, and with the co-operation of the committee I think we can make a useful contribution in that direction. I wish to thank all hon. members for their contributions.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Jean Chretien (for the Minister of Finance) moved:: That a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons be appointed to enquire into and report upon the problems of consumer credit, more particularly but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing to enquire into and report upon the operation of Canadian legislation in relation thereto;
That twenty-four members of the House of Commons to be designated by the House at a later date, be members of the joint committee, and that Standing Order 67(1) of the House of Commons be suspended in relation thereto;
That the said committee have power to call for persons, papers and records and examine witnesses; to sit while the House is sitting, and to report from time to time and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be deemed advisable, and that Standing Order 66 be suspended in relation thereto; and to engage the services of counsel, accountants and such other clerical and technical personnel as may be deemed necessary, that the Minutes of Proceedings of and evidence given before the joint committee during the Twenty-Sixth Parliament be referred to the said committee and be made part of the records thereof; and that a message be sent to the Senate requesting that house to unite with this house for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems it advisable, some of its members to act on the proposed joint committee.
March 15, 1966

Consumer Credit Committee [Translation]
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)
He said: Mr. Speaker, the resolution now before the house deals with the appointment of a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons to enquire into and report upon the problems of consumer credit.
This committee, Mr. Speaker, was established in the last parliament, and more particularly, sat during the last two sessions of the last parliament. It undertook a huge task concerning consumer credit, it had a lot of sittings but, unfortunately, because of the somewhat abrupt end which the last Parliament came to, it could not draft a report, following the long investigations it held.
The Committee was chaired jointly by the Hon. Senator Croll and the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. Greene). I suggest that if this committee could resume its studies as soon as possible, it should be able to report to the house and make proposals so that this problem, which is very much discussed at this time by the public, can be settled to the general satisfaction.
Naturally, serious problems arise as to whether this comes strictly under federal jurisdiction or under provincial jurisdiction? But I think the committee undertook very precise work in this field and that it should be in a position, after a few sittings, to bring down a favourable report, so that we can enact legislation to protect small consumers from certain abuses we have noted in the course of the investigations of this committee.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, on the reconstituting of this consumer credit committee I should like to make one or two observations. We are in favour of having the committee reactivated, and I personally realize the great value it can be to us. In fact, anything that can be done to relieve the high cost of living would be appreciated by everyone.
However, there is one part of the resolution I would like to bring to the attention of the house, where it provides that the committee may-
-engage the services of counsel, accountants and such other clerical and technical personnel as may be deemed necessary.
The former committee followed that practice and hired outside counsel and an accountant. I am against giving this authority to the committee because I believe professional help is available from among our very

competent civil service staff. I do not think it is necessary to go beyond that staff to get any competent help required. I am sure the Department of Justice, the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Department of Industry could provide all the help necessary.
The former committee, under the joint chairmanship of Senator Croll and the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene), did a good job. I appreciated the opportunity to work on that committee, but it did engage outside counsel and an accountant, and in this connection I believe we members of the house should give some thought to the taxpayers of the country and to the way in which money is spent by the government.
The former committee hired an outside lawyer named Mr. Urie. There were 18 meetings held by the committee. He was paid at the rate of $250 per day, and $25 per hour for every hour he spent on preparation work. In all he was paid a total of $6,350.55. The accountant was paid at the rate of $100 a day, and $20 an hour for preparation work, a total of $1,855. The two combined received a total of $8,205.55 for 18 meetings. To me that seems an outrageous amount of money; but in addition to that I am against the principle of hiring outside help because I believe, when that is done, the same interest is not taken by members of a committee. They are inclined to sit back and say, "He is being paid for it. Let him do the talking." This does not improve the operations of a committee. I have no objection to setting up the committee, but I do object to this outside help.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, like most hon. members I am anxious to see this resolution passed as quickly as possible so that the Consumer Credit Committee may resume its work. It has been meeting for over two years, has heard many briefs, and there are probably a few more to come. It is essential that the committee reach a decision, and communicate that decision to the public.
Four provinces have already taken legislative action in this field. A royal commission report has been received in the Province of Manitoba. In Alberta, after some question as to whether it had the power to legislate, the legislature there has accepted its responsibility. Nova Scotia has passed an excellent credit act, and Ontario recently published an excellent report of its select committee. What is disturbing is that the federal government,
March 15. 19G6	COMMONS
which should be giving leadership in this field, finds itself in the position of being behind the provinces which have already passed legislation to deal with consumer credit. We are still debating the matter and it is vitally important that our committee resume is work as quickly as possible.
I feel somewhat differently from the hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Hales) on the question of engaging counsel for the committee. I was appointed to the committee rather late last year, but one of the impressions I have retained is of the enormous value to the committee of the counsel it had at its disposal. Many of the witnesses who appeared before that committee attended with a phalanx of experts, up to 12 or 14 people, including accountants, lawyers and economists. The members of the committee were hardworking. They took a great interest in the subject but, without the help and advice of the professionals I think many of us would have been lost. Many of the arguments made by the representatives of those who appeared before the committee might not have been examined and questioned as closely as they were.
1 hope the government will be allowed to see that counsel and accountants are provided as an adjunct to the committee. A figure of over $8,000 was given as the reason for dispensing with this type of expert advice, but when I think of the millions of dollars of which Canadian borrowers are bilked, the small sum of $8,000 seems to be a very small price to pay on behalf of the Canadian taxpayer to ensure that this committee will have expertese at its disposal.
I would like to pay my respects to and express my admiration for the work done by the joint chairmen, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) and Senator Croll. Senator Croll in particular has done a magnificent job in bringing the subject of consumer credit to public attention.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
Before coming to the house I can recall the Senator for some reason or another sending me some of the speeches he made in the other place. I followed those speeches with a great deal of interest. I recall the tremendous difficulty this man had in the other place in receiving even preliminary acceptance of the idea that consumer credit should be examined by the Parliament of Canada. I think he fought a great fight in the other place and did
DEBATES	2735
Consumer Credit Committee a magnificent job as chairman of the Consumer Credit Committee. We in this party would like to express our appreciation to him for that effort and certainly hope he will continue as chairman of the committee.
The importance of legislating consumer credit in Canada should not be underestimated. Much of the social problem in this country stems from the abuses of consumer credit. The sooner the government takes action to correct those abuses, the sooner will we be able to correct some of our social problems. People are put into a state of perpetual poverty by misleading advertisements, misleading come-ons and, if not deliberate falsifications, certainly implied falsifications.
I believe this government must take strong and positive action in this regard. At the very least I think there must be in every credit contract in Canada in the future a declaration of simple interest that will be understood by everyone. I believe there is an argument for expressing it in dollars and cents and perhaps this should also be in the contract.
I should like to add my voice to that of other members of this party who have introduced private members' bills calling for a ceiling upon interest rates in Canada. There is a legitimate charge for interest, but when this charge gets to the point where you have to pay 30 per cent, 35 per cent or 40 per cent in return for obtaining credit, I think ft is by no means legitimate. I do not believe these high interest rates should be allowed. This is not a conscionable charge to make under any circumstances. In my opinion we should move in the direction of ensuring that people and their families are protected from succumbing to the pressures around them to obtain credit. I conclude my remarks by expressing the hope that the committee will have all the counsel it needs and that there will be no hesitation on the part of the government to ensure that the people of Canada are represented by the finest experts it is possible to obtain.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Ralliement Creditiste readily endorse the setting up of this committee which will inquire and look into the problem of consumer credit.
During the previous session, this committee already held several meetings where experts
March 15, 1966

Consumer Credit Committee and representatives ol various financial bodies of the country appeared to set forth this problem and offer solutions.
Personally, I did not attend those committee meetings, but I do hope to be appointed to this committee at this session and attend its meetings in order to become better acquainted with the matter and, if necessary, put questions to the witnesses who will appear before it.
I am also happy to note that the records of the previous committee which investigated this situation will be given to the members of the committee being established tonight, and I certainly hope to be a member.
We hope that this committee will be set up without delay so that it may proceed with and complete this work. But there is something I do not like in this resolution; it is the third paragraph which reads as follows:
That the said committee have power to call for persons, papers and records and examine witnesses.
Mr. Speaker, this is of concern to us, but when it is said that the committee will have to sit "while the house is sitting", I do not agree at all with that part of the resolution, because this will greatly increase our work load.
I remember during the last election campaign, we in this group were blamed, for not attending enough committee meetings while we attend the sittings of the house. Since we cannot be in two places at one time, I ask that this part of the resolution be eliminated, that the committee have power to sit while the house is not sitting.
With this proviso, Mr. Speaker, we are perfectly agreeable to the adoption of this resolution and I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to express his views on this question.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, although I have not been a member of the Committee on Consumer Credit which sat during the twenty fifth and twenty sixth parliaments, I do not believe a committee has functioned in our House of Commons that has been of greater interest to the general public of Canada than this one. If my mail is typical of that which comes to the average member of parliament in so far as consumer credit is concerned, I am sure each one of us is aware that the public are becoming alarmed at the situation that exists today in regard to the cost of consumer credit.

I do not believe the pattern that has already been set this year will change very much and I believe also that the cost of living will continue to climb. With the cost of living rising each month, it has become more and more part of our way of life for credit to be one way in which people are able to obtain the purchasing power they need. I believe that if there is one area in our economy that more than any other suffers abuse, it is this one. I am grateful to the committees in past parliaments for the work they have done and I join the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Saltsman) in saying that each one of us owes a debt to the co-chairmen of these committees for the work that has been done.
I realize that the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. Greene) will be replaced but I think both he and the hon. Senator who have been co-chairmen of the committee have done an admirable job. I trust they will be able to complete that work very quickly in order that a full report may be brought back to the house and we may take legislative action. I am afraid I must also join the hon. member for Waterloo South in expressing my concern at the remarks made by the hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Hales) in regard to counsel both legal and accounting. If members of parliament are to give leadership in the formation of policy and draw up the type of legislation that I believe it is their responsibility to enact, certainly this committee must have the necessary counsel in order to do its work effectively. It may appear from the figures quoted this evening that the cost of legal counsel in particular is high-and I do not know whether such counsel can be obtained at a lower fee-but I believe it is a small price indeed to pay for the results that could be forthcoming from this committee.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I do not see how members of parliament will be able to deal with the type of witness that will be called before the committee unless they have the benefit of this kind of counsel. The matter that is being dealt with represents one of the more grave abuses in so far as the cost of credit is concerned. I feel it is all the more important, therefore, that the members of the committee have the very best counsel and research assistants, so that nothing will stop them from coming to conclusions which will enable them to make intelligent recommendations to this house.
March 15, 1966	COMMONS
I support the remarks made by the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Saltsman), particularly what he said relating to the necessity for revealing the actual cost of credit expressed in a percentage of interest. There has been, and there is now, too much covering up in so far as the general public is concerned, and people are paying much more than they should for consumer credit. If those who are responsible for providing these facilities, facilities which are essential under the system under which we operate, extend credit, then I do not see why they should be ashamed of revealing the cost of that credit.
I believe this is typical of one area in which this committee has a very unique and special responsibility. The committee should act as quickly as possible and bring back a report with which this house can deal. We give our support to the motion, Mr. Speaker, and we trust that no time will be lost in setting up the committee, that it can get down to business quickly and return a report to this House of Commons.


Gilles Grégoire: Before it carries, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that a moment ago the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Laprise) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) whether the government was agreeable to delete the words:
to sit while the house is sitting
Since the beginning of the session a new procedure has been followed: When a committee wishes to sit during the sittings of the house, special permission is sought each time on motions, at the opening of the sitting.
Is the parliamentary secretary willing to amend the motion and delete the words:
to sit while the house is sitting?


Robert Norman Thompson: May I ask a question of the parliamentary secretary?


Mr. Speaker:: If the parliamentary secretary speaks now, he will close the debate. The questions which are being raised now should have been asked of the parliamentary secretary when he had the floor a few moments ago. However, I do not want to stop these questions if they might help advance the work of the house. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary might be allowed to answer that question from the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire).
DEBATES	2737
Consumer Credit Committee [Translation]


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I would simply ask a question. Is the parliamentary secretary willing to withdraw those few words without putting an end to the debate?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Impossible.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I should like the parliamentary secretary to answer simply. If he makes a statement, he will end the debate.


Gilles Grégoire: Without making a statement, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Norman Thompson: I wonder if I could put a question related to the one that is being asked?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is the situation we get into under these conditions. We get into a debate which the Chair could not allow.
[Translationl


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have an answer, without prejudice.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.

Order, please. If the parliamentary secretary speaks now he will close the debate.


Robert Norman Thompson: May I ask a question which he may answer at the same time?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has the floor. There has to be some order in debate, and I will recognize the parliamentary secretary.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I put a simple question.


Michael Starr: I rise on a point of order. Your Honour has recognized the parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, that is correct. In justice to the hon. member for Lapointe, who asked if he could ask a question, I thought this might be done simply and the answer given quickly. Apparently, this is going to cause difficulty, but I should allow the hon. member for Lapointe to complete his speech. The moment the parliamentary secretary takes the floor, that will terminate the debate.
March 15, 1966

Consumer Credit Committee [Translation]


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, without necessarily wishing to participate in the debate, I wonder if, in order to shorten the debate, he should not be asked whether he wants to take out those words. If not, rather than let the debate end, we will move an amendment to the proposed resolution to delete these words. Is the parliamentary secretary willing-


Mr. Speaker:: This would end the debate.


Gilles Grégoire: Even if he answers by a nod, Mr. Speaker?


An hon. Member:: He has the right to answer.


Gilles Grégoire: Is he willing to take out the words?


Mr. Speaker:: If the parliamentary secretary speaks now, he will end the debate.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Saltsman) made certain comments concerning the hiring of technical advisers such as counsel and accountants to help the committee. I should remind the hon. member for Waterloo South and the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) that, when this committee met during the last parliament, we realized the importance of experts to enlighten us. Even if the taking of decisions is our responsibility, there is preliminary work to be done and that is where technical advisers did an excellent job. They analysed each of the documents submitted and the great value of such outside assistance is readily appreciated. Besides, I do not think there was any abuse on our part. The committee met perhaps 18 times, but without those advisers, we might have had to hold 20, 30 or 40 meetings to analyse all the briefs submitted to us.
The legal adviser and the accountant really helped to reduce the number of sittings. I feel that in the interests of people who have to do business and often in the interest of small borrowers who are taken advantage of, $8,000 is a cheap price to pay to enable those people to save millions of dollars in future. I wish to thank members of the committee who referred to the needs of the committee, who showed a great deal of interest and spared no effort to make the committee a success. I think the house owed them this tribute.
With regard to the question raised by the hon. members for Chapleau and Lapointe (Messrs. Laprise and Gregoire) I admit that I
[Mr. Speaker.)
am in a rather difficult position. I agreed to delete the words:
-to sit while the house is sitting-
On the other hand, I quite understand that, as suggested by the hon. member for Lapointe, we could move motions to be able to sit while the house is sitting, because if we have people from outside coming here for a day only, in the interest of these people who come to give information to the committee, we cannot take too much of their time and must allow them to give evidence the same day.
We will be happy to move motions at the end of each of those sittings. However, I wish to point out to the house that last year there was no abuse. If I am not mistaken, the committee on consumer credit sat only once while the house was sitting.
I do not think we overdid it in the past and we could ask the consent of the house to do so.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


Robert Norman Thompson: May I ask the hon. member a question. We are given to understand that this committee is nearing the end of its work, that it is not necessary to hold too many meetings. In view of this I wonder whether the burden of meeting while the house is sitting is really such a problem.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I think that the remarks made by the hon. member for Red Deer are quite in order.
We have in committee considered most of the briefs submitted by the various associations. I do not think that we could study the remaining requests without coming quickly to a decision about the work that the committee did during the last two sessions.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the motion is put to the house perhaps we should clarify the matter of the amendment which the parliamentary secretary says he wants to propose to the house. With respect, I would suggest that the parliamentary secretary does not himself have the power to move this amendment. Perhaps the government house leader might want to make the motion which would remove the words "to sit while the house is sitting, and". I assume that they are the
March 15. 1966

words that will have to be removed if the appropriate amendment can be prepared.


George James McIlraith: I am prepared to ask unanimous consent to withdraw those words from the motion as it stands, or I will move an amendment, as the case may be.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent of the house to that?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


George James McIlraith: That a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons be appointed respecting the Parliamentary Restaurant:
That twenty five members of the House of Commons, to be designated at a later date, act on behalf of this House as members of the said committee and report from time to time, and that Standing Order 67 (1) be suspended in relation thereto; and
That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting Their Honours thereof.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to delay the passage of this resolution for more than a few moments but I am rising to inquire whether the house leader can tell the house what actual authority this committee has. I was informed last year that the committee made recommendations to the Speaker regarding certain personnel on the restaurant staff, but no action was taken. I have talked to several members of the committee who were very concerned about this.
This committee has been appointed for many years on the understanding that its recommendations will be accepted. Two other members of the committee intended to be present this evening but they are unavoidably absent, and on their account I am rising to ask these questions of the house leader. Members do not want to sit on this committee spending their time making recommendations and presenting a report only to find that all their work has been futile. Would the house leader inform the house as to the status of this committee, and whether it has the same standing as other committees of the house.


Mr. J. Chester MacRae (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I support the stand taken by the
Restaurant Committee
hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge). I was going to ask exactly the same question that he has asked. About three years ago I served on this committee, and to the best of my knowledge-and I do not think I missed any notices-we met once one morning. We had breakfast in the restaurant, which was very pleasant. Afterwards a small committee was appointed to look at the restaurant, and that was the last of it for that particular session. I repeat that I support what has been said by the hon. member for Kootenay West. It seems to me that this committee has done nothing, so why are we setting it up?


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.
Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question involves my giving a legal opinion, which ordinarily I would hesitate to do; but since there will be no charge perhaps I can risk violating the rule a little. I am aware of the problem. The former committee did do considerable work, some of which was very good work; I would acknowledge that at once. However, a problem arose after the last committee was appointed, apparently because it attempted to take executive action for which it did not have authority. The committee has authority only to report to the house. When it does report to the house it is then a matter of taking action on that report.
If that action involves the raising of new expenditures, this has to be done through a procedure outlined in some rather old legislation whereby the Clerk of the House prepares his estimates and the Commissioners of Internal Economy have to approve the expenditures. If it is merely something of an administrative nature, I believe I am right in saying that this can be done through administrative action which is the responsibility of His Honour the Speaker.
That is the position of this committee. Perhaps it is a little uncertain, because it depends on what type of action is taken when it makes a recommendation. I did look into the problem when the last committee was active, and this is precisely where the difficulty lay.
Having said that, and the government having brought forward this measure, the Commissioners of Internal Economy, who consist of four ministers of the Crown along with His Honour the Speaker, will take very

March 15, 1966
Restaurant Committee
careful cognizance of any recommendations made by the committee. I would of course feel it improper for me to indicate the actions to be taken by His Honour the Speaker, but I am sure we can rely on his unerring good judgment and good taste.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Just one question to clear my mind, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister approve of a judicial inquiry into the rights and responsibilities of this committee?


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker. But having read the legislation on the subject, and having studied it rather thoroughly, I must say that I wish at some time we could have some good judicial ability to put to work to draft a new bill.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Just one small point, Mr. Speaker. This does not mean that there will be 24 chefs and 24 "maitres d's" acting independently, does it? In the past there have been unfortunate occurrences where members on the restaurant committee have suddenly decided that they would take over management of the restaurant and kitchen, which resulted in much chaos.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether at this point in the proceedings I might have the indulgence of the house to ask whether it wishes to call item No. 25, the motion to set up the joint committee on divorce. I understand there will be no debate on that.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)



DIVORCE


George James McIlraith: That a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons be appointed to inquire into and report upon divorce in Canada and the social and legal problems relating thereto, and such matters as may be referred to it by either house;
That 24 members of the House of Commons, to be designated by the house at a later date, be members of the Special Joint Committee, and that Standing Order 67 (1) of the House of Commons be suspended in relation thereto;
That the committee have power to engage the services of such technical, clerical and other personnel as may be necessary for the purpose of the inquiry;
That the committee have the power to send for persons, papers and records, to examine witnesses,
[Mr. Mcllraithj
to report from time to time, and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee, and that Standing Order 66 be suspended in relation thereto; and
That a message be sent to the Senate requesting Their Honours to unite with this house for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems it so advisable, some of its members to act on the proposed Special Joint Committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I just ask one question before the minister closes the debate. Will the private members' bills that were referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs be withdrawn from that committee, and be referred to this joint committee?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have that motion here.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
George James McIlraith: That the order of the house of Monday, February 21, 1966, referring the subject matter of the following bills to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, namely:
Bill C-16, An Act to provide in Canada for the dissolution of marriage (additional grounds for divorce).
Bill C-19, An Act to provide in Canada for the dissolution and the annulment of marriage.
Bill C-41, An Act to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1965, (provincial marriage and divorce laws).
Bill C-44, An Act to provide in Canada for the dissolution of marriage.
Bill C-55, An Act to provide in Canada for the dissolution of marriage.
Bill C-58, An Act respecting marriage and divorce.
BiH C-79, An Act to amend the Dissolution and Annulment of Marriages Act (additional grounds for divorce).
be discharged and that the subject matter of the same bills be referred to the Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Divorce.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: I wonder if the minister would be good enough to add the words, "together with the subject matter of Bin C-133."


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I have come to the conclusion that that bin, together with certain other bills which came on the order paper after the bills I have mentioned were referred to the standing committee on justice and legal affairs, should also be referred to the new committee. I would agree that Bill C-133 and the other divorce bills remaining on the order paper should be referred to the new committee, but this should be done in private members' hour.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
March 15, 19G6	COMMONS


George James McIlraith: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act to provide for the payment, out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, to the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development of sums not exceeding in the whole an amount equivalent to the subscriptions thereto required from Canada, that is to say, one thousand five hundred and thirty-two million United States dollars.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Batten in the chair.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, the main objective of the resolution under consideration, namely a measure to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act, is to enable Canada to keep on supporting actively the work of the International Monetary Fund by providing for an increased Canadian contribution to the resources of that institution.
The bill provides for the increase of our contribution to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
Finally, the act will amend the existing act so that the reports submitted to parliament under that act will bear on the calendar year rather than the financial year.
In 1964, at the annual meeting of the international monetary fund, there was considerable support for an increase in the assets of the fund, and its governors, including the Minister of Finance of the day, supported a resolution instructing the board of governors to the fund to see whether it would not be possible to increase their assets by increasing quotas.
At the beginning of last year, the managing director proposed, in his report, a general increase of 25 per cent of all quotas in force on February 26, 1965, subject to deferred payments in the case of less developed countries facing payment difficulties.
The report also recommended additional increases in quotas for 16 member countries, including Canada, in view of the relatively high rate of growth of the economy and foreign trade of these countries, since the last revision of the quotas, in 1959.
Undoubtedly, it is proper for Canada to participate in the general increase in the assets at the disposal of the fund and, in
DEBATES	2741
Bretton Woods Agreements Act addition, to accept a special increase in its quota.
Consequently, the former minister of finance, Mr. Gordon, in his capacity as governor of the fund for Canada, voted in favour of the proposed increase in quotas and the government is now asking the house to approve an amendment to the Bretton Woods Agreements Act, to enable Canada to increase its subscription. Canada has taken an active and leading part in the International Monetary Fund since its establishment in 1946 under the Bretton Woods Agreements Acts.
As a central organization dealing with international monetary problems, the Fund has achieved a noteworthy success in the pursuit of its commendable aims.
The latter, stipulated in the statutes of the Fund, are designed to encourage international monetary co-operation, to promote the development of international exchanges, to promote the stability of exchange, to contribute to the establishment of a multilateral system of international payments with regard to current transactions by making available to its members medium term resources, so as to enable them to make up their deficiencies in the balance of payments without resorting to measures likely to affect international prosperity and to shorten the duration and decrease the intensity of the imbalance of international payments of member states.
The significant success achieved since 1946 in the attainment of these aims has enabled our country to grow and to prosper even though it depends to a great extent on trade and international movements of capital.
If we actively support the Fund, it is because we believe the aims pursued initially are still of current interest and their achievement is very important for Canada.
It must be kept in mind that even though Canada is at present an important creditiste-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: First, I compliment the parliamentary secretary on the performance of his task of introducing a bill, or representing his minister during the present stage of this bill. Perhaps I might from this distance offer him a word of advice. He might look back over the records of Hansard during the years between 1958 and 1962. I would commend the presentation and the performance of my hon. friend from Carleton who occupied the post of parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance and who acquitted himself so well at that time in his approach to these somewhat difficult and technical matters.


Mr. Mackasey:: On a point of order. I think that is an inference that the parliamentary secretary is not carrying out his job with dignity and a certain degree of competence. I, for one, resent that inference.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am amazed at the thinskinned susceptibility of the hon. member for Verdun. I was pointing out that the hon. member for Carleton had done very well. I

March 15, 196G	COMMONS
said nothing to complain about the performance of the present parliamentary secretary.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Then why compare it to the performance of the hon. member for Carleton in the years up to 1962?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Perhaps the example which was set is something to be emulated in this house. It is something that not too many parliamentary secretaries were given the privilege of doing. In the same way, I might point out to next year's grand marshal of the St. Patrick's parade in Montreal what the hon. gentleman did, but I trust that somebody else would not be thin-skinned and say this was an odious comparison.
I would have hoped that the parliamentary secretary when dealing with the amendments to the Bretton Woods Agreements Act would have enlightened the house by incorporating in his remarks a table showing the present and the proposed contributions both to the International Monetary Fund and to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, as was done by the minister of finance in 1959, as appears from page 3851 of Hansard for that year. Such a table is most constructive. Perhaps this could be done at a later stage and permission could be obtained from the house to put these figures on record.
It certainly is constructive to compare the contributions being made by the various countries which participate in the work of these organizations. In addition, because the increases in contributions required vary from country to country, and since this variation represents possibly an assessment of economic development in each of these countries, such a table does show what the directors of the I.M.F. and the I.B.R.D. considered to be the increase in economic activity and international trade of the particular countries concerned. We could either derive some satisfaction at the progress which has been made by Canada on a relative basis or we might have to content ourselves with a more modest appreciation of our efforts. As we know, the act was originally passed in 1945, as it appears in chapter 19 of the Revised Statutes of Canada. It incorporated the statutory form of Canadian participation in the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and at the same time it was a ratification of the Bretton Woods Agreements.
DEBATES	2743
Bretton Woods Agreements Act
I know that in 1959 the members of the opposition at that time, as well as the members of the New Democratic party, supported wholeheartedly the agreements and the increase in the assessment. At that time there were no members of the Social Credit party or of the Creditiste party in this house; but casting our memory back we recognize that the Bretton Woods Agreements were the work of the devil, apparently, in the minds of certains members of the Social Credit party.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I am just wondering whether this philosophy is continued with those who now have come back in this house, or whether this is one of the doctrines of the Social Credit party that had better lie buried forever. In any event, Canada's original contribution was set at $700 million. In 1959 this was amended to $1,300 million, and we now are being asked to increase our contribution, or our commitments, to the International Monetary Fund to $1,532 million. If I caught correctly the text of the parliamentary secretary, I understand that this is an increase of approximately 25 per cent.
Now, Canada's contribution to the International Monetary Fund in 1959 was increased from $300 million to $550 million and in respect of the I.B.R.D. from $325 million to $750 million. What I am particularly interested in is, what will this mean in an actual outlay of cash, notes or gold, and/or our obligations? I believe the parliamentary secretary did give some figures, but I did not get them.
I may be digressing a little from the subject, but in looking over the past debates in 1959 I came across something in the record of Hansard which was confusing. Every reference to the International Monetary Fund, to the World Bank, and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, was in lower case letters. It was impossible to determine, unless you looked, very closely at the text, whether you were getting the name of an institution or an international body. This is an old sore point I think with regard to Hansard, one with which I never have agreed and which I trust is being amended so that all of the proper names will appear capitalized so that they are immediately recognizable.
We know that since 1959 the International Monetary Fund has come to the assistance of
March 15, 1966

Bretton Woods Agreements Act various countries. The parliamentary secretary mentioned Canada's recourse to the fund in 1962. Certainly Britain has found, much to her solace, the fact that she could have had on perhaps three occasions since 1959 loans to shore up her defences against an attack on the pound, and I am sure there are many other countries.
I have not studied the annual report of the International Monetary Fund sufficiently to ascertain what countries have obtained this support, but I am sure that the I.M.F. and the I.D.R.B. have justified fully their existence and that they really are the instrument whereby the gnomes, shall we say, of the international financial markets can be defeated in their sort of pressing activities upon the currencies of the various countries from time to time. I do not know whether this will continue in its present form, in view of the activities or suggestions of the French government that the unit of international value shall not be the United States dollar, but that we are being pushed into some form of gold standard. Well, I think this will take a great deal of careful study, because I am rather suspicious of what may be happening in this regard.
There is one point, however, in respect of which I perhaps may have some sympathy with a number of countries. This is a point which has been raised in this house by a number of speakers from time to time; that is, that since the United States is the biggest contributor to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund by reason of its predominant economic position in the world and because the headquarters are in the United States, therefore there is a danger that the operations of the International Monetary Fund might become an extension of the United States foreign policy. I am not saying in all respects this might be bad; but one must be aware of this potential tendency. Certainly there have been charges in the financial pages of the press from time to time by representatives of certain countries that the United States operates directly through its predominant position in the I.M.F. so as to further its own foreign policy. This may have been the case at the time of the Aswan dam-it is hard to say. In any event, on behalf of the opposition I certainly do agree that the amendments should come forward and that this resolution should pass, after examination by representatives of the other parties.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Chairman, it always is interesting to note that a measure which very well may affect the lives of everyone in the western world is one that usually excites very little interest either here, in the press, or on the part of the public. I suppose it is because it appears to be a rather dull subject. The measure before us is a fairly simple one, to increase Canada's contribution to the International Monetary Fund and to the World Bank.
There is of course a background to this, Mr. Chairman, which has not yet been made public so far as I know, but which I think can be discussed with a certain discretion. I think it is fairly common knowledge among those who watch these events that there has been a growing concern in recent years about the question of the international liquidity that has been brought about largely by the situation in which the United States finds itself.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
It is three years ago now that I raised this question at an international conference in Belgrade. I pointed out at that time that the rest of the world, a short period before that, had really received notice from the U.S.A. that it was now no longer going to be able to finance, to the degree it had been doing, the exchange reserves of a large part of the world, contributions that were brought about inadvertently, or at least without deliberate purpose, by the development of deficits within the United States. At that time the announcement of the Interest Equalization Act was the notice to which I have referred.
Ever since that time there have been continuing reports in the press of discussions, particularly among the Big Ten countries, of which Canada is one, on the necessity of reconsidering our whole problem of international exchange. I think it is no secret that the Canadian government has been playing a prominent part in these recent conversations and is preparing, if it has not already done so, to present to the other members of the so-called Big Ten, certain proposals for the development of what I would term the new unit of international exchange-a cautious step, shall I say, perhaps in keeping with our usual caution in world affairs, by which we do not quite cut the umbilical cord of gold but we do attenuate it to some extent.
I am reminded that at the time the Bretton Woods Agreements was drafted, the late John Maynard Keynes proposed at that time a new
March 15, 1966	COMMONS
international unit, which he suggested should be called bancor. It is possible that Maynard Keynes made a rather rash comment in introducing his idea at the Bretton Woods conference, pointing out that if the conference accepted his idea it would be the first step toward global administration, which immediately caused a scurry of anxiety and apprehension, and his proposal got no further. I suspect, sir, that before long we are going to have to deal with this in somewhat the same manner that Lord Keynes suggested at Bretton Woods.
We have had a series of currency crises, and there seems no reason that there will not be more currency crises in future, with the great increase in world trade and the growing stringency in international liquidity.
There is another aspect of our problem, Mr. Chairman, which ties in very directly with the question of the International Monetary Fund and its position in the world in the future. That is the relationship between the developed countries and the undeveloped parts of the world where there is, of course, a common saying that the gap between the poor and the rich countries is growing wider and is, to some extent, to be accounted for by the difficulties that the emerging countries have in obtaining sufficient foreign exchange to finance their development.
I would hope that we shall hear more of the proposals of the Canadian government with regard to the new unit of international exchange during discussion of this bill, if it is to be referred to the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, which I hope it will be. And I hope, if it is referred to that committee, that the Minister of Finance will undertake to have appear before the committee some of the leading figures, most of whom are quite readily available in the United States, who have been advancing various ideas for the solution, or at least the amelioration of this problem of international liquidity.
I think, sir, one might say that we are now facing in the international scene somewhat the same situation that national economies faced some 30 years ago when most of the countries were attempting to maintain the gold standard, and were strangling themselves in that attempt. I think we have now reached somewhat the same position internationally; that we are going to have to break away from a fixed relationship that must restrict the expansion of world trade in future unless some
DEBATES	2745
Bretton Woods Agreements Act rough equivalent to the managed currencies with which modern societies operate is found in the international field.
I notice the suggestion of the hon. member for Edmonton West that there might be danger of American domination of the world through the operations of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. It is, of course, quite true that it was at the instigation of the United States that the World Bank withdrew its proposed financing of the Aswan dam in the United Arab Republic, to my mind a disastrous move for which we have been paying ever since.
This may well be the case, but I do not know how you can overcome that because the United States is at the present time the most powerful and wealthy nation in the world. One can only hope that those who are in charge of the United States policy will take a larger view than merely the immediate interests of the United States, and realize that the well-being and prosperity of the American nation is as dependent as that of any other nation on general world prosperity and development, and will be prepared to use their tremendous power and influence towards developing the undeveloped areas of the world and, by that means, ensuring some peace and stability.
I would just conclude by again asking the parliamentary secretary, and through him the Minister of Finance, to consider the referral of this bill to the Committee on Finance Trade and Economic Affairs, and to make arrangements for various people, of whom I am quite sure the Minister of Finance is well aware, to attend and give us some advice as to the possibilities and the dangers that lie before us in the field of international exchange.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Chairman, in following the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands I would just say we trust that this legislation can be referred to the Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs without much delay. I believe the situation relating to foreign exchange is rapidly reaching a crisis, and something different from what has been done already will be necessary. We in this house will want answers to many of the questions that are in our minds at the present time with respect to the whole area of international settlement. In fact, I would say that the whole area of international settlement, apart perhaps from the international situation in southeast Asia, is the most critical problem
March 15. 1966

Bretton Woods Agreements Act we face on the general scene today. Certainly it is a problem for us here in Canada.
The other day in the financial section of the Globe and Mail, dated March 9, I noticed that our own situation is emphasized by the fact that Canadian borrowings on the United States capital market are running at a rate 11 times more than they were in 1965.
It stated:
A total of $172,880,000 in U.S.-pay Issues had been offered by the end of February by Canadian governments and corporations, compared with only $15,000,000 in the first two months of last year, according to the monthly compilation by Wood, Gundy and Co. Ltd.
Likewise, Mr. Chairman, this point is emphasized on the international front by the fact that the big ten in international finance recently had an important meeting in Europe and, owing to the policies of France, they found themselves in a situation for which it was most difficult to find a solution.
From the limited amount of news which has come from that meeting we find there were three main ideas being presented as alternatives. One of them, and I think it is the one secretary Fowler of the United States treasury is advancing, is that we must retain the present gold standard, with probably a few innovations such as we are being asked to make here, by increasing our own contributions to the International Monetary Fund.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Then there are those who believe that the gold standard must be scrapped altogether and an entirely new basis of exchange provided. There are others who feel that the gold standard must be maintained although it must be modified. Amongst the latter are those who believe that, gold having maintained a constant value for the past 30 years, it must be decreased in value; that it is not reasonable to expect that the standard price of gold 30 years ago should apply or function effectively today; that the cost of living has more than doubled across the world and therefore they advocate a major revision of the gold policy.
The Social Credit party-I say this for the benefit of the hon. member for Edmonton West who made some remarks in this regard a short while ago-advocates a measure that will get us out of the situation we are in, and we believe this can only be done by a completely new approach to the problem of international settlements. We go along with the hon. member who preceded me in saying that in the same way that the gold standard

was put aside in the mid-1930's on a national basis, so the time has come when the gold standard has to be revised at the international level as well. Not until this has been done will we avoid crises such as we have at the present time, in which we are being asked to increase our contribution to help solve this problem of international liquidity.
It is a very serious problem that we face in this regard. It is interesting to note that prior to the time the Bretton Woods Agreements was first reached, Prime Minister Churchill had made a commitment to President Roosevelt that he would do everything he could to get Britain back on to the gold standard in order to strengthen the position of the United States. The situation which they then anticipated, developed following the end of the war. As a result we have now reached the point where there is no question at all that this whole policy of international settlements is tied part and parcel with the policy of the United States treasury. I think it goes even farther than that. I believe it goes right to the whole closed shop for monetary reform that is at the present time operated by the international bankers of the world.
I should like to put on the record a few sentences from "The New Republic" of September 25, 1965, in relation to this problem. The only reason I do so is that it might provide a little background when this bill is considered by the committee and might allow an understanding of the critical situation represented by what this bill proposes to do relating to the over-all picture of international settlements. This article is entitled "Closed Shop for Monetary Reform" and was written by one Nathaniel McKitterick, whose name I think is familiar to most of us. The article reads as follows:
The Benevolent and Protective Order of Central Bankers, gathered this week in Washington-
This was last fall at the last meeting of the International Monetary Fund.
-for the annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund, is wrestling with a major constitutional crisis. The Bankers Union has been running the international monetary system for as long as there has been an organized system. They have been running it according to a set of rigid rules which have only been basically and deliberately changed twice and then only in conjunction with two catastrophes-the Great Depression and World War II. Now the bankers face the challenge
of changing the rules in advance of catastrophe_
a challenge they have never met before.
The Bankers Union is in a bind because its jurisdiction over money-or more precisely over
the maintenance of confidence in money_________is
threatened. And good members of the Bankers Union, like good trade unionists, regard their first
March 15. 1966

duty to be protection of their jurisdiction against intrusion by outsiders.
The threat to the bankers' jurisdiction comes, not from another union, but from responsible political leaders-that is, politicians responsible to the voters for their offices. This threat has grown ever since the old gold standard was abolished and responsible political leaders, instead of submitting to the tyranny of gold, started to follow deliberate and discretionary policies to reconcile the often competing objectives of domestic price stability and high employment levels. Now the Bankers Union fears, and with good cause, that responsible leaders may want to reduce the role of gold as an international medium of control in favour of discretionary policies, implemented through the international monetary system, to sustain increasing flows of goods and capital among countries.
The reason why so many people, even some in the Bankers Union, are saying that the rules of the monetary system must be changed is that the present system threatens to force a serious contraction in world trade and investment (and in domestic growth rates in countries particularly short of reserves)-
This is the situation that is developing in the United States today, because their continuing imbalance of trade and foreign credits is something which they realize cannot continue. The article goes on:
-when it ought to be sustaining and encouraging expansion. The present system relies on dollars and pounds sterling to overcome the inability of gold to provide the "liquidity"-the means of payment-to finance expanding world trade and investment.
We may criticize the President of the Republic of France for some of the things he is suggesting in regard to this particular problem, but when one understands the problem that France faces-and it is the problem that many other nations face; it is the problem that Canada faces also-perhaps some of the things he is saying make more sense than we give them credit for. The article continues:
Gold has long since ceased to supply more than a fraction of the needed international reserves; over the past seven years foreign holdings of dollars have accounted for about three-quarters of the total. However, the system has an inherent weakness; the very U.S. payments deficits which make the creation of new reserves possible were deemed by the Bankers Union to undermine foreign confidence in the dollar; central bankers, under the existing rules, could not continue to accumulate dollars in their reserves and in fact began to reduce their holdings by buying U.S. gold.
I might add, in the same way as France has been doing, to a point of danger as far as the system is concerned. The article goes on:
With the elimination of the major source of new reserves-dollars-it is generally agreed that the present system will be unable to generate adequate amounts of "liquidity" in the future.
This is why at the present time it is necessary for the International Monetary
Bretton Woods Agreements Act Fund to come to Canada and ask for an increase in our contribution. The article continues:
In fact, many highly qualified observers, including Sir Roy Harrod, feel that the world is already in need of greatly increased reserves. But even if some of them grant the need privately, it is nearly impossible for members of the Bankers Union to do anything about it in public. Any step to increase reserves, by creating a new international monetary unit to provide the base for expanding world credit, will inevitably grant responsible political leaders a larger discretionary role in the operation of the monetary system than is now the case; any practical reform will change the existing rules somewhat and at least potentially weaken the bankers' jurisdiction as the upholders of confidence in money. It is nearly impossible, constitutionally, for the Bankers Union to address itself to fundamental changes in its rules. Change means risk and risk is something that bankers must avoid if they wish other people to entrust their money to them. The bankers are the prisoners of their occupation, indentured to gold.
I think it would be very revealing to find out just what proposals Canada made at the meeting of the 10 major financial powers, held in Belgium last week. I believe this points up the fact that Canada must take the lead, for her own survival if for no other reason, in bringing forward an alternative proposal in this whole area of international settlements. It means a medium of exchange other than gold, because we in the Social Credit party maintain that gold is just as inadequate today on the international scene as it was in 1935 in Canada.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
So, Mr. Chairman, we are not dealing just with our share of the increased contribution, we are dealing with something that is far more important. It goes back to the basis of the Bretton Woods Agreements itself. It goes back to the problem that developed first during the depression days of the thirties. It became acute during world war II, when we were forced to make changes because of this emergency. During the depression years, world trade had dropped to less than 50 per cent of what it had been during the twenties. When consumer goods came back on the market, trade again became vital to the economy of our nation. The nations were able to bridge the gap for a while longer. However, we are moving into an area where this crisis is just ahead of us. This time, we are faced with the task of having to provide a solution before the crisis reaches us because if it does come upon us it will create a situation even more intolerable than we can visualize if war came again.
March 15, 1966

Bretton Woods Agreements Act
I am convinced, Mr. Chairman, that the only basis upon which the total development of our resources in the world, both human and material, can go forward, is the continued expansion of world trade. It must be possible for us to exchange our goods back and forth as the needs and the markets provide the opportunity. Unless the whole set-up for international settlements is brought in line with this need, then we are going to continue with a situation in which the rich nations get richer and the poor nations get poorer. We have this intolerable situation where millions of people are starving to death in the face of plenty, where we cannot provide for three billion people when there could be twenty billion people within the same area. We are not solving this problem, simply because the closed shop of the bankers' union is more interested in perpetuating the power they now hold than in meeting the greatest need of this world today, namely, an increase in world trade. We need a situation in which the goods that are available, whether they be primary or secondary in nature, are able to reach the people who need them.
After all, the only reason we produce anything is so that we can consume it. The only basis upon which we can interchange these things, be they goods or services, is by the monetary system. The monetary system, as it relates to the particular issue before us, is an international one. I am convinced there will have to be a completely new organization for international settlements, with a new medium of exchange if we are ever going to accomplish the expansion of world trade.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to speak longer. However, I should like to say for the record that I believe this is one of the most inportant problems that we face in this parliament. It is not going to be good enough to go along and say, sure, Canada is a good fellow; Canada is always willing to do her share; Canada is going to put up another $45 million-to perpetuate what? We are doing this to perpetuate the arrangements for international settlements, and those arrangements are not working. They cannot work, because the basis is wrong.
It is not until we realize this fact that we will come up with the suggestions that ought to be made to conferences such as the annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund. 1 hope we step out and say that we who can be the bread basket of the world, are willing to set a basis for world trade which the world must have in future years if we are ever

going to have a peaceful development, if we are ever going to meet the needs of human beings.
In closing, I would just say we believe this matter must go to the committee. We hope that when it does the government will agree that we can discuss the matter in greater depth, and we will not be limited to the question of whether or not we intend to make this contribution. I agree we are going to have to make the contribution until some other arrangement is adopted. I emphasize that this is one of the most important problems that faces us so far as the international scene is concerned. This is one area in which we can give leadership, and we can show the United States that the system they are advocating, as Mr. Fowler has said repeatedly during the last few days, is wrong so far as the development of commerce in the world is concerned.


Mr. McLean (Charlotte):: Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to say anything about this world monetary situation, since I came in late. However, I have been a world trader for the last 50 years. Before the first great war we had a unit of settlement in the world and that was the pound sterling. All settlements were made in London, no matter where in the world you were trading. They were made on the basis of the pound sterling. After the first great war, England lost her commerce. She was drained of her gold, and she could no longer act as a world banker.
Before the first great war, England was a free trader. She had a surplus of currency beyond her world requirements and she invested that surplus around the world. She lost money on her investments, but she kept world trade moving. After the first world war, the United States was not a free trade nation. She was a tariff country and she said, we will take your gold but we will not take your products. The United States accumulated a lot of gold.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
I attribute the collapse in 1929 to the fact that the United States was not a free trade nation, would not take products but would take gold. When she got all the gold, trade was at a standstill. In my opinion, it is world trade that keeps things moving. We had the collapse in 1929, and the hungry thirties. Then, President Roosevelt, that great President of the United States, came on the scene. Prices were down. Potatoes were 10 cents a barrel; copper was down to 9 cents a pound,
March 15, 1966	COMMONS
or something like that. Somebody told President Roosevelt that if he would raise the price of gold, he would raise prices. He raised the price of gold from $20.67 to $35 an ounce. This move did not raise world prices, but it certainly adjusted the exchanges around the world. At that time the pound in South Africa was $8; in Australia, $3 and in the West Indies it was something else. We could not possibly trade because the exchanges were all different. When President Roosevelt raised the price of gold to $35 an ounce, the exchanges of the world were adjusted to $35.
I know whereof I speak because at that time many factories were idle. Within a month when world trade became adjusted those factories were working and prices came up. Although I do not think it was the President's idea to bring up world prices, they were brought up owing to the restoration of world trade.
We have a different situation today. The United States is the banker of the world and the United States dollar is the world's unit of settlement, not the pound sterling. The pound sterling is backed by the U.S. dollar and if the U.S. dollar fails so does the pound sterling. The U.S. dollar is based on gold, according to the United States government.
In 1934 when gold was $35 an ounce the U.S. dollar was worth $1. Today the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar is only 44 cents. That is agreed to by all business magazines. Therefore how can 44 cents buy the same amount of gold that $1 bought in 1934? It is impossible.
The United States government owes $30 billion on demand. De Gaulle of France, or any of the central banks of Europe, can demand their money and the U.S. government must pay them in gold. The United States government is now proposing a new unit of settlement which is based on paper, known as the c.r.u. Countries put so much money into the monetary fund, and this new c.r.u. unit is based on paper, not on gold.
Why does the United States say that gold is worth $35 an ounce when the double eagle $20 gold piece of the United States is sold in Europe for $45. We sold $50 million Canadian gold to the United States for $50 million U.S.; but if we minted double eagles selling for $45 in Europe our gold would be worth twice what it is worth today.
I see no reason to continue participating in the International Monetary Fund. The fund is directed by the United States which, as far as I can see, uses it to further its own interests.
DEBATES	2749
Bretton Woods Agreements Act If that country does not wish to base its money on gold, it should do what we do in this country and base its money on the resources of the country, letting gold find its own value.
In 1934 many precious metals went up in value by 50 per cent, but gold remains the same. This is an impossible situation. Whether gold backs the currency or not, it must go up in price. Take, for example, the little Portuguese settlement of Macao off the coast of China. They imported $1,500 million in gold which can be bought in England a few cents per ounce over the $35 price. The Portuguese government takes a commission of $1 an ounce. That gold is hoarded. Every year the mines of the world produce $1,400 million in gold. Some $1 billion goes into hoarding and $400 million goes into our central banks.
We cannot go on in this way; yet the United States says it is not going to raise the price of gold. If you do not raise the price of gold you let the dollar go.
No bank in Canada will sell gold. Neither can it be bought in the United States. If you are found with a bar of gold in the United States you go to the penitentiary. You cannot buy gold in England as a citizen of that country, either. But we find citizens of the United States coming to Canada to buy up our gold mines. Little Longlac was bought up by United States citizens and they took the treasury and bought up other gold mines. You will find, Mr. Speaker, that citizens of the United States own most of the gold mines in Canada. This is because Canadians cannot mine their own gold, although United States citizens can own our gold mines. The United States should divorce its dollar from the gold standard and the dollar should become the international unit of payment.
We have the dollar in Canada. For a $50 bill we can get 50 $1 bills, or two $20 bills and a $10 bill, or we can get silver. But we cannot get gold. We can buy bar gold which is not minted, but we can sell it only at the bar gold price. What we should do internationally is divorce our money from the gold standard and let gold find its own value, in which event its price would go up.
For thousands of years gold has been the standard of credit on which everyone depends. The people of the world do not depend on paper but on gold. If the United States would divorce its dollar from the gold standard and would make the U.S. dollar the unit
March 15. 1966

Bretton Woods Agreements Act of settlement for the entire world, things would be all right. We would not have to contribute to the International Monetary Fund. The United States dollar would be the international unit of settlement, as was the pound sterling before the great world war.
There is no reason this cannot be done, but the United States government is as stubborn as a donkey and will not change its policy. They say the dollar is worth $1 in gold, but I say it is not; the purchasing power of the dollar is only 44 cents and is going down. Prosperity on the North American continent implies gradual inflation, which means that the dollar will go down in purchasing power.
I say that the establishment of the c.r.u. is a lot of baloney. When the price of gold changed in 1934 to $35 an ounce, it was said that the United States public had a "baloney" dollar. I say that when they imply that their dollar is worth $1 of gold they have a "baloney" dollar because their $1 is worth only 44 cents. Our gold is worth twice that, and more.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
I say we are acting like ostriches and burying our heads in the sand when we think we can distribute our gold around the world, letting speculators take advantage of this. We in Canada let our gold mines go down. Our gold production in Canada has gone down greatly, year after year. The result is that we take $15 million out of the taxpayers pockets to keep the gold mines going every year.
What has happened has not contributed to any new gold mines coming into being. What we want in this country is a policy that will develop new gold mines from coast to coast. We have such gold in our pre-Cambrian shield, but we are not doing anything about it. The United States is leading us in this respect. In this case, the policy of the United States is wrong, although I would say that it is right in a great many things. The United States is wrong in the conception of what gold is worth in the world. The whole of world opinion is against the United States in its conception about gold. Gold is the basis of all credit, and the sooner the authorities in the United States realize that, the better.
Contributions to the monetary fund and things like that to bolster our credit I do not think will be of benefit. The authorities in the United States ought to have common sense, because we look upon the United States dollar as the unit of settlement for the entire world, in the same way that we looked upon the pound sterling. We recognize that, but we 
say that gold ought to find its own level, and then the United States dollar in turn will find its level. That fundamentally is our feeling, because the United States dollar in purchasing power is now worth 44 cents, compared with 1934.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the resolution carry?


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Chairman, there are a few comments I feel I must make on the Bretton Woods Agreements. It is really time to amend the legislation on the Bretton Woods agreements signed with the United States and various other countries.
Unfortunately, those agreements were approved in 1944 by the Liberals, who were then in office, and also by the Conservatives and the socialists, who were in the opposition. There is nothing surprising in that because when the International Monetary Fund was set up in 1944, under the Bretton Woods agreements, it was the old capitalist formula that prevailed. Three great capitalist countries had their formula adopted and it was that formula which prevailed and which the other countries had to accept. Three great countries hold among themselves a substantial part of the majority of the shares.
Instead of an institution controlled by just a few countries, quotas of equal value should be set for each country and equal voting rights provided for all members of the agreement.
The Bretton Woods agreements especially favour creditor nations like the United States without requiring them to balance their trade by accepting goods from other countries. That obligation is imposed on debtor nations.
When they established the gold standard, they gave creditor nations the right to wait and to insist upon being paid in gold or American dollars. There is the problem we have to solve. Until we do or as long as we do not take steps to reach better agreements with the United States and the other two greatest countries, we shall not be able to settle that problem.
That, Mr. Chairman, is the cause of the international balance of payments problem. The big countries take advantage of the small ones. Small countries are asked to pay their accounts in American currency or gold, which is practically impossible.
I fully agree with the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. McLean) who has just concluded his remarks, when he says that improvements can be found, that the Americans
March 15, 1966	COMMONS
dominate us and that our dollar is worth only 44 cents. He is perfectly right when he says that instead of converting our gold, we sell it to the United States at ridiculous prices. We fully agree on that.
It is very advantageous for the United States to come and develop our natural resources in Canada and mine our gold to take it home when we could convert that gold or exchange it, which would double its value for Canada.
The hon. member for Charlotte was perfectly right about that. We fully agree with him.
I ask those who will be called upon in committee to consider the Bretton Woods agreements to study the structure of the international monetary system and to find the solutions which Canada needs.
At this time, practically everyone agrees that we are exploited by the three larger countries which signed the Bretton Woods agreements and which, through their action, dominate all other nations. There is a lot of work to be done in that respect and I ask the government to appoint to the Commission experts in that field so that Canada will benefit to a greater extent from those agreements, will no longer be exploited by various nations, will be able one day to balance its international accounts and prosper like the other countries instead of devaluating its currency, giving discounts on its products to pay its international accounts, which is contrary to social justice.
There are other reforms to carry out in that field and I am convinced that the suggestions and good ideas of the hon. member for Charlotte will greatly help on the Liberal side. Frankly, something must be done in that respect.

Resolution reported and concurred in.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
Mr. Mcllrailh thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-144, to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Eric Alfred Winkler: May I ask the leader of the house what the business for tomorrow may be?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Tomorrow we shall call item 8 on the order paper, the
DEBATES	2751
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion resolution preceding the bill for the development of the commercial fisheries of Canada; item 4, the resolution preceding the bill to amend the Research Council Act; item 15, the resolution preceding the bill providing for the establishment of a Science Council of Canada; item 3, the resolution approving the agreement concerning automotive products between Canada and the United States.


Eric Alfred Winkler: You can stop right there.


George James McIlraith: Then item 23 on the order paper, second reading of a bill to incorporate the Ottawa Terminal Railway Company; and item 24, second reading of Bill S-15, to authorize the construction of a bridge across the St. Croix River between the province of New Brunswick and the state of Maine.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.

Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It is
a thrilling experience, Mr. Speaker, to rise in this stimulating atmosphere, but what we lack in physical bodies we know we have here in spirit.
On March 14, I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs the following question:
In view of the fact, that the members of the standing committee on external affairs were assured that the High Arrow Dam was a completely safe structure would the minister inform the house why, in the report of the Columbia Treaty Permanent Engineering Board, which includes representatives of Canada and the United States, the board does not accept direct or implied responsibility, for the safety of the structures being built according to the Columbia River Treaty?
Now the Columbia River Treaty Permanent Engineering Board is composed of two representatives from Canada and two from the United States. The Canadian representatives are Mr. G. M. MacNabb, Chairman, a well known engineer, and Mr. A. F. Paget who is in charge of the water resources branch, British Columbia. The United States representatives are Mr. Wendell E. Johnson, Chairman, and Mr. Morgan D. Dubrow. This board is charged with the responsibility of making certain that the provisions of the Columbia River Treaty are carried out. I have in my hand the first annual report to the
March 15, 1968

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion governments of the United States and Canada of the Columbia River Treaty Permanent Engineering Board, dated December 31, 1965. Reading from this report I see that the duties and responsibilities of the board are outlined. However, I was surprised to read with respect to the activities of the board at page 11 the following paragraph:
The Board considered its responsibility for the safety of structures authorized for construction by the Treaty. The Board concluded that neither the duties specified in the Treaty nor its consideration of design data received from the Entities for the purpose of keeping fully informed regarding the projects gives the Board either a direct or implied responsibility for the safety of the structures or for the adequacy of their structural design. However, it was agreed that any apparent defects noted by the board would be promptly called to the attention of the Entities.
Now, Mr. Speaker, during the hearing of the Standing Committee on External Affairs when the Columbia River Treaty was under consideration, we were assured by Dr. Arthur Casagrande, a world wide authority on the building of dams and soil conditions, and also in respect of the damage that could be done by tremors and earthquakes, that the High Arrow dam, with which we were particularly concerned, was completely safe. Numerous people have written to me about this, because we must not forget that last year we had a tremor in southeastern British Columbia in which buildings were rocked in Trail, which is only 18 miles south of the High Arrow dam. We were assured that this dam was completely safe.
I was rather shocked to read in this report that the very board, whose responsibility we were assured it would be to see that the terms of the Columbia River Treaty were carried out, had failed to accept any responsibility for the safety of the structures being built under this treaty.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I regret having to keep the minister a few minutes after ten o'clock, because I know he would prefer to be in another place at this moment. Therefore I shall be as brief as possible. I do want him to explain to the house why the Columbia River Treaty Permanent Engineering Board made this decision after we were told that this board was responsible for seeing that the terms of the Columbia River Treaty were carried out. Part of those terms are to see that all the structures are safe.
Mr. Speaker, I shall look forward to the reply of the minister, because not only the member for Kootenay West, but also a good

many of the people whom I have the honour to represent, are interested. Before concluding I would suggest to the minister that this is a very interesting report. Would he take up the question of having copies made available for members of the house who wish to obtain them.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I appreciate that the hon. member for Kootenay West has brought up a very interesting point. I will make the answer as brief as I can and say that there is nothing within Article XV of the Columbia River Treaty which makes the permanent engineering board responsible specifically for the safety of construction sites. The responsibility for the safety of the dams lies under the aegis of the two contracting parties, namely the United States and Canada, as two separate entities.
I wish to say that the permanent engineering board, of course, is an international body which, if it had the responsibility for reviewing construction standards and, were it responsible for the safety of those dams, then what the hon. member really would be implying is that the engineers from the United States would have a veto over Canadian construction standards and construction methods.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
Under the treaty the dams on the Canadian side of the border are the responsibility of the federal government, as delegated to the province of B.C., and the construction of the dams, the Libby dam in particular in the United States, is the responsibility of the United States government. I am very surprised, in view of the earlier representations of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), that he should imply that United States engineers should have a veto over Canadian construction standards.
I refer to page 4934 of Hansard for July 2, 1964 when he said, in a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin):
In view of the assurances given by him-
That is, the minister.
-to the committee . . . that the safety of the dams was known and satisfactory, would the minister inform the house whether he thinks it is necessary for the government of British Columbia to call in three United States engineers to clarify his assurances and to make sure he was giving the committee the facts?
March 15. 19G6	COMMONS
Of course, the answer was that Canadian engineers were perfectly capable of reviewing Canadian construction standards.
I want to say further that there is no suggestion in the Columbia treaty that either country may interfere with or dictate construction methods in the other country; yet this could be the case if the permanent engineering board were given the responsibility of passing judgment on the safety of the treaty structures.
As to the safety of the dams themselves, let me say that in Canada the British Columbia government has accepted federal responsibility for the construction of the Canadian dams, and the design of those dams is reviewed by five separate bodies. The first is the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, the second are the consultants to the Hydro Authority; the third is the British Columbia Water Rights Branch; the fourth is the consultants to the Water Rights Branch, and the fifth is a board of review consisting of five eminent United States and Canadian engineers.
I also recall that last year, on June 21, 1965, I replied to a question of the hon. member, as recorded at page 2672 of Hansard, when I talked about the safety factor. I said:
Every precaution in the interests of safety against possible damage from earthquakes, seepage, erosion, or other causes, has been taken in the design and in the construction requirements. This subject was considered in detail by the Standing Committee on External Affairs during its consideration of the Columbia river treaty and protocol, and in particular during its sessions on April 24 and April 28. 1964, when expert evidence on these aspects of the safety of the project was given-
1 went on to give the names of the people who had given that expert evidence. The hon. member and I had the privilege of serving on that committee together. We heard that evidence together. I am satisfied that not only has the safety of the dams been provided for, but I am also satisfied that proper control of that safety is effected by Canadian engineers, and that is the reason why the permanent engineering board, in its report, has given as its interpretation of the treaty that it does not bear the responsibility for supervision of safety construction standards.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: But we have to accept the board that is appointed and rely on them to give us their advice.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.
DEBATES	2753
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion [Translation]



WINTER WORKS-RIVIERE-AU-TONNERRE- INQUIRY AS TO UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS

Gustave Blouin: Mr. Speaker, even at this late hour, I should like to refer to a question I asked this afternoon to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson):
I would ask the Minister of Labour whether he has received a telegram from the United Steel Workers of America, local 6797, Sept-Ues, asking him to make representations to the officials of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, so that the workers engaged in the winter works of the municipality of Riviere-au-Tonnerre may get their unemployment insurance benefits without delay.
I must tell the Minister that the question is very important and very urgent, because this situation affects several heads of families of the municipality of Riviere-au-Tonnerre who are naturally waiting for those payments to provide for their daily needs.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that the hon. member for Saguenay (Mr. Blouin) raised this question today because it affords me an opportunity, as the minister through whom the Unemployment Insurance Commission reports to the house, to clear up a situation that has been troubling a good many people in the riding of my hon. friend.
The Unemployment Insurance Commission is an independent body, answerable to parliament. It is not a branch or division of the Department of Labour. In this particular case an injustice might have arisen if the commission had not taken prompt action in response to the wire referred to by the hon. member for Saguenay.
That wire was received by me approximately one week ago. I got in touch with the commission and asked for a report. I was advised that they had received notification that a list of job opportunities had been sent out to a large number of people in the general vicinity of Seven Islands, advising that work opportunities existed for them. These job opportunities involved travel of five to 12 miles. This might not have worked a great hardship, but associated with the job opportunities was an arrangement that the people who took work would receive credit from the local merchants. On the strength of that the Unemployment Insurance Commission, I think very properly, said that no insurance was payable to the claimants.
2754	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion However, they did conduct a further investigation. It now develops that the arrangement with the local merchants to extend credit up to 60 per cent or 70 per cent of the wages that were expected has not materialized. When this was brought to the attention of the Commission they immediately took steps to accept the claims. Not only did they accept the claims but they have made payment retroactive to the date when each claim became payable. I am very glad to be able to
DEBATES	March 15. 1966
make this report and I commend the Commission for having acted so promptly in this case, and I have advised the local union who sent the wire of the Commission's action.


Gustave Blouin: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to thank the minister for his prompt attention to this matter.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.18 p.m.

Wednesday, March 16, 1966